Charter School Good News, Bad News

A new study of charter schools will vindicate some and disappoint others.

In the last seventeen years since the first charter school opened in 1992, 4000 charter schools educate over one million students. So far most studies have managed to harden preconceived notions.

Supporters argue that charter schools can improve student achievement and attainment, serve as laboratories for innovation, provide choice to families that have few options, and promote healthy competition with traditional public schools (TPSs). Critics worry that charter schools perform no better (and, too often, worse) than TPSs, that they may exacerbate stratification by race and ability, and that they harm the students left in TPSs by skimming away financial resources and motivated families.

The study sought to answer four questions:

(1) What are the characteristics of students transferring to charter schools? (2) What effect do charter schools have on test-score gains for students who transfer between TPSs and charter schools? (3) What is the effect of attending a charter high school on the probability of graduating and of entering college? (4) What effect does the introduction of charter schools have on test scores of students in nearby TPSs?

Characteristics of Charter School Students

Charter schools do NOT skim the cream.

We find no systematic evidence to support the fear that charter schools are skimming off the highest-achieving students. The prior test scores of students transferring into charter schools were near or below local (districtwide or statewide) averages in every geographic location included in the study.

...snip...

...students entering charter schools often have pretransfer achievement levels lower than those of local public school students who have similar demographic characteristics.

My own experience with charter schools supports the study's finding. Many parents pull their children from the traditional public school and enroll them in a charter school precisely because their children are not doing so great. Far from picking and choosing their students, charter schools will accept every child. In fact, the charter school law of most states requires charter schools to include in their charter document language that explicitly forbids exclusion on all the typical grounds.

Effect on Test-Score Gains

Because the study's authors could not locate baseline scores for kindergarten age children, they hesitate to overgeneralize. They have more confidence in data gathered from charter schools that begin accepting students at later ages.

In five out of seven locales, these nonprimary charter schools are producing achievement gains that are, on average, neither substantially better nor substantially worse than those of local TPSs.

Older studies consistently found superior results for charter school students, but those studies may have been flawed, or the exploding growth of charter schools has been accompanied by that bugaboo, regression toward the mean. Poor performance of charter school students has been associated with virtual delivery of education, but the authors have no confidence in forming any generalizations. More work must be done to identify possible idiosyncratic characteristics of students or their parents who choose virtual delivery. The educational implications of the technology itself also merit further research.

Likelihood of Attending College

Charter school students are significantly more likely to attend or graduate from college than students from traditional public schools. Given the flat difference in test scores, perhaps parents of charter school students have higher expectations for college attendance. Certainly, charter school parents are more likely to have invested substantial time and effort in their children's education, if only the daily grind to drive the kids to school every day.

Charter schools do not necessarily have to provide the one-stop comprehensive education experience usually expected of a traditional public school. Parents often make the extra effort and pay the extra expense to supplement the charter school program.

Charter School Effect on Neighboring Traditional Public Schools

None, one way or another.

There is no evidence in any of the locations that charter schools are negatively affecting the achievement of students in nearby TPSs. But there is also little evidence of a positive competitive impact on nearby TPSs.

Charter schools receive money on the same basis as traditional public schools—according to enrollment. What may surprise some people is that charter schools are often required to educate their students on 85% of the public funding allowed per child enrolled. The other 15% goes to the sponsoring school district supposedly for infrastructure costs that do not benefit the charter school. An example of an infrastructure benefit the charter school does receive may be payroll services for its employees. An example of an infrastructure benefit the charter school does not receive may be school bus service. The charter school must pay a share of the transportation costs even though none of its students takes the bus.

I know of situation where, at one time, the sponsoring traditional public school had 150 students while its charter school had 600 students. Thus the traditional public school got funding as if they had 240 students without the costs of the additional 90 students (6.67 charter school students equals 1 traditional public school student). Mountain Oaks Charter School started out as the independent study department of the Calaveras County Office of Education.

The researchers identified possible shortcomings and recommended further research.

Finally, one of the most important implications of our work for future research on charter schools is the need to move beyond test scores and broaden the scope of measures and questions examined. Our estimates of positive charter-school effects on high-school graduation and
college entry are more encouraging than most of the test score–based studies to date (including our own test-score results). Future studies of charter schools should seek to examine a broad and deep range of
student outcome measures and to provide evidence on the mechanisms producing positive long-term impacts.

No Surprise Algebra-For-All Fails

“Algebra-for-All Policy Found to Raise Rates Of Failure in Chicago”

Math educators, with good reasons, have long recommended that students be required to study algebra. Many districts mandate algebra in the ninth grade. California, one-upping everyone else, currently requires eighth graders to take algebra. Japanese children begin studying algebra in the fifth grade. So how's it working out?

Findings from a study involving 160,000 Chicago high school students offer a cautionary tale of what can happen, in practice, when school systems require students to take algebra at a particular grade level.

160,000 is a lot of students, and normally the bigger the sample from the population, the more reliable the conclusions. Researchers studied eleven “waves” of students entering ninth grade from 1994 to 2005.

(Researchers) compared changes within schools from cohort to cohort during a period before the policy took effect with a period several years afterward. They also compared schools that underwent the changes with those that already had an “algebra for all” policy in place.

What did the researchers find?

The policy change may have yielded unintended effects, according to researchers from the Consortium on Chicago School Research, based at the University of Chicago. While algebra enrollment increased across the district, the percentages of students failing math in 9th grade also rose after the new policy took effect.

By the same token, the researchers say, the change did not seem to lead to any significant test-score gains for students in math or in sizeable increases in the percentages of students who went on to take higher-level math courses later on in high school.

Not much upside. More students failed, test scores were flat, and the percentage of students motivated to take advanced math course did not rise, but, gee, “algebra enrollment increased.” The district says more students will fail when required to take harder courses without supports in place. Yet the district made attempts to include supports over the last seven or eight years.

Steps include developing curricular materials introducing students to algebra concepts in grades K-8, requiring struggling 9th graders to take double periods of algebra, and providing more professional development in math to middle and high school teachers..

One of the researchers thinks that test scores did not improve because teachers may have “watered down” the content since “math classes included children with a wider range of ability levels following the change.”

But Japanese elementary schools are not tracked. All children study exactly the same material with such predictability that some observers have quipped that every child in Japan is on the same page of the textbook on any given day. I have successfully taught Algebra 1 to high school special education students, or to give due credit, special education students have successfully learned Algebra 1 under my guidance.

The problem is with issuing mandates without a coherent, integrated societal commitment to the foundations of education, mathematics in particular. I have seen Montessori preschool students exploring algebra with manipulatives. I have often said that lots of profound math can be learned without any resort to pencil and paper. Children do not necessarily need numerals to understand number.

There is one other thing. Japanese children from kindergarten age regularly take abacus lessons the way American children take piano or ballet. Generating a sum with the abacus is different than generating a sum using the written algorithm. The very process of thinking about number and computation in more than one way leads to greater mathematical flexibility. Japanese students can therefore more readily absorb and manifest algebraic thinking. That's my hypothesis anyway and maybe the Gates Foundation or somebody else will provide me a grant to test it.

“The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens.”

President Obama gave another stirring speech about education. Is it just a lot of yadayada?

America will not remain true to its highest ideal... unless we give them the knowledge and skills they need in this new and changing world.

For we know that economic progress and educational achievement have always gone hand in hand in America...

The source of America's prosperity has never been merely how ably we accumulate wealth, but how well we educate our people...

So let there be no doubt: The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens -- and my fellow Americans, we have everything we need to be that nation...

The relative decline of American education is untenable for our economy, it's unsustainable for our democracy, it's unacceptable for our children -- and we can't afford to let it continue...with the right education, a child of any race, any faith, any station, can overcome whatever barriers stand in their way and fulfill their God-given potential.

(bold added)

But the president is not blinded by his own dazzling rhetoric. He knows what all veteran educators know.

Of course, we've heard all this year after year after year after year -- and far too little has changed.

It is easy to lose optimism and fervor.

Certainly it hasn't changed in too many overcrowded Latino schools; it hasn't changed in too many inner-city schools that are seeing dropout rates of over 50 percent.

Even more maddening, the problem with education in America is not scarcity of ideas and resources.

It's not changing not because we're lacking sound ideas or sensible plans -- in pockets of excellence across this country, we're seeing what children from all walks of life can and will achieve when we set high standards, have high expectations, when we do a good job of preparing them.

So what is our problem?

Instead, it's because politics and ideology have too often trumped our progress that we're in the situation that we're in.

A good example is the kneejerk opposition to charter schools on the left, and the equally kneejerk opposition to teachers unions on the right. While adults engage in turf wars, America falls further and further behind. We must set aside ego and listen to each other with open hearts.

Secretary Duncan will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars: It's not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.

But in the meantime, it would not hurt to unify behind the President's top three priorities for education:

1.Early Education—It is essential that foundations for future academic achievement be solidly laid in early childhood. The attitudes children acquire at a very young age can propel or hinder academic achievement.
2.World Class Standards—American do not give their children enough credit. It is possible to have much higher expectations and standards without destroying childhood. In fact, higher standards, well done, have the potential to enhance childhood.

Several years ago I began facilitating biology and chemistry laboratory experiences for homeschooled junior high and high school students. Moms tried to occupy the younger siblings with other work, but the younger siblings were curious about the fascinating experiments of their older brothers and sisters. Soon I allowed the little kids to participate.

I discovered children as young as eight years old could use the equipment just as capably and responsibly as the older kids. The little kids could record data just as accurately. They could form conclusions and discuss their results as intelligently. What they could not do as well as the older kids was write the lab report. And that was fine, no problem.

A wonderful side effect was the increase in inter-age respect. Multi-age interaction is more like the real world than self-contained groups of same-age peers.

I'm calling on our nation's governors and state education chiefs to develop standards and assessments that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking and entrepreneurship and creativity.

3. Quality Teachers---Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers

From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it's the person standing at the front of the classroom. That's why our Recovery Act will ensure that hundreds of thousands of teachers and school personnel are not laid off -- because those Americans are not only doing jobs they can't afford to lose, they're rendering a service our nation cannot afford to lose, either...

And if you do your part, then we'll do ours. That's why we're taking steps to prepare teachers for their difficult responsibilities, and encourage them to stay in the profession. That's why we're creating new pathways to teaching and new incentives to bring teachers to schools where they're needed most. That's why we support offering extra pay to Americans who teach math and science to end a teacher shortage in those subjects.

Schools should not only work harder to keep their best teachers, schools should also seek out the veteran non-practicing teachers in their communities. Schools should eliminate the arbitrary obstacles that block out-of-district teachers and offer incentives to attract them back to the classroom.

There are many great teachers in America who moved from one district to another, for whatever reason, to find themselves virtually unemployable. Some of them, like me, are math and/or science teachers. A few of them taught in our Department of Defense Dependent Schools overseas, and now back home, they find, like I did, that they are out-of-district in every single district in America.

Now, here's what that commitment means: It means treating teachers like the professionals they are while also holding them more accountable -– in up to 150 more school districts. New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools. Teachers throughout a school will benefit from guidance and support to help them improve

Money cannot be allowed to remain an excuse for blocking veteran teachers from returning to the classroom.

We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children's teachers and the schools where they teach.

4. Innovation and Excellence—even if innovation and excellence is found in a charter school. Learn from the best charter schools, adopt their best practices in public schools, and follow John Wooden's advice, “Don't whine, don't complain, and don't make excuses. Just get out there and do your best.”


5.Higher education---College is the new high school.
6.The Bottom Line---Personal Accountability

Of course, no matter how innovative our schools or how effective our teachers, America cannot succeed unless our students take responsibility for their own education. That means showing up for school on time, paying attention in class, seeking out extra tutoring if it's needed, staying out of trouble. To any student who's watching, I say this: Don't even think about dropping out of school. Don't even think about it...

No government policy will make any difference unless we also hold ourselves more accountable as parents -- because government, no matter how wise or efficient, cannot turn off the TV or put away the video games. Teachers, no matter how dedicated or effective, cannot make sure your child leaves for school on time and does their homework when they get back at night. These are things only a parent can do. These are things that our parents must do...

So today, I'm issuing a challenge to educators and lawmakers, parents and teachers alike: Let us all make turning around our schools our collective responsibility as Americans. (my bold)

Reactions to the President's Speech.

Quality Professional Development on the Cheap

People who have a lot of money do not have to think too hard about problems.  They can just throw a few dollars at their problems and solve them fairly easily.  They may complain the whole time they are pitching the dollars, but they pay just the same.  People without money have to be a lot more resourceful, creative and innovative.  Maybe I can't afford $300 for a diagnostic on my car when it flunks the smog certification.  So I ask around, pay $8 for a fuel additive, drive my car over the grade, and voila, it passes the certification with flying colors, and I keep most of the $300.

The very act of idea-generation can highlight areas of waste and profligate spending. A good example is professional development.

"Any district hiring a consultant to come in for a one day for $10,000 or $15,000—that's a waste of time and money," says Ed Wilgus, a former district professional development manager who is co-founder of Systemic Human Resource Solutions.

There are lots of options for planning a satisfying DIY professional development program.

Here are some ideas:
1. Veteran teachers share their best practices.
2. A conference format with several options within any particular time frame
3. A longitudinal lesson study Japanese style.
4. A collaborative discussion addressing a specific concern within the district.
5. Teachers design, conduct and share the results of active research within district classrooms.
6. Reflective analysis of the rational behind specific teaching strategies.
7. Reviews of books and journal articles of interest.
8. Demonstrations of math manipulatives and other resources.
9. Presentations by parents.
10. Classroom swapping-teaching for a day in a very different grade or subject area with no more preparation than an average substitute teacher.

One school district had a great idea for using the Internet.

Instead of hiring presenters to come to their schools, they downloaded free archived video presentations from the Web site of the K-12 Online Conference, an annual grassroots gathering of instructional technology aficionados. Then they featured the videos as part of a special series of staff development sessions on technology topics. Members of the district's tech team and Web-savvy teacher leaders facilitated the sessions, leading discussions on the presentations and addressing teachers' practical concerns. In some cases, they even conducted live follow-up interviews with the original presenters via Skype, the free Internet phone service.

P.S. A school can get me for $1000-$1500, (not $10000-$15000), depending on the amount of time, distance, hotel, etc. I do presentations on math, science and foreign language teaching, ESL, art, curriculum and the Japanese education system. I help teachers plan and organize their own self-facilitated professional development. I also write education grants for schools.

Teachers Misbehaving

Purveyors of professional development don't like it much when the teachers they are supposed to be teaching misbehave. I have been on both sides of the podium. Teachers have good reason for regarding professional development sessions as a monumental waste of time. Usually the sessions are mandatory, and the presenter has been commissioned to present specific information whether or not the audience is interested. One school district asked me to present a hands-on literacy session to high school teachers on developing questions that build critical thinking.

It quickly became clear that what these high school teachers really wanted was tips on phonics, and how to integrate phonics into their content lessons. I converted my presentation to phonics on the fly. Because I had not brought any phonics materials with me, I had to abandon the hands-on part. I ended up delivering mostly lecture, but the teachers loved it. Six months later I was commissioned to present an overview of the six traits of good writing to a group of elementary teachers in a completely different geographical area. What the teachers wanted to do was vent their complaints about the district's adoption of the reading curriculum, Success for All. When they were done, I carried on with my presentation. Only later I found out that the administration canceled my future presentations because I did not shut down the criticism.

So you never know.

For every expectation, there are other conflicting expectations. If some teachers expect presenters to model hands-on techniques, other teachers want the presenter to just tell them the info and let them go back to grading papers. The presenter comes prepared with the information commissioned by the administration only to find the audience deems the information irrelevant to their needs. I gained appreciation and sympathy for presenters when I became a presenter.

The worst problems with professional development can be avoided by letting teachers create their own professional development. Administrators are notoriously out of touch with the teaching staff.

Districts Pushing Out Math and Science Teachers

If Researchers Say It...Will That Make IT True?

None of the plethora of programs for increasing the supply of math and science teachers ever focuses on bringing back the great teachers America already has. Schools constantly look to hire novice teachers, and routinely reject teachers with over five years experience. Hiring committees in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and upstate New York have told me so. I made the telephone calls back in 2001 as part of commissioned research in public school district practices regarding the recruitment of substitute teachers, but often conversation ranged to general hiring policies.

What these hiring policies mean is that a teacher who moves to another district may very well be unemployable.

“I admit I’m being heretical,” said Richard M. Ingersoll, a professor of education and sociology at the university. “But it’s not that we’re producing too few math and science teachers. It’s that we’re losing too many.”

...snip...

The findings are important, Mr. Ingersoll said, because they suggest that national efforts aimed at expanding the pipeline of new math and science teachers are misdirected. If policymakers really want to ensure that those subjects are being taught by skilled teachers, he said, they ought to focus on retaining the much larger pool of science and math teachers who are already in schools.

The research studied the reasons that teachers leave teaching. The top three reasons: dissatisfaction, another job, or personal. The study did not address teachers who did not leave teaching but found that teaching had left them when they moved for whatever reason, usually to follow a spouse.

But the research is poor.

While teacher supply-and-demand issues are much debated, there have been relatively few efforts to examine the issue empirically, Mr. Ingersoll said.

It is notoriously difficult to get frank answers to questions. My telephone survey is a good example. I was collecting data regarding substitute teachers, but when the conversation veered to other areas, I heard interesting stuff, but I was not prepared to collect that information in any systematic or “scientific” way. Yet when I have tried to collect information about hiring policies directly, I get different answers from those previous “off the record” responses.

One thing the study highlights is that supply is not the problem.

But the researchers maintain that (supply) difficulties stem more from teacher turnover than from supply-side problems. “For science, those leaving teaching at the end of the year represented 130 percent of those who entered at the beginning of that year,” the study says.

For math, the number of teachers leaving their jobs was 120 percent of the number who entered the pool of qualified candidates at the start of the year. In both fields, retirements accounted for only a small percentage of leavers, suggesting that most of the attrition is not the result of a graying workforce.

The high rate of non-retirement-related job movement led Mr. Ingersoll to suggest that retention, rather than supply, is the key to solving schools’ staffing problems.

Retention should mean not only keeping the teachers who are already in the schools, but also bringing back teachers who were ended up working who-knows-where after moving. Teachers who are no longer teaching but want to teach become invisible in our society. Their identity as teachers is effectively scrubbed. A receptionist who is a once and hopefully future math teacher is a receptionist, not a teacher. The fact the receptionist was ever a teacher becomes part of a past life, not a present possibility.

Schools can reduce turnover, Mr. Ingersoll said, by improving their working conditions—supporting new teachers, for example, offering better pay schedules, getting a handle on student-discipline problems, or showing more effective leadership.

Schools should do all that, but schools should also welcome veteran teachers who move into their communities as the valuable assets they are instead of viewing them as budget breakers. State credentialing commissions should remove the arbitrary obstacles that make it difficult for proven out-of-state teachers to get certified in their new state of residence. For example, an out-of-state teacher who moves to Arizona must pay for and pass Arizona's certification tests, even if they have already passed either the National Teachers Examination (NTE) or other state tests. Once they pass Arizona's tests, they get a provisional credential which expires in two years if they are unable to land a teaching job. The more experienced the teacher, the more likely their provisional credential will expire. Then these teachers are barred from tutoring for the schools or serving as teachers for the home-bound or in other public capacities.

They suffer even when they try to tutor privately. The first question any parent asks is, “Do you have a teaching credential?” “I have an expired one,” does not satisfy. The public simply does not understand how society is barring some of its best teachers from teaching.

Good News for Education? Or Not?

MetLife's first survey was done in 1984. How have things changed in 25 years? If the survey is to be believed, things have significantly improved. At least the 1000 teachers they asked say so.

The percentage of teachers reporting high satisfaction with their careers has increased from 40 in 1984 to 62 in 2008, while more teachers today (66 percent) feel respected by society than did their counterparts in 1984 (47 percent).

Perhaps even more provocatively, the percentage of teachers agreeing that they can earn a “decent salary” has nearly doubled since 1984, to 66 percent, and far more teachers today (75 percent, compared to 45 percent in 1984) say they would recommend a career in teaching to a young person.

In addition, two thirds of today’s teachers affirm that they were well-prepared for the profession, compared to 46 percent in 1984. Teachers also feel better equipped today than in past years when it comes to addressing student-learning challenges such as poverty, limited English language proficiency, and lack of parental support, according to the report.
Meanwhile, the number of teachers who rate the academic standards in their schools as excellent has doubled from 26 percent in 1984 to 53 percent today, and 89 percent of teachers say their school’s curriculum is excellent or good, compared to 81 percent in 1984.
Even regarding the availability of materials and supplies in schools—a notoriously sore subject among teachers—the numbers have improved: The percentage of teachers rating their access to such resources as excellent, while still not reaching a majority, has doubled to 44 percent since 1984.

What about all that bad news we hear all the time? Well, I guess that is just the mainstream media missing the message yet again... except it is teachers themselves who report so much of the bad news. It's a conundrum...

...however, MetLife’s data does also underscore persistent disparities among schools and mounting challenges facing the country’s public education system.

If schools are a mirror of society, MetLife's data polishes the reflection. Economically, the middle class is being gutted, resulting in a growing chasm between the rich and the poor in America. The same chasm is widening in American education.

For example, teachers in urban and secondary schools, especially those with high concentrations of low-income students, are significantly less likely to rate the academic standards in their schools as excellent, according to the report. Urban teachers are also considerably less positive than their suburban counterparts on the availability of teaching materials in their schools and the degree of parental support their students receive.
Pointing to significant demographic shifts,the percentage of teachers responding that limited English proficiency hinders learning for a quarter or more of their students has doubled since 1992, from 11 to 22 percent, with the level reaching 30 percent for urban teachers. In addition, nearly half of today’s teachers (up from 41 percent in 1992) say that poverty limits the day-to-day capabilities of at least a quarter of their students.
The number of teachers saying that students’ learning abilities in their classes are so varied that they cannot teach effectively has also jumped, according to the report, from 39 percent in 1988 to 43 percent today.

There is an achievement gap between students, and there is a corresponding achievement gap between schools. More surprising, it looks like our students lose abilities as they get older.

The teachers' responses also reveal some potentially major cracks in the overall quality of U.S. students’ education. While the majority of teachers say their students’ skills in reading, writing, and math are excellent or good, for example, significantly smaller percentages of secondary school teachers than elementary-level teacher feel that way.

Of course, since Americans believe all roads lead to America, preparation for success in a global environment has low priority.

In an increasingly global economy, nearly two-thirds of teachers rate their students as only fair or poor in their knowledge of other nations and cultures, and more than half rate their students as fair or poor in foreign languages.

In fact, some schools have returned to teaching Latin, but refuse to teach languages such as Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic and more. Our schools do not have language teachers, and they do not want language teachers anyway.

Furthermore, this survey echoes many other other surveys in reporting the pervasiveness of the one problem, which more than any other, drives teachers out of teaching.

The report also highlights apparent communication problems between teachers and principals and discrepancies in the groups’ views on a number of issues, including school-disciplinary policies, parent-involvement levels, and the use of teachers’ time.

An example of divergent views appeared in the comments to a previous post. A school administrator discourages teachers sending unruly students out of class because the class will see the teacher as weak. Teachers consider the ability to send out unruly students as a way to maintain effective instruction for the students who remain.

President Obama said, ”But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed.  That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.

Teachers and administrators have to stop being adversaries.

Here are the Department of Education provisions from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Honestly, there is not much in the way of education reform in this new legislation. I am not seeing “new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success.” I did not expect much reform. America still has not had the wide open debate it needs on education. For example, certain groups dislike charter schools on principle; other groups dislike the teachers unions on principle. All groups need to set aside ideological rigidity, and systematically examine education from every angle. Americans need to decide whether they want a world-class education system, and what they want the education system to look like.

Educators like John Taylor Gatto argue that the system is not broken. He believes the system is doing what it was designed to do—produce compliant workers. Somewhere I read you cannot expect a Ford to be a Cadillac, and you cannot fix (read: reform) a Ford to be a Cadillac. Until Americans are ready to talk about a total overhaul, a complete redesign, it be impossible to reform.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Education for the Disadvantaged
For an additional amount for ‘Education for the Disadvantaged’ to carry out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (‘ESEA’), $13,000,000,000: Provided, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants under section 1125 of the ESEA: Provided further, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for education finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA: Provided further, That $3,000,000,000 shall be for school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA: Provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds available under this paragraph shall be required to file with the State educational agency, no later than December 1, 2009, a school-by-school listing of per-pupil educational expenditures from State and local sources during the 2008-2009 academic year: Provided further, That each State educational agency shall report that information to the Secretary of Education by March 31, 2010.

Impact Aid
For an additional amount for ‘Impact Aid’ to carry out section 8007 of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $100,000,000, which shall be expended pursuant to the requirements of section 805.

School Improvement Programs
For an additional amount for ‘School Improvement Programs’ to carry out subpart 1, part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (‘ESEA’), and subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, $720,000,000: Provided, That $650,000,000 shall be available for subpart 1, part D of title II of the ESEA: Provided further, That the Secretary shall allot $70,000,000 for grants under McKinney-Vento to each State in proportion to the number of homeless students identified by the State during the 2007-2008 school year relative to the number of such children identified nationally during that school year: Provided further, That State educational agencies shall subgrant the McKinney-Vento funds to local educational agencies on a competitive basis or according to a formula based on the number of homeless students identified by the local educational agencies in the State: Provided further, That the Secretary shall distribute the McKinney-Vento funds to the States not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That each State shall subgrant the McKinney-Vento funds to local educational agencies not later than 120 days after receiving its grant from the Secretary.

Innovation and Improvement
For an additional amount for ‘Innovation and Improvement’ to carry out subpart 1, part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (‘ESEA’), $200,000,000: Provided, That these funds shall be expended as directed in the fifth, sixth, and seventh provisos under the heading ‘Innovation and Improvement’ in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2008: Provided further, That a portion of these funds shall also be used for a rigorous national evaluation by the Institute of Education Sciences, utilizing randomized controlled methodology to the extent feasible, that assesses the impact of performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems supported by the funds provided in this Act on teacher and principal recruitment and retention in high-need schools and subjects: Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up to 1 percent of the amount made available under this heading for management and oversight of the activities supported with those funds.

Special Education
For an additional amount for ‘Special Education’ for carrying out parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (‘IDEA’), $12,200,000,000, of which $11,300,000,000 shall be available for section 611 of the IDEA: Provided, That if every State, as defined by section 602(31) of the IDEA, reaches its maximum allocation under section 611(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the IDEA, and there are remaining funds, such funds shall be proportionally allocated to each State subject to the maximum amounts contained in section 611(a)(2) of the IDEA: Provided further, That by July 1, 2009, the Secretary of Education shall reserve the amount needed for grants under section 643(e) of the IDEA, with any remaining funds to be allocated in accordance with section 643(c) of the IDEA: Provided further, That the total amount for each of sections 611(b)(2) and 643(b)(1) of the IDEA, under this and all other Acts, for fiscal year 2009, whenever enacted, shall be equal to the amounts respectively available for these activities under these sections during fiscal year 2008 increased by the amount of inflation as specified in section 619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA: Provided further, That $400,000,000 shall be available for section 619 of the IDEA and $500,000,000 shall be available for part C of the IDEA.

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
For an additional amount for ‘Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research’ for providing grants to States to carry out the Vocational Rehabilitation Services program under part B of title I and parts B and C of chapter 1 and chapter 2 of title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, $680,000,000: Provided, That $540,000,000 shall be available for part B of title I of the Rehabilitation Act: Provided further, That funds provided herein shall not be considered in determining the amount required to be appropriated under section 100(b)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in any fiscal year: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 7(14)(A), the Federal share of the costs of vocational rehabilitation services provided with the funds provided herein shall be 100 percent: Provided further, That $140,000,000 shall be available for parts B and C of chapter 1 and chapter 2 of title VII of the Rehabilitation Act: Provided further, That $18,200,000 shall be for State Grants, $87,500,000 shall be for independent living centers, and $34,300,000 shall be for services for older blind individuals.

Student Financial Assistance
For an additional amount for ‘Student Financial Assistance’ to carry out subpart 1 of part A and part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (‘HEA’), $15,840,000,000, which shall remain available through September 30, 2011: Provided, That $15,640,000,000 shall be available for subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the HEA: Provided further, That $200,000,000 shall be available for part C of title IV of the HEA.

The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be eligible during award year 2009-2010 shall be $4,860.

Student Aid Administration
For an additional amount for ‘Student Aid Administration’ to carry out part D of title I, and subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts B, C, D, and E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $60,000,000.

Higher Education
For an additional amount for ‘Higher Education’ to carry out part A of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $100,000,000.
Institute of Education Sciences
For an additional amount for ‘Institute of Education Sciences’ to carry out section 208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act, $250,000,000, which may be used for Statewide data systems that include postsecondary and workforce information, of which up to $5,000,000 may be used for State data coordinators and for awards to public or private organizations or agencies to improve data coordination.

Departmental Management
office of the inspector general
For an additional amount for the ‘Office of the Inspector General’, $14,000,000, which shall remain available through September 30, 2012, for salaries and expenses necessary for oversight and audit of programs, grants, and projects funded in this Act.

RELATED AGENCIES
Corporation for National and Community Service
OPERATING EXPENSES
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ‘Operating Expenses’ to carry out the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (‘1973 Act’) and the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (‘1990 Act’), $160,000,000: Provided, That $89,000,000 of the funds made available in this paragraph shall be used to make additional awards to existing AmeriCorps grantees and may be used to provide adjustments to awards under subtitle C of title I of the 1990 Act made prior to September 30, 2010 for which the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service (‘CEO’) determines that a waiver of the Federal share limitation is warranted under section 2521.70 of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That of the amount made available in this paragraph, not less than $6,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Salaries and Expenses’ for necessary expenses relating to information technology upgrades, of which up to $800,000 may be used to administer the funds provided in this paragraph: Provided further, That of the amount provided in this paragraph, not less than $65,000,000 shall be for programs under title I, part A of the 1973 Act: Provided further, That funds provided in the previous proviso shall not be made available in connection with cost-share agreements authorized under section 192A(g)(10) of the 1990 Act: Provided further, That of the funds available under this heading, up to 20 percent of funds allocated to grants authorized under section 124(b) of title I, subtitle C of the 1990 Act may be used to administer, reimburse, or support any national service program under section 129(d)(2) of the 1990 Act: Provided further, That, except as provided herein and in addition to requirements identified herein, funds provided in this paragraph shall be subject to the terms and conditions under which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That the CEO shall provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a fiscal year 2009 operating plan for the funds appropriated in this paragraph prior to making any Federal obligations of such funds in fiscal year 2009, but not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and a fiscal year 2010 operating plan for such funds prior to making any Federal obligations of such funds in fiscal year 2010, but not later than November 1, 2009, that detail the allocation of resources and the increased number of members supported by the AmeriCorps programs: Provided further, That the CEO shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the actual obligations, expenditures, and unobligated balances for each activity funded under this heading not later than November 1, 2009, and every 6 months thereafter as long as funding provided under this heading is available for obligation or expenditure.

Office of Inspector General
For an additional amount for the ‘Office of Inspector General’, $1,000,000, which shall remain available until September 30, 2012.

National Service Trust
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ‘National Service Trust’ established under subtitle D of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (‘1990 Act’), $40,000,000, which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That the Corporation for National and Community Service may transfer additional funds from the amount provided within ‘Operating Expenses’ for grants made under subtitle C of title I of the 1990 Act to this appropriation upon determination that such transfer is necessary to support the activities of national service participants and after notice is transmitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That the amount appropriated for or transferred to the National Service Trust may be invested under section 145(b) of the 1990 Act without regard to the requirement to apportion funds under.