In a truth–is-stranger-than-fiction moment, public education activists may actual have something to thank Governor Schwarzenegger for and that is being first in line to receive federal dollars from the education portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), often referred to as stimulus money. This money is for traditionally (under)funded programs that the federal government requires of school districts, such as programs for educationally disadvantaged students (Title 1) and special education services (IDEA).

Unlike some of his fellow Republican governors, Schwarzenegger had no hesitancy about taking the money or about agreeing to any of the conditions that went along with it, so a near $4 billion has been sent to our state. The timing was perfect for a governor whose clinical aversion to revamping our tax structure has resulted in a staggering budget deficit and a structural inability to adequately provide social services.

Whatever the motivations, the resources are a welcome infusion of cash, although they will soon create a new source of pain as this money is not the first installment in an ongoing stream of revenue, but is more or less a one-time deal. The stimulus funds are meant to stave off disaster, not to change underlying conditions. While that battle for sufficient and reliable school budgets goes on, enacted in such events as the upcoming June 23rd California Children’s Campaign in Sacramento, emergency stimulus money is finally arriving.

Just this past Monday, May 4th, State Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell issued a press release announcing that stimulus money was being released to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs, otherwise known as school districts). To help clarify what’s going on the California Department of Education (CDE) has put up quite a useful set of pages about ARRA issues, including links to see how the stimulus money is being apportioned to school districts, county schools, and charter schools (which are considered “autonomous” educational entities).

The document detailing Title I allocations for the upcoming 2009-2010 school year shows that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) is slated to receive $8,745,393 in ARRA Title I funds, which will be added to the $12,557,933 in regular Title I funding we are already scheduled to receive. The first ARRA Title I distribution will be coming this month, totaling $3,935,427.

Additional education ARRA grants are still available for school food equipment for districts participating in the National School Lunch Program. Applications are being accepted until May 27th, and awards will be announced on June 30th. This is something our district should definitely jump on.

In addition to the CDE site, the SFUSD has an overview of ARRA, including estimates of what the district thinks it will receive from the program. As exciting as those speculative numbers are, from its main page devoted to ARRA the district has issued this important caveat: “SFUSD is committed to spending these funds on durable investments that have long-lasting benefits and do not require on-going spending.”

In other words, while ARRA money can be used to prevent layoffs of current staff, it can’t responsibly be used to start new programs or hire additional permanent staff, a constraint which really limits the options. It’s also a constraint that clearly points out how disconnected policy makers are with the real on-the-ground situation in schools. One time influxes of money can do some things, but can’t help make the big leaps that we are so anxious to take.

For instance, one of the federal suggested uses of the money, as summarized by the California Department of Education is to create professional development opportunities to encourage instructional leadership among teachers. This is a good thing and should be part of any well functioning school district, but it’s certainly not transformative on its own.

Another suggestion is about “Developing and expanding longitudinal data systems…,” something that is hard to imagine doing without sustained and increased staffing levels. Investments in systems (hardware purchases and software design and implementation) might be possible, but systems don’t run on their own. Again, this is another reasonable characteristic of a solid school district, but fits somewhat uncomfortably in the “stimulus” model. A more complete set of suggestions from the feds for states to use as guidelines in applications has more of the same.

Missing from the SFUSD ARRA pages are descriptions of our district’s specific plans for the stimulus money. Instead, the district has provided an email address to which people can submit their ideas: stimulus@sfusd.edu.

Although the constraints are many, as detailed above, this is an opportunity to give voice to some ideas that may have gotten lost in previous times. We school community members, especially those with the closest connections to students — families and teachers — should take advantage of this, but in a way that doesn’t leave our suggestions lost in an overflowing email inbox. For those who have an idea to share with the district, consider sharing it with the rest of us. During the month of May, if you email stimulus@sfusd.edu consider cc’ing the School Beat column at sflschiff@yahoo.com, so that a summary of the various suggestions can be made for us all to see.

ARRA for education provides a large amount of money that we are happy to receive, but it also leaves much to be desired. It gives schools just enough to keep going, but not enough to make the real changes we all want and everyone expects. Let’s make sure to remind policy makers of this in the months to come when they expect miracles from this temporary infusion.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco and the PTA and is a board member at the national level of Parents for Public Schools.