Race to the Top (of the Top.)

This week, I decided to switch up the edublog I wanted to read. I had been following www.socratechseminars.wordpress.com, and had learned some valuable stuff about integrating Technology into the classroom in new (and easy) ways.  It was the site I did my "test" podcast about.

But, I was feeling a bit "technology-ed out" as far as my reading went, so I decided to diversify myself and consult the list of edubloggers on the ED 504 wiki.  I searched the descriptions of each blog for something to peak my interested, but eventually ended up deciding to just start from the top and head to the bottom. Luckily, I didnt have to go far (or, at all) down the list because the ASCD Community blog was the first one I chose to explore and I felt the need to explore no more.  I have only begun to poke around the site, but I am already taking a strong liking to the ease of navigation, other suggestions of blogs, and diversity of post topics (I even found another blog to follow because of an entry on this blog).  I had read a post or two the other day, but when I consulted the site today to find a topic for this post, the entry for today was of particular interest.


I will admit that I am not super well versed or knowledgeable about the Race to the Top competition, beyond what we have discussed in our MAC courses. (As an aside, since my decision to apply and the application/entry process into our program was a rather quick process to me, I wouldnt proport that current events regarding education [outside of the urban setting and its inequality] perked my ears often previously. Now, I feel like I hear about it a lot on the news, and when Brian Williams mentioned it yesterday and the finalists for round 2, I was excited to know what he was talking about and went to investigate who made the cut.) What I do know from reading this blog post, reviewing the list of round 2 candidates, and interacting with the interactive map (i used it exactly for its purpose) I am curious as to

• what were the qualifications  to make it to round 2?
• who decided which states made it?(seriously... specifically - who? and, where they elected? and, who were their campaign contributors? and, are they up for re-election soon?)
• some specifics of why those that didnt make it... didnt make it
• why some states didnt apply
• if there are limitations on how the money can be spent after it is given to states
• what kind of follow up there will be with how states spend and what is improved

And yes -- I realize I should look all these things up. And, I will. hold on. (hold on longer because its taking a long time to load, I predict a lot of people are on the page.)

What I found out:

• 50% of the funding that states receive has mandated locations for disbursement, while they have "considerable flexibility" with the rest of it
• you can go to the Race to the Top website and get a list of all the applications, access the applications, access the scores they were given, and access the comments by the person that reviewed and scored the plan
• I briefly looked at Michigan's, which only got 11/30 on an evaluation piece about increasing achievement and closing gaps
• there are maximum amounts states could request in their proposal, listed in a table, presumably by population

Even though they posted what scores states got which could be indicative of if they got passed on to phase 2 or not, I dont think that it was only based on the scores.  And, why did some states (Texas, Utah, North Dakota, Mississippi) not apply? I have a friend who is going to teach in the Mississippi Delta with Teach for America.  When I applied to TFA, they expressed there was a significant need in this region of the country. So... why arent Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama in the running? I dont profess to know much (anything) about their economies or education systems, but intuitively they seem like placed that have a need. Oh, and Michigan. But perhaps that just because I am bias.

Another concerning part of this report to me was Arne Duncan's quote "Nothing moves people as quickly as the need for more funding." True, but this doesnt sit well with me (nor does, for that matter, the title of the fund itself.) Through all of our many discussions about standardizations, standardized tests, leveling the playing field, achievement gaps, legislation, space-based education (wait, what?) I cant help but think that this whole contest is in some way rigged, and is in all ways not encouraging the kind of progress we want and need.

I remember talking about this in Ed Foundations, and the idea that even if a state isnt chosen to receive funding, this creates an opportunity for states to create radical reform for their state and potentially turn around its educational policies and find success in new ideas.  But that begs the question, how are these new plans developed? Who is developing them? How are they paying the developers? (because I doubt people are making these plans out of the goodness of their hearts, or that actual educators are involved in the process at all... just a hunch.) The states that have money to pay innovators of policy are likely (in my mind) going to be the ones that have great plans and a piece of the pie.

But what about the states that dont? What about the states that create great plans but still dont get money. They have likely developed a plan that has potential, didnt receive federal funding, and cant implement the plan without that funding. Back to the same place we started.


 I have rambled on far beyond what I intended, and exceeded by far the length and scope of the actual article (which, I appreciated, was quite neutral). But in the end... my reflection lies in the idea that education, and money for it, shouldnt be something that states compete over and that results in winners or losers. Because its not the governor that proposed the plan that is losing.  Its the students that are getting screwed.

Oh, and their racing to lose.

To check out other blogs I have read and commented on, click below!

Bringing Social Studies Alive!

Socratech Seminars