I am republishing a post that I made in October in which I discussed the U.S. Department of Education program, The Race to the Top Fund.  Each state can choose to submit ONE application, and that application is due in Washington on January 19, 2010.  You can go to the previous link and read the current information about the Fund.  You will learn that “winners” will be announced in April, 2010, and that those not winning will receive feedback, presumably so that they can resubmit with other states for Phase II money on June 1, 2010.

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE RACE TO THE TOP IN OCTOBER.  I’ll be talking more about this later this week and next, why the course being chosen is questionable, and may be moving us in the wrong direction.

The U.S. Department of Education received about $100 billion ($100,000,000,000) from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  It’s an enormous amount of money that is going to given to the States.  $4.35 billion of this amount has been earmarked as The Race to the Top fund, and it is that part of Department’s program that I will focus on here.

If the money were distributed equally across the country, it would amount to a little more than $13.33 per citizen.  It would mean that the state of California would get slightly more than 10% of the money, or $489,333,333 (I consulted a website that provided population figures for all the states and multiplied by $13.33).  Wyoming would receive the least coming in at slightly more than $7 million.   But, of course, the money will not be distributed in this way; each state that chooses to go for the money, must submit a proposal (first round this December; second round next Spring), and they must, in the proposal, agree to the critieria that the U.S. Department of Education has established.

Although the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Race is still not available to the States (It’s now available of course, and you can see it on this page), the Department published details of the Race Fund in the Federal Register (Notice of Proposed Priorities).  I read it, and have summarized the priorities that will in effect couch how the various States prepare their proposals. By the way, the proposal must be submitted by the Governer of the State, and signed off by the Governor, the State’s chief school officer, and the president of the State board of education.

Tongue-in-Cheek Suggestions for a Race to the Top Proposal:

Dr. Yong Zhao, University Distinguished Professor of Education at Michigan State University,  published a list of six ideas that States might include in their proposal to ensure funding.  If you read the article, you will see some of the fallacy in the Fund’s purpose of standardizing education, and creating one-size-fits-all approach.  You can see the article “Over the Top” here.

The Race to the Top–The Real Deal

Of the long list of criteria, only two are absolute musts for a state proposal:

• States must have been approved by the Education Department for stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (most already have been)
• states must not have any laws in place barring the use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals.

The fundamental aim of the Race to the Top Fund is to ensure that states that receive funds take a systematic approach to educational reform.  Specifically, as stated in the Federal Register (July 29, 2009), to receive funding, the applicant state must meet this priority:

The State’s application must describe how the State and participating LEAs intend to use Race to the Top and other funds to implement comprehensive and coherent policies and practices in the four education reform areas, and how these are designed to increase student achievement, reduce the achievement gap across student subgroups (Priority 1).

Other priorities will be considered as proposals are evaluated.  But according to the Department’s documents, only the first priority (described above) will be required.  The others which follow will enable the various states to develop proposals unique to their goals for reform.  Here they are:

• Priority 2: Emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).  This should include the offering of rigorous (emphasis mine) course of study in STEM; collaboration among experts in museums, universities, research centers, and other STEM-related partners.
• Priority 3. Expansion and adaptation of Statewide longitudinal data systems.   The Department asks how the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from special education programs, limited English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human resources, finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas, with the purpose of allowing important questions related to policy or practice to be asked and answered.
• Priority 4. Coordination and vertical alignment.  In essence, this priority is to ensure that students exiting one level are prepared for success, without remediation, in the next.
• Priority 5. School-level conditions for reform and innovation.  This priority is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in selecting staff, implementing new daily schedules, awarding course credit to students on student performance, & providing comprehensive services to high-need students.

You will find a good summary in Education Week of how the Race to the Top will stress the use of test data to determine the effectiveness of any proposal or program at the State and LEA level.   In fact, there is a separate competition for $350 million of the Race Fund money to stimulate a movement to develop “common student assessments.”  As I mentioned in another post, these “common students assessments” will be linked to the development of “common-standards.”  Forty-eight states have signed on to this movement.

Clearly, there is a lot of money available for education.  But as you look closely at the details, it is evident that national tests, based on a set of common academic standards, will be used to establish the bar used to measure any program or project, and will be used to tie student achievement to teacher and school performance.   Trying to link student achievement to teacher effectiveness and salary has always raised a red flag for me.  I wrote about this in an earlier post (Is student achievement the measure of teacher effectiveness) in March, and called into question how student achievement data can be used as the measure of teacher effectiveness. Somehow, is should only be a part of the evaluation process.  Surely, there is more to school learning than achievement test results.

Nevertheless, the Race to the Top is here, and will be implemented.  What are some of your opinions about the Race Fund?  What race are we talking about here?  Is this a reformulation of No Child Left Behind?  Instead of not leaving anyone behind, we’ll all race forward?  What do you think?