Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

What’s a million dollars between friends… (especially when taxpayers think cuts are being made).

Anyone with a child in Bridgeport’s public schools understands that funding is scarce. Some school programs are being modified, others are being cut and teachers and professional staff are being let go or transferred.

What taxpayers may not know is that while Paul Vallas, Bridgeport’s $229,000 part-time Superintendent of Schools brags of cutting central office expenses, he has “found” the funds to hire a new set of central office administrators with a combined salary and consultant fees of over $1 million dollars.

Furthermore, every single one of these new administrators was brought in from outside of Connecticut.

Many list themselves as being part of “The Vallas Group,” the Superintendent’s private consulting company. Others are consultants that Vallas has worked with in the past, especially when he was the CEO of the Philadelphia school system.

Connecticut ranks 1^st or 2^nd in the nation in the number of college graduates per capita.

There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of extraordinarily talented school administrators in the State of Connecticut, and yet Paul Vallas could not find a single qualified Connecticut resident to hire as a new senior administrator in his Central Office operation?

Just take a look at Vallas’ Bridgeport Management Team:

Connecticut residents in BLUE = There are none!

Every document Team Vallas send out refers to his claim that, under his leadership, Bridgeport’s “Central Office has undergone a 32% reduction in force as part of the district’s 2012-2013 budget and school improvement plan with the funneling of additional resources and personnel going directly into schools. Pretty impressive that he dumped one in every three central office staff people.

He goes on to point out that he has eliminated any long-term contracts and that all senior central office staff are now only on one year contracts or working on a per diem basis.

And Vallas’ budget documents note that the real bargain is that the taxpayers of Bridgeport and Connecticut don’t even have to pay for the central office staff. According to the documents, “the cost of Superintendent Vallas’ salary and additional Central Office administrator salaries were offset in the 2012 budget by foundation support provided by the Fairfield County Community Foundation. This support was necessary due to the concurrent cost of former Superintendent John J. Ramos contract.”

So here are a few questions;

(1) Is Team Vallas claiming that the new foundation provided Bridgeport with more than $1 million dollars to pay for all these new central office administrators? Hardly. The amount donated by the foundation barely covers Vallas’ pay and benefits let alone the additional dozen administrators he has brought in. Most of the $1 million in expenses are being picked up by unsuspecting taxpayers.

(2) As to the long-term savings, when these one-year and per diem people leave with Vallas in less than a year, the City will need to hire all new central office administrators, thereby pushing central office costs back up. (Those costs would increase even further if the Foundation hasn’t committed to providing funds year after year).

(3) And despite all the talk about fundamental, long-term change and the sustainability of those changes, by failing to hire ANY Connecticut school administrators, who exactly is supposed to continue to implement Vallas’ Five Year Plan when all the administrators that helped create it pack up and move on to “greener” pastures.

(4) And finally, at the July 16th meeting of Bridgeport’s illegal board of education, citizens urged the board to hold approving any more contracts until the new democratically elected board takes office in early September. According to the Connecticut Post, the Chairman of the illegal board, Robert Trefry, agreed and said he would “defer action on the contracts.”

One of the contracts that was put on hold was a new $143,000 full-time contract with one of Vallas’s people, Shively Willlingham, the Philadelphia principal, that Vallas has been paying $500 dollars a day to serve as a “special assistant superintendent for safety, security and school climate.”

Turns out, “put on hold” is a relative term because the agenda for tonight’s board of education meeting is scheduled to include a vote to hire Willingham after all. And the best part is that the guy will “start” in his new position on Sept. 4, the very day Bridgeport voters will finally have the opportunity to get the democratically elected board of education they deserve.

The only problem is that board will inherit Paul Vallas, his new $1 million staff, and even more employment contracts that will have to be funded.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

As states consider expansion following Supreme Court ruling on health reform, study shows significant benefits of covering more people

A new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that expanding Medicaid to low-income adults leads to widespread gains in coverage, access to care, and—most importantly—improved health and reduced mortality. It is the first published study to look specifically at the effect of recent state Medicaid expansions on mortality among low-income adults, and the findings suggest that expanding coverage to the uninsured may save lives.

“The recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act ruled that states could decide whether or not they wanted to participate in the health care law’s Medicaid expansion. Our study provides evidence suggesting that expanding Medicaid has a major positive effect on people’s health,” said Benjamin Sommers, assistant professor of health policy and economics at HSPH and the study’s lead author.

The study will be published online July 25, 2012 and will appear in the September 13, 2012 print issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the past decade, several states expanded Medicaid from its traditional coverage of low-income children, parents, pregnant women, and disabled persons to include “childless adults,” poor adults without any children living at home and the population most directly targeted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Medicaid currently covers 60 million people, and the ACA will extend eligibility to millions more beginning in 2014. However, the Supreme Court decision gives states the option of choosing whether or not to expand coverage and, because of budget pressures, some states are considering cutbacks, not expansion.

The HSPH researchers, including senior author Arnold Epstein, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management, and Katherine Baicker, professor of health economics, analyzed data from three states—Arizona, Maine, and New York—that had expanded their Medicaid programs to childless adults (aged 20-64) between 2000 and 2005. They selected four neighboring states without major Medicaid expansions—New Hampshire (for Maine), Pennsylvania (for New York), and Nevada and New Mexico (for Arizona)—as controls. The researchers analyzed data from five years before and after each state’s expansion.

The results showed that Medicaid expansions in three states were associated with a significant reduction in mortality of 6.1% compared with neighboring states that did not expand Medicaid, which corresponds to 2,840 deaths prevented per year for each 500,000 adults gaining Medicaid coverage. Mortality reductions were greatest among older adults, non-whites, and residents of poorer counties. Expansions also were associated with increased Medicaid coverage, decreased uninsurance, decreased rates of deferring care due to costs, and increased rates of “excellent” or “very good” self-reported health.

The groups that benefited from Medicaid expansion in this study—older adults, racial and ethnic minorities, and those living in poor areas—are groups that have traditionally had higher mortality rates and faced greater barriers to care. The study results provide valuable evidence for state policymakers deciding whether or not to expand Medicaid, say the authors.

“Sometimes the political rhetoric is at odds with the evidence, such as claims that Medicaid is a ‘broken program’ or worse than no insurance at all; our findings suggest precisely the opposite,” said Epstein.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

According to documents provided by City of Bridgeport employees, Paul Vallas, Bridgeport’s $229,000 Part-time Superintendent of Schools, or members of his senior staff, provided false information on official City documents in order to use a technique called “sole-sourcing” to give a major City contract to a company called the Public Consulting Group Inc. Vallas provided the same company with multi-million-dollars contracts when he was the CEO of the Chicago Schools and again when he was CEO of the Philadelphia Schools.

Up until this year, Bridgeport has been using a software program called Clarity to track and coordinate Bridgeport’s special education program. But this past March, Team Vallas used a “sole source” acquisition process to drop the Clarity software and sign a multi-year contract for the Public Consulting Group’s EasyIEP software.

After former Governor John Rowland went to prison for his criminal involvement in directing state contracts to particular vendors in return for kickbacks, the State of Connecticut and many of its cities and towns strengthened their laws and regulations requiring the use of competitive bidding when public entities are purchasing goods or services.

Today, contracts signed by the City of Bridgeport must meet the provisions of Connecticut State Statute 7-148v and Title 3 of Bridgeport’s Municipal Code.

These laws require that any contract over $7,500 must be competitively bid unless they meet a series of very limited exceptions.

In order to get an exemption from the competitive bidding requirement, the public official must submit a form PUR100: Justification for Sole Source Acquisition, and then receive approval to move forward. The exemption can only be granted when there are special circumstances that warrant not going through a bidding process.

In the case of the special education software, Team Vallas attempted to justify their sole source request by stating that the Public Consulting Group’s product was so special and so unique that it wasn’t even worth soliciting bids from other companies. The sole source request stated that “PCG’s EasyIEP system is the most comprehensive, all in one Medicaid/Health case management system available and that they offered a number of unique features”

Paul Vallas’ Chief of Staff expanded on their rationale in a response to a question on the Superintendent’s website: See https://sites.google.com/site/bpsdirect/question-forum-1.

As to why the Superintendent chose EasyIEP, his office stated;

“There are a multitude of reasons why Bridgeport Public Schools has found itself with a major budget deficit each of the last three years. One of these big factors which we uncovered in January was that over the past few years, Bridgeport has seen a massive drop off (40%) in the amount of potential Medicaid reimbursements which is currently being recouped.

A large part of this drop is due to the fact that with the Clarity software previously in use, all reimbursements had to be submitted manually. Additionally, the Clarity program was down to only two clients nationally, giving us some concerns about its future viability going forward. As a result, the district decided to look at potential different options. What we found in our search was that there was only one option which provided an automated Medicaid reimbursement process– EasyIEP. Not surprisingly, given that they offer this unique service, EasyIEP is currently used by 2,600 districts across the country.”

Apparently the purchasing department fell for that argument and the Vallas’ request to skip any competitive bidding was approved. Vallas signed a contract with the Public Consulting Group on April 23, 2012.

However, it turns out that almost every point that Paul Vallas and his team used to rationalize the appropriateness of skipping a competitive bidding process was false.

Team Vallas wrote that “a large part of this drop [in Bridgeport’s Medicaid Reimbursement Bridgeport] is due to the fact that with the Clarity software previously in use, all reimbursements had to be submitted manually.

The statement is COMPLETELY FALSE: Clarity actually has a state-of-the-art Medicaid Reimbursement Module for their software and that module ensures a school district gets all the Medicaid funds it is entitled to. However, the City of Bridgeport NEVER PURCHASED THAT MODULE and, instead, chose to handle all Medicaid reimbursement manually.

Team Vallas wrote that “the Clarity program was down to only two clients nationally, giving us some concerns about its future viability going forward.”

The statement is COMPLETELY FALSE: In fact, just last month, following an intensive competitive bid process to determine what was the best special education software for use in the State’s Technical High Schools, the Connecticut State Department of Education AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO CLARITY/EXCEED the very company that Vallas’ office claims is down to only two clients. What the failed to reveal was that the upgraded version of Clarity is being used under the name of Exceed and that Clarity/Exceed is being used in districts all across the country.

Team Vallas wrote that “as a result, the district decided to look at potential different options. What we found in our search was that there was only one option which provided an automated Medicaid reimbursement process– EasyIEP. Not surprisingly, given that they offer this unique service, EasyIEP is currently used by 2,600 districts across the country.”

The statement is COMPLETELY FALSE: There are, in fact, a number of vendors that provide very successful automated Medicaid reimbursement systems for school districts. In fact, the very company that Vallas terminated, Spectrum K12, which owns the Clarity/Exceed software is partnered with another firm called Accelify. A simple Internet search would have made it clear that Accelify is “one of the largest and fastest growing school-based Medicaid billing agents in the country, currently serving hundreds of school districts.” Undoubtedly Bridgeport’s existing vendor could have submitted a very competitive bid had they been given the opportunity.

And Team Vallas also wrote that EasyIEP is currently used in 2,600 districts.

And even that statement is COMPLETELY FALSE: EasyIEP’s own website claims that they are used in less than half of that number of districts.

Finally, perhaps most damning of all, is that even if Bridgeport determined that the best solution was to use the Public Consulting Group’s Medicaid Reimbursement software, one option would have been to do what a major Nevada school district did. They had Clarity/Exceed develop a “connection” that allowed all the necessary special education data to simply transfer over to PCG’s Medicaid billing system, thereby allowing the school district to utilize both programs.

The most preliminary investigation reveals that virtually nothing that Team Vallas claimed in their effort to give Bridgeport’s special education software contract to the Public Consulting Group was true.

Purposely ducking the competitive bidding laws and regulations in Connecticut and Bridgeport is a major violation of law and has far-reaching civil, and potentially even criminal, penalties.

Appropriate officials, including the Office of the Attorney General, the State Auditors and potentially even the Chief State’s Attorney, need to conduct a proper investigation and ensure that evidence is not destroyed.

And will the failure to competitively bid this project have a negative impact on taxpayers in Connecticut and Bridgeport?

Check back here at Wait, What for the next installment post on this issue.

Every Connecticut taxpayer will be disturbed by the ramifications of Team Vallas’ unwillingness to abide by the laws requiring competitive bidding.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Feeding America, the nation’s largest domestic hunger relief organization, is deeply concerned that the Farm Bill recently approved by the House Agriculture Committee would increase child hunger. The bill cuts $16.5 billion from the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP), which provides food relief to low-income individuals, nearly half of whom are children.

Proposed cuts would remove two to three million individuals from the SNAP program; an additional 500,000 households would have their SNAP benefits cut by $90 per month; and nearly 300,000 children would lose their free school lunch meals because of coordination with their family’s SNAP benefits. Feeding America is especially worried about the effect these cuts would have on the 1 in 5 children who live at risk of hunger in our nation. [i]

SNAP, previously called the Food Stamp Program, is a crucial safety net for low-income children who often are at risk of hunger. About 49 percent of SNAP households include children, and these households receive 71 percent of all SNAP benefits. [ii]  

Feeding America’s network of food banks serves nearly 14 million children each year. Food banks are already experiencing tremendous strain in the wake of the recession. If the proposed cuts to SNAP take place, food banks would be unable to make up for the loss of benefits to children and their families.

The following are important facts to consider:

• In 2010, 47 percent of SNAP recipients were children under the age of 18. This means nearly 19 million children relied on SNAP benefits. [iii]
• 75 percent of SNAP households include a child, elderly or disabled person. These households receive 84 percent of the total dispersed SNAP benefits.
• Food insecure children often struggle to thrive academically and physically. They often have trouble focusing in school and are more likely to repeat a grade.  Food insecure children are more likely to get sick and are 30 percent more likely to have a history of hospitalization. [iv]
• Households with children (20.2%) are more likely to be food insecure as households with no children (11.7%). [v]
• Child food insecurity is more pervasive in rural areas; over 60 percent of counties with the highest child food insecurity rates are classified as rural, even though rural counties make up only 43 percent of all counties in the United States. [vi]  
• SNAP households with children receive an average per person benefit of only $127 per month, or $1.41 per person per meal. [vii]
• When SNAP benefits are included in family income, the average annual decline in the severity of child poverty from 2000 to 2009 was 21.3 percent.[viii]

“We know that the first years of a child’s life are the most important. Research tells us that children from birth to the age of three, who do not receive proper nutrition, are at a significant risk of profound developmental impairments – both physical and mental. If SNAP funding is cut, the budget will be balanced at the expense of some of America’s most vulnerable children,” said Vicki Escarra, president and CEO of Feeding America. “America is struggling to emerge from this time of economic hardship and our children should not be made to bear the burden. It is imperative that children are given every opportunity to grow into healthy, productive citizens.”

Feeding America recently released a new report with updated data about the prevalence of food insecurity among children in the United States. Map the Meal Gap provides child food insecurity rates for every state and country across the country, underscoring the importance of protecting SNAP and other nutrition assistance programs in the Farm Bill. The data is available at www.feedingamerica.org/mapthegap.

[i] Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States in 2010. Table 1B. ERR-125, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. September 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/121076/err125_2_.pdf

[ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010. Table A. 1. September 2011. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm

[iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010. Table 3.5. September 2011. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Monthly Program Data, April 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

[iv] Brown, Larry J., Donald Shepard, Timothy Martin, John Orwat. The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger.  Sodexo Foundation. June 2007. http://www.sodexofoundation.org/hunger_us/Images/Cost%20of%20Domestic%20Hunger%20Report%20_tcm150-155150.pdf

[v] Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States in 2010. Table 2. ERR-125, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. September 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/121076/err125_2_.pdf

[vi] Gundersen, Craig, Elaine Waxman, Emily Engelhard, Theresa Del Vecchio, Amy Satoh, and Amanda Lopez-Betanzos. Map the Mal Gap 2012: Child Food Insecurity.  Feeding America, 2012. http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap/~/media/Files/a-map-2010/2010-MMG-Child-Executive-Summary-FINAL.ashx

[vii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010. Table 3.4. September 2011. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

Not a Conflict says Malloy school board appointee whose family company will get 60 of 130 new preschool slots in Bridgeport.

The Connecticut Post has picked up on the news that two daycare facilities that are personally connected to one of the Malloy Administration’s seven appointees to Bridgeport’s illegal board of education has “won” nearly half of all the new preschool slots the state is funding in Bridgeport.

According to the CT Post, “Nearly half of the new preschool slots awarded by the state to the city are going to a program that is part of the ministry of Rev. Kenneth Moales Jr., a state-appointed city school board member.”

The article continues that “Kingdom’s Little Ones Christian Academy, an East End daycare and after-school program run by Moales’ mother, Peggy Moales, and his sister, Kenya Moales-Byrd, is getting 60 of the 130 new slots awarded to the district and some $500,000 that goes with it”

Wait, What? Readers may remember a June 21st post about Moales and his conflict of interest.

Moales presently serves as the Vice Chairman of the school board that was appointed by the Malloy Administration when the State of Connecticut attempted to take over the Bridgeport Schools. Following a Supreme Court ruling that the State’s action was illegal, the appointed board was allowed to continue its work until a special election could be held to select democratically elected members of a new Bridgeport board of education, an election that will take place in September.

Moales, who is also one of the Democratic Party’s endorsed candidates for the new board, not only voted to hire Bridgeport’s present $229,000 part-time superintendent of schools Paul Vallas, but helped lead the effort to extend Vallas’ contract in order to prevent the new board from selecting a different administrator.

As I wrote about a month ago, Kingdom’s Little Ones in Christ, Inc., a company affiliated with Prayer Tabernacle Church of Love, Inc., [Moales’ church] had received approximately $600,000 in public funds for day care and after school services” from the City of Bridgeport over the past year and more than $2.2 million since 2006. You can find the details here: http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/06/21/rev-moales-its-called-freedom-information-act-even-applies-you/

As part of Governor Malloy’s “education reform” effort, the City of Bridgeport is now getting its share of an additional 1,000 early care slots.

The CT Post writes that according to Bridgeport’s director of early childhood education, the slots were “awarded based on strict state criteria that took into account whether providers had spaces immediately available, were already receiving early childhood slots from the state, had adequate and qualified staff and which were accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.”

Bridgeport’s School Readiness Council also plays a role in the allocation process and Moales’ sister serves on that committee.

When the allocations were announced late last week, the City of Bridgeport took 40 additional early education slots, Moales’ centers received 60 new slots and the remaining 30 will be given to other entities that provide these types of services.

When the CT Post asked Moales about the situation, he said that “it is not a conflict … I cannot apologize for being a leader in my community. I am not taking away anyone’s business”

While their corporate filings have not been properly maintained at the Secretary of State’s Office, Peggy Ann Moales, Kenneth Moales’ mother, appears to serve as the President of Kingdom’s Little Ones in Christ, Inc. and the President of Prayer Tabernacle Church of Love, Inc.

The full CT Post story can be read at more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-ed-board-member-denies-conflict-of-3729325.php

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A personal computer is a valuable job search tool, but for the unemployed and underemployed, a home computer might not be affordable during their time of need. Local law firm Pullman & Comley donated 175 gently used PCs to the long-term unemployed clients and other participants in Career Resources, Inc.’s programs.

The computers were distributed Friday at the Career Resources, Inc. office in Bridgeport.

One recipient, Samaris Alarcon, was laid off last year. “It’s been a long road,” she said. Alarcon took the initiative to enroll in Career Resources Inc.’s job training programs and now has her GED, a job training certificate and a computer of her own! “I am ecstatic and excited about receiving a computer,” she said.

Career Resources, Inc. provides youth and adults throughout Connecticut the skills, resources and support necessary for personal development, economic self-sufficiency and career advancement, and provides planning and staffing resources to the business community in support of workforce development and economic growth.

“Career Resources is one of the premier agencies in the region offering job placement assistance and career services to those who need it the most.” said John Stafstrom of Pullman and Comley. “By donating our former equipment for training purposes, we are pleased to support Career Resources’ mission of helping people get back on their feet and find jobs.”

Career Resources, Inc. Executive Director, Scott Wilderman said recently, “The generous contribution by Pullman & Comley gives our clients hope, a belief that the community understands their plight. And the computers give them a tool to find work and a better chance to land a job.”

Pullman & Comley has offices in Bridgeport, Hartford, Stamford, Waterbury and White Plains, New York.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Linda McMahon’s tax returns underscore her self-serving politics and show how the Republican millionaire is promoting policies that stand to benefit millionaires like herself. On Friday, McMahon finally succumbed to weeks of bipartisan public pressure and released her tax returns which showed that the millionaire made almost $31 million in 2010 alone, and paid leess than 16% in taxes. While McMahon has yet to release her 2011 returns, the documents from 2010 show that McMahon stands to reap even a larger massive financial windfall should she be able to implement her economic policies in the Senate, including her call to protect the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Linda McMahon’s tax returns only further demonstrate how the Connecticut Republican is only interested in protecting millionaires like herself. Linda McMahon’s so called ‘jobs’ plan is rooted in failed economic policies designed to protect the wealthiest Americans, like herself, and represents the worst kind of self-serving politics.

McMahon and her husband have made millions of dollars marketing sex and violence to little kids, all at the expense of the health and safety of their own employees. Her “jobs plan” retreads failed Republican economic policies including a call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires like herself. The plan itself has also become the source of controversy after it was reported that an “economist” her campaign paid to tout the plan was really just a shill for corporate special interests.

Linda McMahon made millions marketing sex and violence to little kids, all at the expense of the health and safety of her own employees. Her policies are designed to protect the wealthiest Americans and that proves that while she may make a great Senator for millionaires like herself, she would be terrible for Connecticut’s middle-class.”

BACKGROUND:

McMahon Wanted To Extend Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest Americans. In July 2012, CT News Junkie blog reported, “It should be noted that unlike Obama, McMahon wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, while cutting taxes for the middle class.” [CT News Junkie, 7/10/12]

McMahon Opposed Buffett Rule, Which Would Close Loopholes That Allow Millionaires And Billionaires To Pay A Lower Tax Rate Than Middle-Class Americans. In April 2012, a McMahon spokeswoman said, “Linda believes that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. The Buffett Rule is an election year gimmick that doesn’t create jobs, help our economy or address tax relief.” (The ‘Buffett Rule’ that would make sure millionaires and billionaires do not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class taxpayers. It would raise the tax rate on investment income to 30 percent. The Buffett Rule would seek to close loopholes so the rich pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.)

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Education stimulus funds largely met the goal of saving or creating jobs for K-12 teachers and other education personnel, according to a summary of three years of survey research by the Center on Education Policy at the George Washington University (CEP). However, ongoing state budget shortfalls have slowed state implementation of education reforms tied to the receipt of stimulus money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

“Federal stimulus funds appear to have blunted the effects of the economic downturn on the K-12 education sector,” said Maria Ferguson, CEP’s executive director. “Although many districts still had to eliminate teaching and other key staff positions, our research indicates that the situation would have been worse without the stimulus funds.”

The CEP report, What Impact Did Education Stimulus Funds Have on States and Schools?, summarizes the effects of the ARRA on K-12 education after three years of implementation. Findings are drawn from surveys, conducted between December 2009 and February 2012, of state and local officials charged with implementing the ARRA and Education Jobs programs and were previously described in six previous CEP reports on ARRA.

In 2010, about 70 percent of the nation’s school districts used State Fiscal Stabilization funding, the largest pot of ARRA education money, to save or create jobs for teachers and other school personnel, CEP found. In 2011, a vast majority of the states surveyed by CEP also reported that ARRA and Education Jobs funds had saved teaching jobs and other district and school-level positions in their state. In addition, the majority of districts receiving ARRA supplemental funds for the federal Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs reported using at least some of those funds to save or create jobs.

“Given that nearly 84 percent of nation’s school districts reported funding cuts for the school year that just ended, parents and students may not see the full benefits of these reforms until local economic conditions improve,” said Alexandra Usher, CEP’s senior research assistant and co-author of the report. The report also finds that the state education agencies (SEAs) charged with guiding the implementation of ARRA reforms face funding and staffing challenges. Most SEAs report that they have enough expertise to carry out the ARRA reforms, but fewer report having enough staff to fully implement the reforms, and even fewer reported having enough financial resources. Further, while SEAs have not been immune to staff cuts, it appears that most have done so strategically, often cutting positions not related to the four reforms.

“These underfunded and understaffed agencies are charged with many duties under federal K-12 education programs,” said Diane Stark Rentner, CEP’s deputy director and co-author of the report. “If federal policymakers continue to rely on states as their agents of change, attention must also be paid to the capacity of these agencies to guide school improvement efforts.”