The Education Department knows best . . .

Add this to the interesting information on Race to the Top. I found this link to the article on Eduwonk and urge you to read the post.

In the article the President makes the following statement about state’s that have laws against linking student data to teacher evaluation.

"You cannot ignore facts," Obama said. "That is why any state that makes it unlawful to link student progress to teacher evaluations will have to change its ways."

This followed a similar statement in this New York Times article last week from the Education Secretary.

“Believe it or not,” Mr. Duncan said, “several states, including New York, Wisconsin and California, have laws that create a firewall between students and teacher data. I think that’s simply ridiculous. We need to know what is and is not working and why.”

These appear to be fighting words aimed squarely at teacher unions and specifically at those states that support the union’s beliefs as they relate to this linking. I find it unproductive to take this stand at this time. I agree with the comment from thehurt that the federal government is using funding as a vehicle to influence education decisions at the state and local level. We have always felt this as it relates to special services and Title 1; this opportunity only intensifies the pressure.

It will be difficult for states not to go after this funding opportunity given the current and short term status of public school funding. As Schwarzenegger says in the LA Times article:

"We will seek any reforms or changes to the law deemed necessary, including changes to our data system laws, to ensure California is eligible to compete" for federal funds, Schwarzenegger said in a statement. This seems like a pretty big piece to bite off given the time frame to qualify for these grants. Especially in a state with the problems they have reaching consensus on most issues.

It will not be easy, however, for all states to get the support necessary to submit successful proposals. If the unions don’t support the state’s proposals I find it difficult to believe that the feds would fund it. On the other hand, maybe they are looking at this initiative being the vehicle that results in removing significant impediments to things like charter schools. The unions are certainly perceived as an impediment by many to what some call comprehensive reform. As Scott shared in his comment to my last post, the NEA president is cautiously optimistic that common ground can be found. Good luck, the issues are too fundamental to the union’s core beliefs and there is too little time. I don't see it happening.

I don’t think this one time infusion of money will, on its own, fundamentally change public education. Forcing us to align with the administration’s answers to the public school’s problems as they define them is not the answer. Putting up road blocks in the form of conditions to be met before applying is not the answer. Treating all states and school districts the same is not the answer. Providing us with options and allowing us to demonstrate that we are engaged in comprehensive reform initiatives would have been a more productive approach to take. Allowing us an opportunity to influence their thinking would be a better approach. Coming at us like they have all the answers will not support change that will increase achievement that sustains over time.

We will place ourselves in situations that we believe will support our Classroom 10 work and the vision behind this initiative. I don’t think tying this achievement to teacher evaluation is a necessary component of this work in our school system. If the federal government wants to support an initiative that will have a positive and sustained influence on students being prepared for post high school learning and work they can look to us for guidance. They could support us with funding to create a Classroom 10 certification program where we could support teachers over time to develop the knowledge and skills to create and implement Classroom 10 learning environments. Something like the national certification program only more closely aligned with our system beliefs that would include the salary enhancement upon completion. Now that would be something to get excited about.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold. If New York and California are precluded from even applying because of their laws will there be political pressure placed on the department to change parameters? Thus far, it looks like no, this administrations has its mind made up. Who will get all this money? It looks to me like many states will not meet the requirements and end up with applications that Duncan deems a moon shot. Where will Washington end up in this race?