In directing $80 billion in stimulus dollars over two years to the nation’s elementary and secondary schools, the Obama administration made a big deal about tying the money to school reform. States were required to make four assurances in accepting the money, including, most importantly, a commitment to make progress in producing more effective teachers and seeing that they are equitably distributed in low-income schools.

But those assurances, it turns out, were vague and unenforceable. California got 90 percent of the money without having to tell the feds what steps it planned to take, and the Obama administration had no way to hold it accountable anyway.

It was only last month, in applying for $324 million (see SFSF Phase 2 application, Part 1, page 14) , the last 10 percent of its share of the $37 billion federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund – the largest piece of the education stimulus bill – that the state Department of Education had to commit to anything. And even then it was only to make public data that it collects on distribution of highly qualified teachers  and begin surveying districts on their collective bargaining practices. As for doing anything meaningful to address the documented disparities of experienced and effective teachers  in low-performing schools: nothing.

The stimulus bill’s lack of teeth was the inevitable conflict of two incompatible goals: reforming schools and rescuing states whacked by the recession. The latter won out, since Congress and the Obama administration wanted to get the money out as fast as possible, without being accused of  creating red tape and delays. And stimulus money did save the jobs of thousands of teachers in California – though probably for only one or two years.

But the law further undermined any prospect for reform by parceling out K-12 dollars strictly by existing formulas, either total  student population or numbers of poor students, and then explicitly forbidding governors from altering that. They couldn’t award extra money to districts that negotiated changes in teacher contracts to address  teacher equity and performance.

Formula driven, with no discretion

Instead, Education Secretary Arne Duncan is counting on competition for Race to the Top  funding to drive reform in the areas that the assurances were supposed to cover: teacher quality, better use of data, revised standards and assessments and turning around failing schools. But Race to the Top amounts to little more than 5 percent of the money that the feds will have handed out, and only a small number of states will probably get funding, forcing them to change. In California’s case, most local teachers unions refused to a sign memorandums of understanding committing them to tie pay to performance.

The Obama administration probably missed an opportunity to use leverage of stimulus money to drive change. It could have encouraged districts to use one-time money to buy out veteran teachers’ contracts, saving newer teachers’ jobs. Or it could have required states and districts to minimize the role of seniority when it comes to layoffs, contributing to the churn of younger teachers disproportionately in low-performing schools.

Gov. Schwarzenegger wants the Legislature to pass such a law this year. But without the force of Washington behind him, the odds of success are small.