via Yahoo News
by Dorie Turner
ATLANTA – The U.S. Department of Education on Monday awarded Delaware and Tennessee $600 million as part of the competitive "Race to the Top" program to help states improve student performance and transform struggling schools.
It's kind of interesting and ironic that the "Race to the Top" fund is almost a free market strategy. The administration gave the states tips on how to better their education systems and it was up to them whether to implement them or not. States would be rewarded if they made changes that would move them forward in an effort for real change in their schools. This "Race to the Top" fund is being pushed by a Democratic administration. They are not forcing any state to do anything, but they are giving incentives for change (so I don't understand some of the arguments being used against the "Race to the Top" fund; I find no 'big government' here; although, personally for education, I think it would great if the federal government could really set some standards all states had to meet- screw states' rights- that's so cliche 1700s and 1800s LOL). This strategy should inspire the public to question those in power; why are we not getting money, too (ughhh CA)?
The states, selected from 16 finalists, received the grants in the first round of the $4.35 billion federal competition, with both tweaking their education laws and enlisting the support of their school districts and teachers unions to better their chances.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised Tennessee and Delaware because all of their school districts approved the applications for the money. Tennessee will get $500 million, and Delaware will receive $100 million (OMG, that's a lot of money, even for 2nd place!!), he said.
"This is not about a pilot or a model," he said in a call with reporters. "They were trying to reach every child in their state."
Observers say the winners took to heart the education reforms pushed by the Obama administration, including performance pay for teachers and welcoming charter school policies.
In Tennessee, lawmakers passed a new law during a special session in January that requires half of teacher evaluations to be based on student achievement data (what do they use for the other half? I think that's a good compromise; their evaluation is not based solely on test results, but they need to be evaluated), a key reform pushed by the Obama administration, as part of an effort to better their chances.
Lawmakers also lifted the state's cap on the number of charter schools that can open each year and setting up a statewide school district specifically for failing schools. They got their teachers to sign off on the plan, too.
I believe in a parent's choice to choose the school they want their children to attend. I don't believe charter schools are taking away money from public schools by being publicly funded as well.
"This is a landmark opportunity for Tennessee," Gov. Phil Bredesen said in a news release. He added, "The funds provided by the grant will carry us forward in a dramatic and positive direction."
Delaware had all of its school districts and teachers approve its application, a document that highlighted the state's new law allowing educators to be removed from the classroom if they are rated "ineffective" for two to three years (half based on student achievement data? like Tennesse).
The state also offers financial incentives to top-notch educators willing to work in failing schools and in high-demand subjects (giving more respect/value to the teaching profession through financial incentives!). It will also hire coaches to meet with small groups of teachers several times a month to develop lesson plans based on student test data (best practices!).
"While we are very pleased Secretary Duncan has agreed to partner with us in these efforts, we have a lot of hard work and tough decisions ahead of us as we make these reforms a reality," state Education Secretary Lillian Lowery said in a statement.
The winners beat out: Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
Federal officials will collect a second round of applications for the highly selective program in June. The states that were not picked this time can reapply for grants then.
"A lot of people said 'They're going to end up giving it to lots of states' and 'the federal government can never really be selective.' It turns out they actually were," said Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "They're setting the bar this high that only two states met it, it sends a very powerful message."
Maybe beaucracy can work sometimes, if there's a true focus?
Officials said Georgia and Florida were third and fourth in the rankings for the grants, which means they may have an advantage over other states for the second round of grants. Still, most of the finalists are already vowing to reapply for the money.
"We were honored to be one of only 16 finalists for this highly competitive grant, and we will immediately begin working on our application for the next round of funding," said Deborah A. Gist, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education in Rhode Island.
The grant program is part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus law, which provided $100 billion for schools.
The Education Department asked states to concentrate their proposals on four areas: adopting standards and assessments to better prepare students for careers and college; getting high-quality teachers into classroom; turning around low-performing schools; and creating data systems to track performance.
Forty states and Washington, D.C., applied for the grants, scrambling to widen charter school laws and enact performance pay for teachers to prove that they deserved part of the money.
Some education observers have criticized the competition, saying the administration is out of touch because it is pushing reform at a time when states can barely afford basic necessities and are laying off teachers by the hundreds (states' money for schools is limited due to the deplorable housing market, property/tax revenues have fallen due to the values of houses dropping; this money is bread and butter for schools).
I would argue that this is the best time to be making changes. Things are going to get worse for our schools because state budgets are going to be cut back. This should force schools to reassess expenditures and find best practices that suit their economic situation. Maybe they could plan what changes they would make if they receive the federal aid?
Applications were read and scored by panels of five peer reviewers. The 16 with the highest average score visited Washington this month to present their proposals.
This is making me want to write a letter to my congressional representative. How come California wasn't even a top 16 contender?U.S. Names Education Grant Winners via NY Times
This article touched on the political side of the grant. Both Tennesse and Delaware are states with Democratic governors. There has been some wonderment on whether or not this with coincidental? I don't really think there was any. It was mentioned that former Senator Bill Frist from Tennesse played an important role in creating the proposal. It should really come as no surprise that Democratic states would be awarded the money. After all, the changes they were implementing were ones that Democratic-leaning constituents/leaders would be in favor of (this is confusing when considering CA- a normally liberal state- I would guess CA didn't even come close to the money because of the power of the state/local teacher's unions- they really seem adamant in keeping things the same?). But I really don't find any political conflict of interest in this matter because there were a vast array of experts judging the proposals. I believe everyone who voted on the states, were voting on what was best for students.
I forget when exactly Obama/Duncan announced the "Race to the Top" fund, but it seems like it was only last summer? I'm very surprised this was announced so soon (government in fast action!). I just hope this is truly fully funded and that the state's laws that were passed will be monitored by the federal government and that money will not be given blindly (and there should be yearly reports on what good came of the reforms these states made, so that other states will want to follow suit, so they can earn they money to enact change).
No comments:
Post a Comment