The first round of RttT finalists could be announced this week. Eduflack shares an analysis and links to other reviews with educated guesses from those that have read the proposals. Thomas Carroll’s assessment is mentioned in many of the blogs I read as one to be trusted. He sees three states as very competitive, four as competitive, and thirty-three likely losers in round 1.
Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee clearly deserve a Round One victory. A strong case can be made as well for Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, and perhaps Michigan. In total, awards to these seven states would allocate almost half of the $4 billion in Race to the Top dollars, leaving about $2 billion unspent—giving states like New York and California another chance to adopt reforms in time for the June 1 second-round deadline. These states would do well to learn from the Round One winners.
If he is correct and these seven states receive funding, it won’t leave much for others if California and/or New York and other large states take additional legislative action before the next round. In Washington, a bill is moving through both houses containing a package of reforms that do not match the scope of those in place in any of the states mentioned as likely winners or competitive above and there will not be another chance for additional reform before round 2 applications are due. Given the status of our reform efforts, our Governor still believes that the reform package will place our state in a position for a competitive grant proposal in Round 2. In the reviews making the blog rounds, Washington is not even mentioned. Maybe the Governor knows something that we don’t.
I continue to be troubled by this whole process. How will giving a few states billions of dollars influence what happens in those states not receiving anything? If, over time, the reformed states demonstrate significant improvements in student achievement, will the federal government dedicate the multiple billions more for implementation in other states? Will this process and others proposed by the administration at the federal level alter the balance of state and federal influence over public education? Has it already?
Does anyone at the federal level believe that a successful education is more than math and reading competency as defined in whatever the Common Core Standards end up being, improving the graduation rate, using achievement data to evaluate teachers and principals, turning around low performing schools, promoting STEM, . . .and the list goes on. I don’t disagree with any of these needs, but I am concerned that there is disproportionate support given to the need for what we believe is also important, things like a focus on our Outcomes and Indicators, Habits of Mind, and thinking skills. I do not see that need being expressed in distributing these billions compared to the less than one billion in the i3 grant opportunity for innovative initiatives.
Well, enough complaining for today and if you read this blog you know that I am revisiting once again these same concerns. Even without recognition at the federal level, I remain committed to our Classroom 10 focus and believe that our story is one that others will view as important and will want to support.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Like you, I tend to see the RttT mess and the subsequent bill making the rounds in Olympia as noble, but misguided, attempts to reform education.
At the same time, I cannot help but note the irony when you say, "I am concerned that there is disproportionate support given to the need for what we believe is also important."
It strikes me that this is simply a scaled-up version of what is happening with the documented curriculum in the district. Do teachers believe that habits of mind and thinking skills are important? Of course we do, but we also believe strongly that grammar or healthy eating habits or even the moral development of students is important, as well. Yet these aspects of education, which are valued differently by different individuals, are not a part of the documented curriculum. I may want to teach my students daily grammar lessons because I think it's important, but I can't because the teacher next door to me isn't teaching that.
Perhaps I'm just overgeneralizing, but I can't help but see similarities between the well-intentioned mandates from the government and the well-intentioned curriculum documentation process.
I was at a meeting yesterday where Mark Frazer spoke about how Washington State is doing in the area of science education. He spoke about RttT. He was pretty blunt in saying that what the Governor has proposed will not be sufficient. He described her efforts to secure RttT money for Washington State as "weak." Mark, I believe, would say that the Governor doesn't know anything the rest of us don't and that Washignton will not truly be in the running.
Post a Comment