Sunday, July 26, 2009

Our state's proposal - a chance?

I don't know if you have been following the Race to the Top federal grants process, but it is big news and has the promise to bring millions of dollars into our state and local school districts. Our district is involved in at least two collaborative efforts, one with PEI and one with SOL to secure funding to support our curriculum development and Classroom 10 goals. Here is a Washington Post article from last Friday providing information about the goals of the program.

It is a short article by Secretary Duncan with these words about the goals.

The Race to the Top program marks a new federal partnership in education reform with states, districts and unions to accelerate change and boost achievement. Yet the program is also a competition through which states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support. For example, states that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage. And states that explicitly prohibit linking data on achievement or student growth to principal and teacher evaluations will be ineligible for reform dollars until they change their laws.

Once again we see the agenda; promoting charter schools and linking student achievement directly to teacher and, somewhat new, principal evaluation. The first round will be for state proposals. There will be another round for districts or collaborative efforts, but as this short paragraph shows the focus is on much of what we heard from this administration during the campaign and to date; charters and achievement data driving evaluations. I wonder how far our state will get demonstrating alignment with these goals? I can't see WEA jumping on board a proposal with these as major components, do you?

In this Seattle Times article the President shares four goals for this $5 billion.

Broadly speaking, the president wants states to do four things he considers to be reforms - toughen academic standards, find better ways to recruit and keep effective teachers, track student performance and have a plan of action to turn around failing schools.

Toughen academic standards can be reworded to mean adopt the new "voluntary" national standards. Track student performance can be reworded to link student achievement to teacher evaluation. Having a plan of action can be reworded to mean do what the charter schools are doing, in other words just look to the KIPP schools for guidance. Our Governor says she is aligned with the federal goals and committed to competing for these grants. I can't find the article, but I read in the Times that our state might not make the timeline for the first round of grants. Think it may have something to do with the major players agreeing on goals?

One last picture from New York, this one with our hosts, Peter Senge and Jamie Cloud. The other three ladies are from our state's delegation.






3 comments:

Scott Mitchell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott Mitchell said...

I have enjoyed reading all of your blogs this summer. While I do not know exactly how WEA would feel about this, I am sure anything linked to charters and test scores would be tough for them to swallow. As for me I do not know enough about it yet to fully comment. But just for a perspective I thought I would throw in what NEA president Dennis Van Roekel said about the release of the guidelines .

WASHINGTON - July 24, 2009 - The Education Department announced its guidelines for the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” fund today, which spells out how states can apply to win grants for innovation in education. The program is part of the nearly $100 billion allotted to education as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The following can be attributed to NEA President Dennis Van Roekel:

“The Obama administration has continued to show its commitment to creating great public schools for every student, and educators around the country could not agree more with that goal. We are especially impressed by the administration’s willingness to listen and insist that the entire education community be involved in this process. As educators, we know that collaboration is key to transforming our schools and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with the administration.”

“We are concerned with some of the details included in the draft proposals and encourage the Education Department to think more broadly about what it views as the basic tenets of a student’s educational experience. If we continue to focus narrowly on test scores, then students in need of the most support will continue to get more test prep rather than the rich, challenging, engaging education they deserve. Teachers should be evaluated on their practice using multiple criteria, not just one.

“We will analyze the details of the proposal and use the 30-day comment period to find common ground with the administration. While we may not agree on every tactic or proposal the department puts forward, our commitment to the end result could not be clearer. We want a great public school for every student in this country, and we know that it will take serious measures to achieve this goal.”

Anonymous said...

It will certainly be interesting to hear your perspective as more details of these guidelines become clearer. I have yet to read all 80+ pages of the guidelines, so I can't say I know everything about what is being proposed.
Even so, my wonder at all of this - dating back to ESEA - is the constitutionality of this sort of move. In my eyes, the whole thing seems shady at best.
As the government has no constitutional standing to make educational mandates (that being left to the states in the 10th Amendment), it seems that the federal government has found its loophole, along with a way to wholly influence the education system through federal funding. While initially it was a series of grants, once schools were accustomed to the money (and it had been factored into state budgets), conditions were attached. States and schools had two choices - accept the conditions and continue receiving the funding they had come to depend on, or refuse the conditions and turn down a massive amount of money that would benefit your school/district/state. The funding issue became a lose/lose situation for many districts.
As we're seeing, this process only continues to intensify, through NCLB and now RTTT. Again states are left with a choice - accept the conditions/mandates attached to the billions of dollars in funding, or turn down billions of dollars in federal funding because they believe in the kind of education they are giving students. It seems to me that this is a hazy issue, and if this had different players and wasn’t about funding, I think we would consider it a despicable move (give someone a product for free, then once they’re hooked on it, slowly raise the price on the product), but that’s just opinion.
The more practical question is what effect this will have on our district's curriculum efforts. If we believe that thinking skills and habits of mind and our outcomes and indicators are what education should really be about, does the RTTT "fund" really help us reach that goal? Does putting more emphasis on test scores - particularly as a way of rewarding/punishing teachers and principals - really help us teach students these skills?
My gut answer is no. I expect teachers and administrators would act like most creatures do. We would either pursue the reward of higher compensation by focusing students almost exclusively on test results, or we would act in self-preservation and try to keep our jobs by focusing entirely on test scores. In either case, it is the things Tahoma espouses - thinking skills, habits of mind, etc. – that would be sacrificed in the exchange.
Of course, I’m just a small fry in a vast ocean of educational politics, and could be completely dramatizing the situation. Even so, I wonder if, from an administrative perspective, you see this (RTTT) in the same way, or if you are envisioning greater benefits from this set of guidelines than I currently foresee.