Accountability and assessment, and the underlying tenet of high-expectations, are the most important factors that set the Federal Legislative Act No Child Left Behind (NCLB) apart from earlier education reform legislation.

NCLB is a landmark bill which redefines the federal role in K-12 education. It aims to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their affluent peers, as well as to improve education in the United States in order to compete globally.

DFER strongly believes that although NCLB was not properly funded or implemented under the Bush administration, this policy to improve our country's standard of education through accountability and assessment is incredibly important. For these reasons, DFER supports the reauthorization of a strong NCLB law.

For more about the history and goals of federal education legislation, please read DFER's own Director of Federal Policy, Charles Barone's policy briefing memo, Keeping Achievement Relevant: The Reauthorization of 'No Child Left Behind'.

DFER believes that public charter schools are an important alternative to traditional public schools. Most public charter schools are allowed the opportunity to explore innovative ways of educating children, as well as the ability to create their own rules, agenda, and mission. Examples of this freedom include longer school days (which aides working families that are unable to afford childcare) and innovative classes in addition to traditional subjects.

Like traditional public schools, charter schools are held accountable and must meet testing requirements. If they fail to meet academic standards they will be, and should be, shut down. Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are also held accountable by parents and the community at large.

Most of all, DFER supports public charter schools because they work. In communities across the country, public charter schools are producing positive results.

DFER supports the idea of holding mayors accountable for the successful operation of schools in cities where school boards are ineffective and schools are failing. Urban school districts face unique challenges because, among other things, many students are disadvantaged, schools are often underfunded, and many are unable to recruit top tier teachers - but these conditions only make it much more crucial that strong school leaders be able to break through and support excellent teaching and learning.

Examples of successful mayoral control exist in New York City (Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein), Chicago (Mayor Richard Daily and then-CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan), and the District of Columbia (Mayor Adrian Fenty and Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee).

Programs such as TFA not only provide their recruits with the tools necessary to become teachers, but also encourage and motive these young talents to remain in the education field after their teaching requirement is completed, if not by teaching directly, then by working to improve education through other means.

As co-founders of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin, wrote in the Washington Post opinion piece, What 'Yes, We Can' Should Mean for Our Schools (1/9/2009), "We should assess teachers on their demonstrated impact on student learning, not whether they hold traditional teacher certifications." DFER agrees.

As DFER board member Sara Mead writes in her policy briefing memo, Partners in Closing the Achievement Gap: How Charter Schools Can Support Quality Universal Pre-K, "States are investing in pre-k because research shows that high-quality pre-kindergarten programs can have a positive long-term impact on children's life outcomes, help narrow the achievement gap between poor and affluent youngsters, and that the benefits of these investments to children and the taxpaying public outweigh their costs."

Two longitudinal studies researching the effect and impact of early education in at-risk youths, the Chicago Child Parent Center Study and the Perry Pre-school Project, conclude that early-education promotes academic success through college, higher paying jobs out of college, and fewer negative interactions with the police and other authorities.

Groff was also a founding member of the Democrats for Education Reform-Colorado steering committee. (The name itself invites some amusement: What, one wonders, do the other Democrats call themselves? Democrats Who Believe in Public Education As It Is, With Woeful Dropout Figures, Alarming Achievement Gaps, and Disappointing Academic Achievement?) The Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) states that its mission "is to encourage a more productive dialogue within the Democratic Party on the need to fundamentally reform American public education." Groff received the DFER's Education Warrior Award last year.

How is that "productive dialogue within the Democratic Party" going? The public talk is impressive; it is all on the side of Big Changes, No More Incremental Change, and Everything is On the Table.

But in truth, when Groff was nominated for his new position in the U.S. Department of Education, Joe Williams, executive director of the Democrats for Education Reform, noted: "Peter will be missed in Colorado, where his willingness to find new ways to solve old problems in education have helped put the Rocky Mountain State on the reform map." Then Williams offered a mild warning: "We look forward to working with the next generation of Colorado leaders to make sure public education reform does not stall in his absence."

Which is exactly what might happen. A recent article in The Denver Post, "School-reform allies regroup in state Senate," stated: "Freshman Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, and a former state Board of Education member, and some of her Democratic colleagues f ound the 2009 session 'frustrating' and too centered on elevating charter schools at the expense of traditional school districts, she said. 'I think a lot of it was due to the Groff-Romer team. I expect things to be less frustrating (next year),' Hudak said." (May 24, 2009).

It has been a breath of fresh air to hear Democratic leaders less beholden to the system, less quick to defend the education establishment.

Sure, more money would be welcome. It is exciting to think of the good efforts that could grow. But this one-time foundation program officer recalls times when you ask enough hard questions of those seeking a grant and it becomes clear that -- for all the nice words -- their heart isn't in it. They are saying what they think you want to hear, not what they believe.

Should Washington hear that false note as Colorado tries to present its best case, perhaps it will decide to sow its seeds on more fertile soil.

Peter Huidekoper Jr. of Parker is a teacher. EDITOR'S NOTE: This online-only guest commentary has not been edited. Guest commentary submissions of up to 650 words may be sent to openforum@denverpost.com.

Sharpton intoned, "The nation's future is at stake, our children [are] at stake."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan was there to lend the administration's support. "There's a real sense of economic imperative," he said. "We have to educate our way [to] a better economy."

Though the media portrayed the meeting as one among "strange bedfellows," in fact Sharpton, Gingrich and Bloomberg are all on the same side of the education policy debate roiling the Democratic Party. The three are spokesmen for the Education Equality Project (EEP), an advocacy group that has attracted widespread media attention since its June 2008 launch, in large part because of its bipartisan call for policies like merit pay and the expansion of the charter school sector. With the support of rising star Democrats like Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory Booker and Washington, DC, Mayor Adrian Fenty, the EEP and such allied groups as the political action committee Democrats for Education Reform--have openly pushed back against the influence of teachers unions, community groups and teachers colleges over national education policy. Proclaiming themselves "reformers," they often borrow their strategies from the private sector, and they believe urban public schools must be subjected to more free-market competition.

Theoretically, there is no reason all these people can't work together. Some charter schools, after all, have had extraordinary success in raising the achievement of low-income students--even, in some cases, with the cooperation of teachers unions. Many younger teachers appear enthusiastic about performance-based pay, although there is no evidence from the cities that have tried it, like Denver, that it improves student achievement. Yet the single-mindedness--some would say obsessiveness--of the reformers' focus on these specific policy levers puts off more traditional Democratic education experts and unionists. As they see it, with the vast majority of poor children educated in traditional public schools, education reform must focus on improving the management of the public system and the quality of its services--not just on supporting charter schools. What's more, social science has long been clear on the fact that poverty and segregation influence students' academic outcomes at least as much as do teachers and schools.

Obama's decision to invite representatives of only one side of this divide to the Oval Office confirmed what many suspected: the new administration--despite internal sympathy for the "broader, bolder approach"--is eager to affiliate itself with the bipartisan flash and pizazz around the new education reformers. The risk is that in doing so the administration will alienate supporters with a more nuanced view of education policy. What's more, critics contend that free-market education reform is a top-down movement that is struggling to build relationships with parents and community activists, the folks who typically support local schools and mobilize neighbors on their behalf.

So keenly aware of this deficit are education reformers that a number of influential players were involved in the payment of $500,000 to Sharpton's nearly broke nonprofit, the National Action Network, in order to procure Sharpton as a national spokesman for the EEP. And Sharpton's presence has unquestionably benefited the EEP coalition, ensuring media attention and grassroots African-American crowds at events like the one held during Obama's inauguration festivities, at Cardozo High School in Washington. 

"Sharpton was a pretty big draw," says Washington schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, recalling the boisterous crowd at Cardozo. Rhee is known for shutting down schools and aggressively pursuing a private sector-financed merit pay program. Some of the locals who came out to hear Sharpton booed Rhee's speech at the same event, despite the fact that her policies embody the movement for which Sharpton speaks.

The $500,000 donation to Sharpton's organization was revealed by New York Daily News  columnist Juan Gonzalez on April 1, as the EEP and National Action Network were co-hosting a two-day summit in Harlem, attended by luminaries including Chicago schools CEO Arne Duncan. The money originated in the coffers of Plainfield Asset Management, a Connecticut-based hedge fund whose managing director is former New York City schools chancellor Harold Levy, an ally of the current chancellor, Joel Klein. Plainfield has invested in Playboy, horse racetracks and biofuels. But the company did not donate the money directly to Sharpton. Rather, in what appears to have been an attempt to cover tracks, the $500,000 was given to a nonprofit entity called Education Reform Now, which has no employees. (According to IRS filings, Education Reform Now had never before accepted a donation of more than $92,500.) That group, in turn, funneled the $500,000 to Sharpton's nonprofit.

If one person is at the center of this close-knit nexus of Wall Street and education reform interests, it is Joe Williams, who serves as president and treasurer of the EEP's board and is also the executive director of Education Reform Now. But it is through his day job that Williams, a former education reporter for the Daily News, exerts the most influence. He is executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a four-year-old PAC that has gained considerable influence, raising $2 million in 2008 and demonstrating remarkable public relations savvy.

The group's six-person team works out of an East Forty-fifth Street office donated--rent-free--by the hedge fund Khronos LLC. In recent months, DFER has had a number of high-profile successes, chief among them a highly coordinated media campaign to call into question the work of Obama education adviser Linda Darling-Hammond, once considered a top contender for the job of education secretary. During the same week in early December, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Boston Globe published editorials or op-eds based on DFER's anti-Darling-Hammond talking points, which focused on the Stanford professor's criticisms of Teach for America and other alternative-certification programs for teachers. Less than two weeks later, Obama appointed DFER's choice to the Education Department post, Chicago schools CEO Duncan.

During campaign season, DFER donated to House majority whip James Clyburn, Senator Mark Warner and Virginia swing district winner Representative Tom Periello, among others. The organization regularly hosts events introducing education reformers like Rhee and Fenty to New York City "edupreneurs," finance industry players for whom education reform is a sideline. DFER is focused on opening a second office, in Colorado, a state viewed as being in the forefront of standards- and testing-based education reform. The group successfully promoted Denver schools superintendent Michael Bennett to fill the Senate seat vacated when Obama named Ken Salazar as interior secretary. Bennett led the school system with the highest-profile merit pay system in the nation.

During the Democratic Party's national convention in Denver this past August, DFER hosted a well-attended event at the Denver Museum of Art, during which Fenty, Booker, Klein, Sharpton and other well-known Democrats openly denigrated teachers unions, whose members accounted for 10 percent of DNCC delegates. With Clyburn and other veteran members of Congress in attendance, many longtime observers of Democratic politics believed the event represented a sea change in the party's education platform, the arrival of a new generation. While progressive groups such as Education Sector, Education Trust and the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights have long attempted to push free-market education reforms to the Democratic Party, it is only with the arrival of DFER that the movement has had a lobbying arm with an explicit focus on influencing the political process through fundraising and media outreach.

"For a lot of groups that are dependent upon both private money and government money, there's a tendency not to want to get involved in the nitty-gritty of politics," Williams said in a March 31 phone interview from Denver, where he was meeting with Colorado politicians, setting the stage for DFER's expansion there. "Our group--what we do is politics. We make it clear: we're not an education reform group. We're a political reform group that focuses on education reform. That distinction matters because all of our partners are the actual education reform groups. We're trying to give them a climate where it's easier for them to do their work."

The education reformers who came to prominence in the 1990s, including the founders of Teach for America and the Knowledge Is Power Program, the national charter school network that fought unionization in one of its Brooklyn schools, often went to great lengths to portray themselves as explicitly apolitical. Nevertheless, "a lot of those people are, politically, Democrats," says Sara Mead, a DFER board member and director of early childhood programs at the Washington-based New America Foundation. "One of those things that DFER does that's really important is to help give those people a way to assert their identity as Democrats. It's important for those groups' long-term success, but also for Democrats, to the extent that some of these organizations are doing really good things for the kids whose parents are Democratic constituents. It's important that those organizations are identified with us rather than being co-opted by Republicans, as they were in the past."

The question remains, though, whether DFER and its allies actually do speak for poor and minority parents and their kids. Who on the left would disagree that the staggering achievement gap between middle-class white kids and poor children of color is a civil rights issue of national importance? Who wouldn't view the high dropout rates among black and Latino boys as a disgrace? And yet there is no clear national representation for the interests of the urban, mostly black and Hispanic parents whose children's schools confront these statistics day in and day out.

"On the local level is a certain distrust and despair about schools that makes poor families accessible" to free-market education reformers, says Deborah Meier, an education professor at New York University and the founder of several successful experimental public schools for poor children. "But I think the intersection between poverty and racism can't just be tackled in this one area, in schools."

Teachers unions, with their focus on wraparound social services for poor kids and better working conditions for teachers, believe they are the natural spokespeople for poor families. But so do union critics such as Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and Joe Williams, who are sympathetic to No Child Left Behind and standardized testing, and whose allies support private school voucher programs.

"The DFERs, when they look at vouchers and charters, they don't look at the underlying conditions," says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. "Parents want to send their kids to charters and parochial schools because they like the smaller class sizes, they like the attention to safety, they like the attention to conditions that public school teachers talk about all the time. They make us the villains instead of the people who have the most power--the superintendents and mayors."

Weingarten says she likes Williams, who is in fact a reasonable and calm interlocutor; he even walks the walk by sending his children to New York City public schools. Some of DFER's board members, though, such as investment manager and a Teach for America founder Whitney Tilson, have been known to grow overheated in their attacks on unions, calling them corrupt and claiming that their leaders don't care about children. Traditional education liberals can be just as harsh on the subject of DFER. Criticizing the group's lack of commitment to the racial integration of schools, veteran education writer Jonathan Kozol said,
"DFER is working in historical oblivion. If they're going to betray everything that Dr. King and Thurgood Marshall fought for, at least they ought to have the honesty to say so."

DFER is focused on reaching out to state legislators across the country, pressing them to support policies such as lifting the cap on the number of charter schools allowed to open in a year. DFER is also carefully watching how Congress and the Obama administration dole out the $100 billion for schools included in the February economic stimulus package.

Much of that money will fill local budget gaps, simply allowing school districts to continue their work without resorting to massive layoffs. But a $5 billion "race to the top" fund is intended specifically to foster innovation and reform in a small number of states--perhaps
between eight and twelve--that win a competitive grant process. As White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in March, "The resources come with a bow tied around them that says 'reform.' Our basic premise is that the status quo and political constituencies can no longer determine how we proceed on public education reform in this country."

That sounds a lot like a DFER talking point. Indeed, it has become clear that DFER's idea of education reform is the one driving the Obama administration as it distributes these funds. In a major March 10 address on education delivered to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
Obama spoke glowingly of charter schools and merit pay plans. "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom," he said--though education research has yet to offer proof that merit pay is a panacea. Later in the speech, the president called charter schools the national leaders on education "innovation" and called on states to allow their proliferation.

Two weeks later, during a conference call with reporters, Duncan said thirty-six school districts across the country are doing "interesting things around [teacher] compensation" and added he hoped federal stimulus dollars will increase that number to 150. The education
secretary called "rewarding teacher excellence" a major priority but would not be more specific about how such "excellence" should be determined.

Darling-Hammond--back at Stanford but still advising the Obama administration--is focusing her latest research on international teacher quality. Nations like South Korea and Singapore have managed to reduce education inequality by building stable, high-quality teacher forces,
she says. The key is paying teachers more, across the board, and providing them with better professional training and support. Test-score-based merit pay, according to Darling-Hammond, is a "marginal issue."

On the ground, however, merit pay has become a major point of contention: in districts like Washington, some teachers have resisted calls for student test scores to heavily influence their salaries, and parents have protested the firings of popular teachers, professionals they believe were making a difference in their children's lives.

Unexplained teacher firings "are not a way to run a school," says Ruth Castel-Branco, an organizer with DC Jobs With Justice. "That shakes up the very foundation of stability that schools have to have. There has to be due process and a meaningful way for parents to engage."

So far, at least, free-market education reformers have struggled with this piece of the puzzle. Lacking a membership base, their movement's lobbying arm is essentially top-down, financed by New York hedge-funders, supported by research conducted at Beltway think tanks and represented on the ground by a handful of state and local politicians scattered across the country. And while it's true that charter schools and Teach for America instructors interact with children and parents every day, the excitement around individual schools and classrooms does not easily translate into a national agenda. After all, the vast majority of urban students remain in traditional public schools, taught by teachers who came through traditional teachers
college certification routes.

Even the involvement of Al Sharpton can't change those facts. Joe Williams, who describes himself as chastened by his involvement in the $500,000 payment to Sharpton's group, will admit that. "I wouldn't even consider Sharpton grassroots, actually," Williams says. "But he holds a lot of power. He brings attention to an issue like this."

Dana Goldstein is an associate editor at American Prospect.

Compare our "We're Freaking New York, So Fund Us" approach, to what we see in Colorado, where Gov. Bill Ritter actually appointed a Race To The Top Czar to make sure the state wins outright in the battle for the most reform-friendly state.

The drumbeat from Duncan and his team on this race has been hard to miss: Despite widespread criticism that they couldn't possibly be serious about having merits trump Congressional district politics,they seem... serious!

And people are picking up on that fact. There's suddenly a lot of exciting action out there around the country on this stuff:

-- In Illinois, both the House and Senate over the weekend responded to Duncan's criticism of the state's charter school laws by passing a major charter reform law. SB 612 goes to the Governor's office.  The law doubles the charter cap, eliminates a geographic cap and sets up a 6 month process to design an independent authorizer for charters in Illinois.

-- In Rhode Island, State Education officials on Friday approved the first of an exciting new kind of charter school which would be operated by suburban mayors. Cumberland Mayor Daniel J. McKee won support for the mayoral academy concept from the General Assembly in 2008, but had to wait for the state Department of Education to review his proposal in order to open the elementary school this fall in Cumberland. (Disclosure: I am on the board of the flagship school, which will be run by Democracy Builders, the CMO that runs Democracy Prep in Harlem.)

-- In Tennessee, after Duncan suggested to reporters that a recent move to kill charter school legislation by a bloc of Democrats in the Legislature could cost the state $100 million in Race To The Top funds, some electeds are now having second thoughts. Remarked House Democratic Caucus Leader Mike Turner in the Tennessean: "No one has said a word to me about this... Obama ought to call us and tell us this stuff. If he would have called us and told us this, we might have had a different outlook."

And I am hearing that at least one state is on the verge of proposing some sensible "smart cap" legislation.

The race is on.

Michael Bennet's record U.S. Senate fundraising pace is built on out-of-state donations, Colorado donors concentrated in Denver, and well-heeled associates from his past endeavors in politics and business.

It's a tried-and-true formula for neophyte politicians, especially those in swing states defending Senate seats where the price of victory may be more than $10 million.

"You essentially start with your Rolodex, otherwise known as your family or other people that can't say no to you," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the Cook Political Report.

A Denver Post analysis of the $1.4 million the Democrat raised in the first three months of 2009 showed:

• Less than half of the $1.1 million he raised from individual contributors came from Colorado. He received more than $100,000 from donors in New York, Washington, D.C., and California each.

• His Colorado donor base was heavily Denver-oriented. More than 60 percent came from the state's capital. He got no contributions from Pueblo, Greeley or Grand Junction and only one from Fort Collins.

• About a third of his donors gave the maximum $2,400 for the primary or $4,800 for the entire election. Combined they accounted for almost 60 percent of the money he raised from individuals.

• He tapped into networks he built while working for businessman Philip Anschutz and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, and as superintendent of Denver Public Schools.

The $1.4 million in donations, includes contributions from political action committees. That was the fifth-highest amount collected among all U.S. senators during the quarter, surpassing veteran senators such as Arizona's John McCain and Connecticut's Chris Dodd, according to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. Both are powerful incumbents seeking re-election in 2010.

"I think the impressive thing from Bennet's standpoint is the overall sum he raised," said political consultant and analyst Eric Sondermann.

Trying to defend his Senate seat

Bennet will try to defend the seat he was appointed to earlier this year after incumbent Democrat Ken Salazar was named secretary of the Interior. So far, Bennet has two Republican challengers -- Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck.

Mark Udall raised more than $11 million in his winning race in 2008. Winning Colorado's other Senate seat in 2010 is likely to require at least as much.

More than half of Bennet's donations from individuals, about $600,000, came from outside Colorado, the analysis showed.

John Straayer, political science professor at Colorado State University, said that is not unusual in Senate races, especially in smaller states where donations from special-interest groups can have a greater impact.

"A state with half a million people like Wyoming has about as much clout as a state like California (in the Senate)," Straayer said. "There is an incentive to put money in Senate seats because you get a hell of a bang for your buck."

In addition, Bennet's race is drawing national attention as Democrats seek to get a supermajority of 60 seats in 2010, Straayer said.

Bennet took in $186,500 from New York and $136,958 from Washington, D.C.

Craig Hughes, Bennet's campaign manager, said many of his out-of-state donations are a result of his connections from his work in both the private and public sector.

"He has such a broad background. It's a unique mix of public/private," Hughes said.

The contributors included many educational-reform advocates. For example, New Yorker Jaime Aquino, who served as Bennet's chief academic officer at DPS, gave the maximum $4,800, and the director of Democrats for Education Reform gave him $1,000. That group is hosting a $1,000-a-seat fundraiser for Bennet in New York on June 8.

Within Colorado, Denver donors dominated, accounting for $317,150 .

The donations tend to reflect Bennet's name recognition in Colorado, said Ken Bickers, chair of the political science department at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

"My guess if you could overlay name recognition (over donations), it would map pretty closely," Bickers said.

Hughes said the campaign concentrated on Denver during the first quarter and is now branching out.

"The beginning of the fundraising started in Denver and now we're working our way out," he said.

Friends and associates pitched in

Bennet's vast circle of friends and associates also helped raise money, Hughes said.

Seven current and former DPS officials donated $10,100, four Anschutz executives donated $15,400, and five current and former members of Hickenlooper's staff accounted for $7,300.

The first person to contribute to his campaign was Kristin Waters, who Bennet selected as principal of Bruce Randolph School.

Bennet's own family contributed $24,000.

"He's grabbed the low-hanging fruit," Sondermann said.

Republican challengers Buck and Frazier vowed to run grassroots, statewide fundraising campaigns. Both don't have to report contributions until this summer because they announced their campaigns after the first-quarter filing deadline.

"We're going to have more donors from more places, but you are going to see smaller amounts," Buck said.

Frazier said he probably needs to raise up to $10 million for the race.

"For me, our approach is going to be homegrown Colorado," he said.

Hughes said the Bennet campaign expects to need between $10 million and $12 million altogether.

That means the pace won't slow in the coming months, Duffy said.

"While $1.4 million is a fabulous number, he's got to better that almost every single quarter," she said.

Burt Hubbard: 303-954-5107 or bhubbard@denverpost.com

Gary Crosby, chief financial officer of the Buffalo Public Schools, misses the point of the lawsuit by charter schools to stop audits by the state comptroller ("Lawsuit to block comptroller's audits is misguided," The News, May 13).

Fifteen charter schools, along with the New York Charter Schools Association and the New York City Charter School Center, sued the state comptroller in 2007 because the New York State Constitution under Article V limits the entities in which the comptroller is permitted to audit to political subdivisions of the state.

Charter schools are not governmental entities or political subdivisions and, therefore, are beyond the reach of the comptroller. The Legislature, however, did authorize charter schools to be approved and overseen by a chartering authorizer and the Board of Regents. Each of these agencies is charged with monitoring their fiscal and educational soundness. Additionally, these agencies themselves are subject to comptroller audit and oversight.

The lawsuit by charter schools was upheld in State Supreme Court, but the decision was reversed by the Appellate Division last January. The Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, will hear the case next month.

The Court of Appeals recognized the limits of the comptroller's auditing power in a 1996 case when it struck down audits of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which administers hundreds of millions in public monies for insurance policies, but also is overseen by the State Insurance Department and the Department of Health.

Charter schools have been and remain under heavy oversight by the state and school districts that have authorized charters, more so than what any school district must undergo. Charter schools have numerous educational and financial reporting requirements to their own board of trustees, the school district, chartering entity and the Board of Regents. They also must have an annual financial audit by an independent certified public accountant.

As a practical matter, it makes no sense for the comptroller to be attempting to perform the financial oversight of charter schools or other public, nonprofit organizations every five to 10 years, when the Regents and charter authorizers are already performing these functions throughout the year.

If Crosby or anyone at the state Education Department or other charter authorizer believes its oversight is somehow insufficient regarding charter schools, he has the statutory and constitutional power to increase that oversight. The comptroller does not, under the state constitution, and that fact should be respected.

Joe Williams is executive director of Democrats for Education Reform.

By ALYSON KLEIN

President Barack Obama’s first budget proposal would boost U.S. Department of Education spending by 2.8 percent and provide substantial resources to turn around low-performing schools, reward effective teachers, and bolster early-childhood programs.

But—not counting massive one-time increases in the recent economic-stimulus legislation—the plan also provides no more than level-funding for special education and, arguably, a cut to grants for districts under the Title I program for disadvantaged students.

The budget would also seek to eliminate 12 programs the White House deems ineffective, including the $66 million Even Start Family Literacy program.

The president’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal, released last week, would provide $46.7 billion to the Education Department, an increase of $1.3 billion over fiscal 2009.

The figure is separate from some $100 billion for education approved as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and does not include a proposed change in the Pell Grant program for college students that would shift it from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the ledger.

Some of the money would be redirected to the Title I School Improvement grant program, which provides grants to states to help turn around schools that are struggling to meet student-achievement goals set by the 7-year-old No Child Left Behind Act. The school improvement program would nearly triple from $545 million this year to $1.5 billion in fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1. And that doesn’t include a $3 billion one-time infusion approved as part of the stimulus package.

The proposed shift in funds has advocates for school districts worried about the potential long-term impact on local coffers.

“The dollar amounts that districts build [their budgets] off of has been cut in the president’s budget,” said Mary Kusler, the assistant director of advocacy and policy for the American Association of School Administrators, based in Arlington, Va.

She said districts might have to consider using stimulus money to cover shortfalls in Title I, “lessening the potential impact of [the stimulus].”

But U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan described the change as a redirection of resources to the schools most in need.

“We’re really trying to focus with a laser-like focus on the lowest-performing schools around the country,” Mr. Duncan told reporters in a May 7 conference call. Under the Obama proposal, 40 percent of the Title I school improvement funds would have to go middle and high schools.

Funding Performance Pay

The budget proposal also seeks a significant increase for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which awards grants to school districts to develop performance-pay programs. The budget would hike TIF spending to $517.3 million in fiscal 2010, up from $97.3 million in the current year. The increase would include $30 million for a national teacher-recruitment campaign. That would be on top of a $200 million one-time increase in the stimulus measure.

Under the proposal, the TIF money could be used to reward school employees other than teachers, such as custodians and cafeteria workers.

President Obama has promoted alternative pay plans for teachers, both on the 2008 campaign trail and in his first prominent speech on education since taking office, delivered in March. But the budget proposal is a sign that the administration is willing to put money behind the rhetoric, said John Bailey, who served as an adviser on education to President George W. Bush.

Marc Egan, a federal lobbyist for the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, said that instead of the bigger increase for TIF, the union would prefer to see an increase for the Improving Teacher Quality State grants, which would receive level funding.

Some advocates for education redesign question whether the funding increases for TIF and the school improvement grants would improve student outcomes.

Charles Barone, the director of federal policy for Democrats for Education Reform, a New York City-based political action committee, said he doesn’t think states and districts have a good record on using money for incentive pay and school improvement.

“We would have gotten just as much change on school improvement under the stimulus if we had dropped 30 million $100 bills over the 50 states and said, ‘Do good things,’ ” he said.

New Initiatives

President Obama’s budget proposal makes room for a few new programs, including a $50 million initiative aimed at testing strategies for curbing the dropout rate.

Mr. Obama also is seeking $500 million in federal matching funds that would encourage states and districts to devote a larger share of their Title I money to prekindergarten programs. And he has asked for $300 million to help states better integrate early-childhood programs.

The president’s plan proposes level funding for the state grants that help cover the cost of special education. He has asked for $11.5 billion for the program in 2010, the same level appropriated in the current fiscal year. That doesn’t include the $11.3 billion provided under the stimulus measure, which was enacted in February.

The Institute of Education Sciences would a big winner, however. Its budget would increase to $689 million in fiscal 2010, a 11.7 percent hike. Much of that increase would be directed to research, development, and dissemination.

The Obama budget calls for eliminating 12 programs, for a total of $550.7 million in savings. They include the $66 million Even Start Family Literacy program, which helps integrate early-childhood education, adult education, and parenting education programs. National evaluations haven’t shown that the program is effective, according to White House Office of Management and Budget documents.

Vol. 28, Issue 31, Page 20

By JOE WILLIAMS

CRITICS of the soon-to-expire law that put Mayor Bloomberg in charge of city schools say it allows him to rule with an iron fist, shielding him from true accountability. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with him or the law. Rather, the critics -- and all New Yorkers -- should look in the mirror.

What is needed aren't "tweaks" to the statute, as critics insist, but a five-borough commitment from all of us to do a better job of holding the mayor -- whoever it is -- accountable for what happens in our city's 1,500 public schools.

Mayoral control is supposed to be coupled with mayoral accountability. That means holding the mayor's feet to the fire over education issues -- even if we like the man or woman in charge. It means frequent demands that we do better for our kids. It means raising the bar for what is acceptable for our children and families. It means turning up the heat, not giving the mayor a pass.

The reason the mayor won control of the system in the first place was because there was a widespread understanding -- including from the powerful United Federation of Teachers -- that we had hit rock bottom as a school system and were harming the lives of the children under our care. This was 2002, and the city was ready for an educational revolution. What we got, instead, was what the mayor himself referred to as an educational "evolution."

While a few vocal critics complained that the mayor was doing too much, too fast, those who felt our city needed much more, much faster, decided largely to sit on the sidelines.

When the mayor agreed to contracts that included 43 percent pay hikes for teachers but kept intact a ham-fisted teacher-evaluation system in which the best a child can hope for is a teacher considered "satisfactory," why didn't we send the mayor back to the drawing board? Business leaders, in particular, who had fought for mayoral control, appeared to be the first ones to go soft when it came time to actually hold Bloomberg accountable.

Mayoral control isn't meant to be the end of the process, but the beginning. It's our job to make sure it works. The problems critics cite -- parents are shut out, the system is driven by press release, etc. -- have little to do with the law itself; they are collective failures on our part to insist that this mayor do better.

Ironically, some of the best examples of how real accountability can work under mayoral control have been led by the United Federation of Teachers. Several years ago, after the city eliminated community school districts, the union noticed that the new system didn't include the hearing offices for student suspensions. As crime began to soar inside the high schools, it was the UFT that highlighted the issue and made the connection between the managerial glitch and the uptick in violence.

After the story made headlines, the mayor did something we had never seen before. He stood up, took responsibility for a serious mistake that was harming children and teachers and pledged to fix it.

That's what real accountability looks like. We don't need tweaks in the mayoral control law. We need tweaks in our own attitudes.

There have been some extremely positive developments in education under this mayor, but it is up to us to make sure we hold him accountable for achieving the revolution our city needs.

Joe Williams, executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, is the author of "Cheating Our Kids: How Politics and Greed Ruin Education."

By ALAN J. BORSUK

The stars are aligned for good things to happen for the charter school movement in America, the president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools recently told a couple of hundred leaders of such schools in Wisconsin.

"We have a moment in front of us like none other," Nelson Smith said, a chance to increase quality and the impact of charters as a whole.

Now, he said, if theycould just get more people to understand what charter schools are.

So it is for charter schools - growing, providing both exciting and unsettling results, and still trying to establish themselves, both in practice and in the public mind.

In Milwaukee and nationwide, some of the most successful and attention-worthy schools are charter schools. So are some of the schools at the bottom of the spectrum. And a lot are in-between, with achievement results on a par with most other schools and with programs that are not particularly innovative.

Statewide test scores released last week showed strong results for schools such as Milwaukee College Prep on the north side and the new Carmen High School on the south side, both charters serving low-income minority students who are not screened for academic ability before admission.

On the other hand, the Milwaukee School Board took action in March to close or take away the charter designation from a half dozen schools, and there has been a fairly steady trickle of such actions in the city for years. Some charter schools have been just plain bad - although charter advocates would add that the fact they could be closed fairly easily is one of the virtues of the movement.

By CARL CAMPANILE

Harlem state Sen. Bill Perkins claimed this week that mayoral school control has been a "failure," but test data tell the real story: Students in his district have improved significantly under City Hall's watch since 2002.

Fourth- and eighth-graders at schools in Perkins' district registered double-digit percentage-point gains on state reading and math exams during Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, according to an analysis obtained by The Post.

Perkins took the lead in slamming mayoral control when Schools Chancellor Joel Klein testified Tuesday in Albany, calling it a "disaster" and a "failure" and demanding it be ended.

But the percentage of fourth-graders passing the reading test jumped to 50.4 percent in 2008 from 36.7 percent in 2002.

On the math exam, the percentage of kids passing shot up to 71.4 percent last year from 39.8 percent in 2002.

And the number of eighth-graders passing the state math test more than doubled, to 52.8 percent from 21.5 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of district pupils graduating high school rose to 65.7 percent in 2007 from 55.6 percent in 2002.

Perkins' district has more charter schools than any other in the city, serving 6,000 students.

Of the 26 charters operating in Manhattan, 17 are in his district.

And charter kids in the district are excelling.

For example, 79 percent of sixth- and seventh-graders at Democracy Prep in Harlem passed state math exams, compared to 63 percent in surrounding public schools.

"The numbers speak for themselves," said David Cantor, spokesman for Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Perkins yesterday sought to ignore or minimize the progress made by kids in his district under Bloomberg's tenure. He argued that if district public schools were succeeding, parents wouldn't be leaving them in droves for charters.

"Why are they fleeing the schools above 96th Street? You got charter schools uptown and regular schools downtown. That's polarizing," Perkins said.

"These schools are drowning in failure and people are fleeing them," he said. "They don't accept that as progress."

Perkins also belittled the popularity and success of uptown charter schools.

"Why don't we fix traditional public schools?" he said.

But charter-school advocates were perplexed that Perkins wasn't backing opening even more charters, given parental support for them.

"It doesn't matter so much whether Senator Perkins finds it groovy," said Joe Williams, of Democrats for Education Reform. "His constituents are voting with their feet and flocking to schools they find desirable."

carl.campanile@nypost.com