NEA applauds (first round) selection of Race to the Top winners

[johnaries]

From 3/30/2010
http://www.educationnews.org/pr_releases/82023.html

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Education today announced the first round of winners for the Race to the Top competitive grant program. The following statement can be attributed to National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel:



“In announcing today’s winners of the Race to the Top program, the Department of Education is sending a clear message that collaboration among all stakeholders is essential if we are serious about improving our schools. With this first round selection, the department also is signaling that states must have collaborative partnerships and comprehensive plans that demonstrate high standards if their applications will be considered viable in future phases of the Race to the Top program.



“Educators are key partners in any successful effort to turn around low-performing schools. You can’t build a good plan that will yield long-lasting, sustainable results that are positive for students and their schools without having buy-in from all stakeholders. By selecting Delaware and Tennessee’s proposals—two states that submitted highly collaborative and comprehensive plans—the administration did what was right for students.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Congratulations to the students in Delaware and Tennessee

All other students in the other 48 states will still be expected to produce the same test results, but they won't get any prizes and they'll have a few billion dollars less to help them do it. Their teachers will still be under the gun to teach to the test, and their schools will still be subject to take over by Walmart or Microsoft if they fail.

Wow, is this a great plan or what?!






Tansy Gold, NTY

[Dinger]

2. + 1,000:)

[johnaries]

4. You don't know anything about RTTT at all, do you?

These are just the first 2 winners, there will be more. Plus, the FedGov has a lot more programs and grants for education. Check out http://www.grants.gov or http://www.ed.gov.

And charter schools had nothing to do with the selection. But charter schools are overwhlemingly public schools, anyway.

[SunsetDreams]

5. john, maybe you should bold "first"

I know it's more work for you, but it might help :)

[johnaries]

6. Good idea! I also inserted it in the subject line.

Thanks! :hi:

[Tansy_Gold]

7. I don't give a flying fuck if there are 49 "winners"

I think it's absolutely fucking obscene that children should be treated like pawns in some fucking "Race to the top" bullshit.

EVERY CHILD should be getting these funds. EVERY SINGLE CHILD. Schools shouldn't be competing with each other for funding. That's absolutely monstrous. Competition on the soccer field, on the tennis court, on the baseball diamond, but not competition for funding for education.

This is just plain obscene. It's against everything American public education ever stood for.

I'm not a teacher. I don't have a horse in this race, unless you consider my daughter (school speech pathologist) and my son-in-law (jr. high social studies teacher).

But I am absolutely livid that people who call themselves "Democrats," and even some "progressives," are in favor of a policy that essentially places bets on which schools will come out the "winners" in the race for funding.

I think it's beyond obscene that there should be lotteries to see which children get into "public" schools. And yes, I think it's equally obscene that children graduate from public schools without the skills to succeed after graduation, whether that's in a job or on to higher education. I think it's an absolute crime that we fail the 30 to 40 percent of students who never even finish high school.

But treating public education like a horse race, with prizes to the winners and handicaps to the losers, is NOT the policy I expected from a Democratic administration. I will not lend that kind of policy my support, and I will condemn it at every opportunity.


Tansy Gold, NTY BC

[johnaries]

9. There are other funding programs. The whole concept behind RTTT

is to help encourage States to come up with and implement new and innovative ideas. If these ideas work, then they can be used as "blueprints" to be implemented in other states.

It is in addition to other funding, not meant to replace it.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. the point I'm trying to make is that when you have "winners"

you also have "losers."

The other 48 states and their schools and their teachers and their CHILDREN should not be labeled "losers."

I can just imagine some of the discussions --

"We lost this round! We have to try harder! YOU have to come up with better innovation! We have to win! WE HAVE TO WIN! And it's all YOUR fault!"

This is a shit way to run an education process. Shit. Shit. And double shit. School districts that are already struggling -- Detroit comes readily to mind -- what resources do they have for coming up with "innovation"? Is Robert Bobb gonna hand them some of his big bucks so they can go off and innovate for a few weeks this summer? Or is he gonna (figuratively) stand over 'em with a whip and scream, "You fucking losers! If you want that money you better try harder!"


Tansy Gold, thoroughly disgusted

[donco6]

11. I know a whole lot about RTTT.

And charter schools do have a role in the selection process. No state may cap charters and be considered for funding. So, even in a state like Colorado where we have hundreds, we can't put a moratorium on charters even if we begin to see widescale abuse of the chartering process. We had a chain of charters, run by a family, who was found to be paying themselves 2X the highest salary of the supt. of the largest district in the state, and their schools only had 6000 kids. We had another hiring family members for administrative positions and other members for contractor jobs like painting, paving, concrete work, etc. But the RTTT application requires that no moratoriums be in place for ANY reason.

Further, in Colorado, no individual district may deny a charter to ANY applicant without the risk of losing their exclusive chartering authority. What this means is that the charter may appeal directly to the state board of education, who will certainly grant their charter (they're dominated by Republicans), IN THE DISTRICT that denied it. So now, the state board may place a charter in any district unilaterally. And it doesn't matter what type of charter it is, what its track record is, or what the impact will be on the district of location.

So, yes, charters do have something to do with the selection.

We have applied for many ed.gov grants over the 15 years I've been here. Most of them, we are not eligible for at all, because of our size. The grants are written for large urban districts like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston. If you're a small district, you're often out of luck altogether. When there is a grant you're eligible for (say, the new i3 grants), you have to form a large coalition to pull it off. We joined with Univ of Northern Colo and some local foundations to submit a planning grant for i3, but our chances are very slim. The grant depends on being able to reproduce your school models to the scale of MILLIONS of students in statewide efforts. Ours are just too specific to qualify, but we tried anyway.

Another possibility is the Promise Neighborhoods grants, which we partnered with Denver Public Schools and United Way. We believe we have the best shot for this, but only because Denver has one charter in their neighborhood boundary. None of our schools are charters, though they are all semi-autonomous (still under our board and district/state standards, but hire/fire their own staff, control their own budgets). Having a charter gave us extra points.

The current administration has completely bought into the charter myth. It's in all their literature, it's in their policies and also in the grant applications. So, charter schools play a big role in determining whether a school district gets additional funding or not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. ...

:applause:

[SunsetDreams]

3. K&R

[donco6]

12. kick