School Finance

According to a paper released this week by the American Enterprise Institute, charter authorizers are putting too many meaningless application requirements on organizations that propose to open schools, thereby limiting school autonomy and creating far too much red tape.

The report shares lessons, provides authorizer Dos and Don’ts, and divides charter application criteria into categories of appropriate and inappropriate based on AEI’s analysis of application requirements from forty authorizers around the land. The authors conclude that:

  • Charter applications could be streamlined to eliminate one-quarter of existing content
  • Authorizers may mistake length for rigor
  • The authorizer’s role is sometimes unclear
  • While there is much authorizer lip service for innovation, the application process doesn’t lend itself to fleshing out truly innovative school models

AEI correctly notes the importance of the authorizer’s role as gatekeeper for new schools and points out that authorizers should establish clear goals, hold schools accountable, review key aspects of school applications for developer capacity, and monitor compliance and finances. Authorizers shouldn’t see themselves as venture capitalists, assume the role of school management consultants, deem themselves curriculum experts, or feel entitled to include pet issues in applications.

All true, and all wise. Where it gets sticky—and where this report...

Last week, Fordham hosted Robert Putnam for a discussion of his new book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, which argues that a growing opportunity gap is leaving many American children behind. Watch the replay of the event, or read the transcript of the event below.

Michael Petrilli:              

Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Petrilli. I am the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. For those of you that don’t know us, we are an educational policy think tank. We are based here in Washington, D.C. but we also do on-the-ground work in the great state of Ohio which also features prominently in Dr. Putnam’s book. You can shout out for Ohio, that’s okay. Yes, and just as long as it’s not Ohio State, that’s another story. But Thomas B. Fordham was an industrialist way back in the day in Dayton, Ohio, so we have a mission to do on-the-ground school reform work in Ohio. We push for educational reform out of Columbus and...

On Tuesday, Georgetown University hosted President Obama, Harvard public policy professor Robert Putnam, and American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks for a talk about poverty and opportunity. With typical brilliance, the three men discussed myriad issues that affect the lives of America’s most disadvantaged—offering thoughtful insights into all of them. From an education policy standpoint, however, President Obama’s call for greater investment in public schools was the most interesting.

Robert Putnam, in his new book Our Kids, argues that over the last thirty to forty years, disadvantaged youth have faced diminishing opportunities while their more affluent peers have enjoyed dramatically more. President Obama agreed, but also observed that this is nothing new. “This pattern,” he said, “is no different than what William Julius Wilson was talking about when he talked about the truly disadvantaged [thirty years ago].”

The president acknowledged that some of the challenges facing the middle class come from macroeconomic changes, such as technological innovation and globalization. But he also argued that some of it resulted from public policy choices we’ve made in recent decades. In...

In a previous review, my colleagues examined a National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC) report that analyzed states’ charter policies regarding access to district-owned facilities. In a new report, NCSRC narrows its focus to charter school facilities in California. Golden State charters were asked to complete a survey about their facilities and to allow an on-site measurement; these results were then supplemented by data on school enrollment, student demographics, and funding. The results offer a sobering picture of charter facilities in the state. Charter school facilities are generally smaller than the size recommended by the California Department of Education; classrooms for elementary, middle, and high schools are, on average, between 82 and 89 percent of the state standard size (it is worth nothing that state size standards might not be appropriate for all schools in all situations). Charter facilities as a whole are 60 percent smaller than state site size recommendations, even after adjustments are made for enrollment differences. California charters also spend varying amounts of their per-pupil funding on facilities; charters that own their buildings pay an average of $895 per pupil; charters located in a school district facility pay an average of $285 per pupil; and...

Marianne Lombardo

EDITOR’S NOTE: The original version of this commentary was published on EdReform Now’s blog on April 8. The post contrasted innocent misunderstandings (using Allstate’s elderly-woman-misunderstands-social-media esurance ad) to the more serious act of purposely leading people to misunderstandings. The post simply and succinctly clears the air about how school funding – especially for charter schools – actually works in Ohio.

When “policy experts” purposely mislead the public into misunderstandings about education and school funding, it isn’t a humorous misunderstanding. It’s appalling.

For example, charter school detractors promote the idea that charter schools exist to privatize education and make profits for greedy investors:

“[Mayor Emanuel] took money from these schools . . . and gave it to elite private schools founded by his big campaign contributors. I would stop privatizing our public schools.“

- Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, Chicago Mayor election video

Actually, public charter schools are part of the public education system. They are approved and monitored by public entities. Nationally, nearly 90 percent are run by a non-profit organization (23% in Ohio). These non-profits are very much like other publicly-funded programs that serve children, such as Head Start centers.

Most egregious, however, is...

In Ohio and across the nation, charters have struggled to obtain adequate, appropriate space in which to operate. As competitors, districts have been reluctant to allow charters to operate in buildings that they own, whether through co-location in an open district school or taking residence in a shuttered school. But according to the latest report from the National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC), a few states and cities have been proactive in helping charters access district facilities. The report, using charter survey data across fourteen states from 2007 to 2014, reveals that charters in California and New York—New York City, in particular—were most likely to operate in district-owned space. In California, nearly half (45 percent) of charters operated in district facilities, while 31 percent of New York charters did so. In New York City, 62 percent of the city’s charters operated in a district facility, undoubtedly encouraged by the $1 rental fee that the district was permitted to charge charters (an innovation of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s). The study also reported some variation in the financial arrangements between districts and charters: Of the charters that operated in a district-owned facility, 46 percent of them reported paying no fee to...

Discussion of charter schools is everywhere in the Ohio news. Everyone has an angle, including a few unexpected ones:

Boarding schools are often associated with the rich and the privileged; as such, they are seen as an out-of-reach option for low-income families searching for high-quality education. But in a world of ever-increasing school choice, must boarding schools remain out-of-reach? Do tuition-free boarding schools that serve primarily academically struggling, low-income children exist?

The answer is yes, they do—but they’re extremely rare. A 2003 study from the University of Chicago interviewed policy experts, educators, child welfare and youth development professionals, and parents of children who attend boarding schools designed for students with social and economic disadvantages. The study concludes that “urban or community boarding schools represent a promising idea that deserves serious consideration.” Yet the authors are careful to point out that many people harbor concerns “about the meaning of out-of-home settings used primarily by low-income or minority children.” They cite America’s troubling legacy of using boarding schools for shameful reasons can lead to understandable suspicions about residential education models for low-income, high-need youth.

However, there are examples of places where the residential education model is already in place and working—and where families are thrilled with the results. In 2009, New York Times Magazine looked at the...

This new study by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examines the ESEA comparability requirement, which mandates that school districts provide “comparable” educational services in both high- and low-poverty schools as a condition of receiving Title I dollars. CAP’s concern is that, although this requirement is intended to level the playing field for schools, it actually allows districts to use teacher-to-student ratios or average teacher salaries as a proxy for comparable services, instead of using actual teacher salary expenditures. And because poor schools typically have newer teachers who tend to struggle their first few years and cost less to employ, these schools are getting both less qualified teachers and less money than more advantaged ones.

The analysts examine Office of Civil Rights district spending data for the 2011–12 school year from roughly ninety-five thousand public schools. Adjusting for cost-of-living differences across districts, they compare how districts fund schools that are eligible to receive federal Title I dollars with other schools in their grade span and find “vast disparities” in the allocation of state and local dollars.

Here are the three key findings: one, due to the “loophole” in federal law, more than 4.5 million low-income students...

The privacy edition

“Failing” schools, data privacy, teacher evaluation in Virginia, and a flawed look at school funding disparities. Featuring a guest appearance by the Data Quality Campaign's Paige Kowalski.

Amber's Research Minute

SOURCE: Robert Hanna, Max Marchitello, and Catherine Brown, “Comparable but Unequal: School Funding Disparities,” Center for American Progress (March 2015).


Mike:               Hello, this is your host, Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute here at The Education Gadfly Show and online at Now please join me in welcoming my co-host, the Kentucky Wildcat of education policy, Paige Kowalski!

Paige:              Kentucky Wildcat?

Mike:               That's their name, right? Kentucky Wildcats?

Paige:              Sure. Who's they?

Mike:               Okay, yeah.

Paige:              To clarify, I'm from California.

Mike:               All right. See, we always do a pop culture thing, a sports thing. Kentucky is not only a number one seed ... Now I'm talking about the men's basketball team here. Not only the number one seed for the March Madness Tournament, but considered so dominant that it's basically Kentucky against the entire field in terms of the odds. They are undefeated which almost never happens. I guess not only the tallest team in men's college basketball, they're actually taller than all but one NBA team.

Paige:              Wow!

Mike:               Yeah, so a bunch of tall guys.

Paige:              I haven't seen the bracket yet.

Mike:               You are dominant, okay. You have so little competition out there in education reform-land.

Paige:              Yeah.

Mike:               You're tall.

Paige:              Oh, I am tall.

Mike:               So, see? There you go.

Paige:              I am tall, just like a Kentucky Wildcat apparently.

Mike:               Exactly. Let me introduce you properly. Paige Kowalski is the Vice President for Policy and Advocacy at the Data Quality Campaign, known to those of us inside the Beltway as DQC and doing amazing work all over the country, working at the State level especially. It seems like states all over the place are passing bills, passing laws to protect kids' privacy.

Paige:              Yes, states all over the place are passing those laws. Nothing has passed yet this year. Last year we had 21 states pass something so it remains to be seen where we end up after this session.

Mike:               A lot of activity, clearly something that is a hot issue. Hey, we got a lot to talk about. We'll get into some data issues. We have some data questions today just for you, Paige, but they are timely as well. Let's get started. Ellen, let's play Pardon the Gadfly.

Ellen:               Some education reformers and media outlets are now calling schools failing if they don't get most of their students to the new, higher Common Core Standards. Is that fair?

Mike:               So Paige, I've got a new piece in this week's Education Gadfly that criticizes the New York Daily News as well as Families for Excellent Schools up in New York, Eva Moskowitz, because they are using the results from the new Common Core tests in New York which we now know from Education Next were as of 2013, the hardest tests in the country, basically set at the same level as NAEP. They're using those test to declare schools failing because they don't get very many kids to the proficient level in reading and math.

                        This gets us back into this never-ending debate about why proficiency rates are such bad measures of school performance especially when the proficiency bar is set really high. Do you agree with me or do you agree with those other people?

Paige:              That's a loaded question, Mike. First, I'm shocked to find out you are releasing something that is critical of anything. I think first of all, what DQC would advocate is it should be growth data and not proficiency data.

Mike:               Boom!

Paige:              We want to see these longitudinal data systems that we've all invested so heavily in both financially and politically, really used for kids and to get better information out about how kids are doing. I think the failing label rubs everybody wrong. I think it gets advocates fired up but I think that was part of the confusion around No Child Left Behind and the lack of embracing from parents about that label as it never made sense to them based on a single test score.

                        I enrolled my kids in a school that never met and never had a hope of meeting AYP and since my school has switched to growth and a different model under a waiver, they're now at the top of the food chain in the accountability ratings.

                        I think at the end of the day, my two words are multiple measures. I think reading and math scores are going to be critical because if you can't read, then I don't know what the business of school is. We can learn that on Sesame Street so if schools can't get as good as Sesame Street can do then we have a problem.

Mike:               Look, let me be clear, I don't personally have a problem with calling schools failing schools. I think sometimes that is legitimate. I just want to make sure that we identify them appropriately and to me, a failing school is one that both has low proficiency rates, low passing rates and isn't making any progress over time.

                        When I've looked at the data, at least say in Ohio where we do a lot of on the ground work, I'd say about 25% of the schools that look like they're low performing schools based on proficiency are actually look like they're doing a heck of job on growth ... 25%, that still means 75% of the schools really do seem to be brain-dead, these low performing schools, most of which are high poverty and probably should be put out of their misery, in my opinion.

                        It's not the failing that bothers me. It's that they call these schools failing because they've only got a handful of kids reaching these new higher standards. Look, you're a middle school. You're a high school. Kids are coming in four grade levels behind. You could be working miracles and still have zero percent of your kids passing the test. Sometimes, Paige, I just think people in education reform are bad at math.

Paige:              I think that's fair. I don't know that you're going to make great strides out there with this case. I think it's a fair statement to make and I think, again, you're just making the case for multiple measures particularly at middle and high school. I think people need more information. I think people understand in an intuitive common sense way that these kids are coming in and they may be behind so what else can we look at to see if this school is doing these kids a service.

Mike:               I'm down at the multiple measures. Look, the thing is this, a lot of educators were afraid that we were going to have to raise the standards, make the tests harder just to make them look bad. I feel like Eva and all, they're following in that playbook. It's particularly because they're using these scores from the harder test in New York and not providing any context.

Paige:              Right.

Mike:               When the standards were minimal, I think it was fair to say, "Hey, any school, you should at least be able to get your kids to minimal levels of literacy and numeracy." If you can't do that ... Come on. It doesn't work anymore. You can't use the tests in the same way anymore because they are not measuring minimum levels. They're set at a much higher level, arguably being set at the 70th percentile in a place like New York and so by definition, at least when we start this process, lots of kids aren't going to pass those test.

Paige:              Okay, you say it's a minimal level, but it's the level we've identified that kids need to graduate at to go on to college or a job.

Mike:               Right. I'm saying it's not a minimal level. It's a very high standard.

Paige:              It is a high standard. It's higher but it's the standard that we've all agreed and set and said this is what an 18 year old needs to walk out of K-12 with. What I would argue for is DQC has long, advocated for richer data sets around kids and if we can actually link our K-12 records and our higher ed records and our workforce records and actually understand, hey, for these high schools where maybe only 40% of the kids scored what they need to score, it's not a failing school because 90% of the kids actually went on to a successful career or the military or post secondary and then went on to do this.

                        What is it about those kids who are not graduating college career ready which I may have been one and I still went to college and graduated and here I am with you today which is a measure of success in and of itself.

Mike:               That ... So absolutely.

Paige:              If we have this data, can we make better decisions about what to do and what's working in these high schools?

Mike:               I love it, okay. Question number two ...

Ellen:               The administration is advocating for new legislation around data privacy. Is it needed and does it go far enough?

Mike:               What is it? What is it about? Tell us, Paige.

Paige:              What's it about? That's a big question. First I'll start with saying that sort of in response and in a recognition of these legitimate concerns around student privacy, last week at South by Southwest, DQC and CoSN, the Consortium on School Networking, released a set of ten student data principles that sort of lay out what the education community believes in, what we believe about data use and the importance of safeguarding it.

                        Fordham is a signatory on that along with 32 other organizations to really represent what the education community believes about this. We're hearing the Federal government and States and locals talk about what should we do? How do we do this? We thought it was important to start all of these conversations with a consensus framework for those policies because there's a lot of fears that we may overreach in policy particularly at the federal level and that will stifle innovation, stifle ...

Mike:               But the federal pieces went mostly about making sure that companies that collect private information about kids, that it clarifies what they're allowed to collect and how they have to make sure that that does not get breached. Is that fair to say?

Paige:              That's part of it. That's the Student Digital Privacy act that the administration is talking about that we could see a draft coming out sometime soon but there is also talk of what should we do with FERPA and does COPPA need to be updated. COPPA only covers kids up to 13. FERPA ...

Mike:               You just lost all of us on those but that's all right.

Paige:              FERPA, that's our federal privacy law that covers how education agencies like schools and districts can and can't share personally identifiable student information.

Mike:               Yeah. Are any of these efforts, are they going to hem in the Federal government itself? The administration has been very vocal about how private companies might be abusing the data. There's many people on the right who are worried that the Federal government could be abusing this data that they, for example, are asking sensitive questions through the office of Civil Rights that there needs to be more protections from the government.

Paige:              Right, the Federal government doesn't actually have any individual student personal information.

Mike:               Right.

Paige:              They can't collect it due to several laws. Absolutely, there's a role for the Federal government to play to make sure that they're holding themselves accountable and that they're transparent for what they are and aren't collecting and what they can and can't do with it.

Mike:               All right. Very good. Question number three ...

Ellen:               Virginia is the latest State to debate whether to make teacher evaluation data public. Should that information be out there?

Mike:               So, this is such a hard question, Paige. We have been tying ourselves in pretzels over this for the last few years. What's you take on this? I guess this is what the principal does, an evaluation of the teachers. It may include some student achievement data as a part of it. The question is whether the media, the press has a right to know the ratings of individual teachers. We've gone through this in other States. In some cases usually because of lawsuits, the media have ended up getting the data and getting the records. You can then look up in the newspaper, find out if your kid's teacher is effective or not. Good idea? Bad idea?

Paige:              The specific case in Virginia really centers around a parent advocating that parents should have that information about their child's teacher. It doesn't really get into the media aspect of it.

Mike:               Okay.

Paige:              In another sense, it brings up an interesting question because in the past, it has been about the media and what should they have the right to. In this case, we think it's important. We need to have a better conversation about how to balance the rights of parents to have the information they need to insure that they can be good advocates for their children with the rights that teachers have around privacy to their personnel information.

Mike:               So the answer is ...

Paige:              The answer is we need to have that conversation because we haven't had it right now ... There is no right answer.

Mike:               Paige, now come on!

Paige:              Yeah, right now, right now we live in world where parents have no information about teachers.

Mike:               In Virginia, do you think the parent has a case that they should tell her the evaluation score of her child's teacher?

Paige:              I don't think that it will be helpful to get a value added measure which I believe is what this case is about because I don't believe they've actually evaluated teachers but they do have growth data and VAM scores. It's single data point and much in the same way that I look up when I'm buying a car, what's the safest rating out there. We don't all own Volvos.

Mike:               Yup.

Paige:              So why would you give a parent a VAM score? What are they going to do with it? What are they going to ... They can't make sense of that. It's a single data point and we should never be making any decision off a single data point.

Mike:               That seems right to me. I certainly don't think these things should be printed in the paper, certainly not the VAM scores and even the final evaluations.

Paige:              Absolutely.

Mike:               Look, in most professions, in most lines of work, this is something that is between the employee and his or her manager. I think that is the appropriate place here. I understand as a parent wanting to know and of course, as parents, we try to figure this out from our friends and colleagues and you get whatever information that you can.

                        It feels like it gets to be more inside the management of the school than is healthy. You could imagine ... You just can imagine this could be really bad for morale and also lead to some inequitable results if you get the pushy, connected parents then using this to get the best teachers and leaving the bad ones for the other kids.

Paige:              Absolutely, can absolutely exacerbate current inequities and how teachers are distributed as the public starts to find out, "Oh, look, all the best teachers are over there. Let's go get them and put pressure on those principals." Again, I think it goes back to what's actionable and what can a parent really do with that information. The system will always have teachers that are less effective.

                        I think we think one solution, both in having this balanced conversation, let's at least to the bare minimum, get aggregate data out by school on teacher effectiveness. Again, most places don't even have this data to put out yet. Also, getting parents better information about their own kids so that they can push and say, "Look, my child has been excelling four years straight and suddenly now they're dropping. What is the system going to do for my kid? Their teacher doesn't appear to be very good."

Mike:               I like the aggregate data. I think we should make it very understandable for parents like 20% of teachers in this school totally kick ass, 40% are okay, and then 20% totally suck.

Paige:              I like the kick ass and the totally suck rating.

Mike:               Yeah, I think that's important. Hey, by the way, I have an idea for April Fool's Day, guys. I'm curious, how do home-schoolers evaluate their teachers? It think this is something we should look into that.

                        Okay, that's all the time we have for Pardon the Gadfly. Now it's time for everyone's favorite and I know Paige's favorite, Amber's Research Minute.

                        Amber, welcome back to the show.

Amber:            Thank you, Mike.

Mike:               Have you filled out your bracket yet?

Amber:            I have not but it's on my to-do list. I'm definitely doing it.

Mike:               Kentucky? You going to go for Kentucky?

Amber:            I didn't come in last place last year which was great.

Mike:               Hey, nice. Did I? I might have?

Amber:            I did mostly a guessing game.

Mike:               Yeah.

Amber:            Yeah.

Mike:               I go back and forth. I was like, "should I just fill out the ones I want to win?"

Amber:            Yeah. I have no rhyme or reason. If you go with what the experts say, then you feel like you're kind of cheating, right?

Mike:               You had that as cheat ...

Amber:            You've got to go out on a limb.

Mike:               Well, you can't just go out with all the top seeds.

Amber:            I know, I know.

Mike:               That's no fun.

Amber:            That's no fun.

Mike:               All right. What you got for us? Speaking of fun, this is going to be fun.

Amber:            Fun ...

Mike:               Because we are going to get to de-bunk a study put out by some friends of ours.

Amber:            We are. I know, I know. They're still our friends.

Mike:               Really?

Amber:            Study out from the Center for American Progress called Comparable but Unequal School Funding Disparities. All right ... The exam is a comparability requirement in the ESEA which requires that school districts provide comparable education services in high and low poverty schools or non-Title 1, as a condition of receiving Title 1 dollars. Okay, just kind of get some of the definitions out of the way, right?

                        CAP's concern is though this requirement is intended to level the resource playing field between advantage and disadvantages schools, it actually allows districts to use teacher to student ratios or average teacher salaries as a proxy for comparable services instead of using actual expenditures on teachers' salaries.

                        You're going to have to unravel some of this stuff.

Mike:               Basically the idea is the Federal government wants it's funds to be extra on top of ... They don't want ... Ideally in a district that all the schools get about comparable resources and then the federal money comes in on top of it so that the poor kids end up getting something extra.

Amber:            Right.

Mike:               Right. That's what this comparability requirement is about.

Amber:            CAP's reasons that since poor schools typically have newer teachers and those teachers tend to struggle in their first few years that they're not only getting less qualified teachers but they're getting less money than more advantaged schools since the new teachers cost less money to employ in the first place.

                        They use Office of Civil Rights data for 2011-2012 for district spending on roughly 95,000 public schools. They compare how the districts fund the schools that are eligible to receive Title 1 with other schools in their grade span. The bottom line, they find vast disparities in how districts spend these dollars, okay? They adjust for school spending based on cost of living differences.

                        Three key findings ... Due to the loophole in the law, more than 4.5 million low income students attend inequitably funded Title 1 schools. 2) Said schools receive around $1,200 less per student than comparison schools in their districts. 3) If the loophole were closed, high poverty schools would receive around $8.5 billion in new funds every year.

                        Bottom line problem, I don't think the data can be trusted which is kind of a big deal. I think that the spending picture is actually more complicated than meets the eye when you really kind of dig into this.

                        In the first point, OCR are self reported by districts and they're not verified. There are actually other federal databases that are verified like the CCD data. It's called LC Now. It's actually verified. CAP, it says in a footnote that it's probable the districts may have filled out these forms using slightly different analytic approaches which I think is a vast understatement.

Mike:               Right. Like including a wild-ass guess ...

Amber:            Yes.

Mike:               Was that the methodology they might have used?

Amber:            They can't cross-reference the Civil Rights data collection with other school finance data set so in this footnote, they actually admit, "Okay, this is problematic." Districts can be all over the map in how they report these data which is a problem. We know just anecdotally and through other studies that districts tend to budget not using real dollars but by allocating people and services. You have this many people, you have this many programs ... Okay? That's a problem.

                        I ended up saying, "Okay, the better method which is one we used here at Fordham on a little D.C. study we did, is to use audited actual expenditures at the school level." Insure that they use actual, not annual salaries which you kind of got to make sure about that. You can go through FOYA. It's a big pain in the rumpus. We all know that but you can get each district school, employees title and salary. It's just harder to do.

                        On the second point and this where we get more in the weeds which is a couple more points, we can't assume the disadvantages districts have no role in how teachers are compensated and that all of them are forced to hire these cheap, new teachers just because they have hard working conditions. In other words, many personnel costs, and we kind of go into this a little bit in the weeds in our own report, are the result of choices made by district leaders so they set the salary schedules in many cases, the class sizes, the maximum class sizes.

                        Some of this is district decision and they also sometimes require that schools have certain number of support staff. In other words, all of this stuff isn't as easy as we think it is. Salaries in some cities are actually higher because you've got these strong labor unions which then can better negotiate for higher pay. Anyway, we go into all these different reasons that I think they're reasons that these things are happening, not just that, oh well, districts are powerless over some of these things happening.

                        I think the bottom line is we agree with the Center for American Progress that we need better data at the school level but I'm just not sure that that's what they got with OCR.

Mike:               This is the main concern I have is the data concern. Does the typical district out there have any idea how to figure out how much money they're actually giving to each of their schools? Our experience is that don't have any idea how much they're giving because they don't budget that way. The question is because of this OCR survey, did they diligently go through and figure this out in a smart way to get to the right answer? I'm not sure that that's what happened.

                        People look at this and probably believe it because we all say, "Well, it's believable." We all believe it to be true that poor schools are getting less money than rich schools within districts. Marguerite Rosa has found that to be the case in some places. We found in Washington, D.C. and most of the districts around here that was not the case.

Amber:            Right.

Mike:               That both the D.C. public schools in Montgomery County, Fairfax, that they were all quite progressive in trying to push extra resources into the needy schools. I just want the better data, right? I understand the demand for saying we want the comparable resources. I think the right thing to do in the next re-authorization is to require the better data collection and to spell out what that means and provide some capacity to be able to do it and it's hard, so that we have data that we can actually trust and find out. Find out which districts really are spending inequitably and which ones are not. I think that the findings would look different than what we've got her under OCR.

Amber:            The fact that it's coming out of OCR and we've said this for a long time, you know, it just feels like, you just don't know what the ulterior motive is here.

Mike:               We know exactly what it is. They put out guidance in the Fall saying they're going to go after districts for spending inequitably.

Amber:            All right.

Mike:               Try to create those new federal guarantees of equal spending that doesn't actually exist. Look, Paige, you guys have tracked this about how collecting this kind of school level financial information seems to be a growing interest in the financial side on the data front. We've come a long way on student achievement and some other student outcome indicators. Now people want to know more about school spending. It's hard, right?

Paige:              It is hard and it's not just the financials. It's resources in general. It's unclear how resources are allocated even separate than money. One of the things that QDC called for in our ESEA recommendations was better public reporting of school spending and financials in district because basically, I mean as you found, it's just hard to know because the data is just not out there. How do you draw any conclusion and what conclusions are we leaving on the table because we just don't have good data.

Mike:               When you say resources, you mean even things like professional development, right?

Paige:              Right.

Mike:               Some district superintendent spends a lot of time in a particular school or ...

Paige:              Right, even if it's an outside resource coming in or a service that's being offered, if you're sending teachers to professional development, that's time.

Mike:               Yeah.

Amber:            It's just really unclear and it's never tied to performance and so it's unclear what the impact is and how we should alter those resources and financials to get to the desired impact.

Mike:               Okay, very good. Hey, in the end, that was pretty gentle. I mean, we're basically just giving CAP mostly a hard time for using the OCR data which granted are the only data out there for this sort of thing. We just don't actually believe them.

Amber:            Yes, believe them, right.

Mike:               Yes, so besides that ...

Amber:            Better not to report at all if you can't trust the data, right? That's tough.

Paige:              I would say that you've started an important conversation because if the finding at the end of the day as it gins up this concern about we don't have the right data, you said at the end of the day, let's collect better data and I can get onboard with that.

Mike:               That's music to Paige's ears.

Paige:              Exactly.

Mike:               All right. Well, thank you Amber. Thank you Paige. That is all the time we've got for this week. Until next week ...

Paige:              I'm Paige Kowalski.

Mike:               I'm Mike Petrilli at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute signing off.