0 Race to the Top's Dropouts

UPDATED 5/28/2010

The deadline for state applications in Phase Two of the Race to the Top (RttT) competition is next Tuesday, June 1st. Only two states, Delaware and Tennessee, succeeded in winning funding in Phase One. The U.S. Department of Education has estimated that 10-15 states will win funding in Phase Two.

With the higher stakes -- more states will be funded this go 'round and this could be the final competition (despite the Obama Administration's request for a third round of RttT funding) -- more skirmishes have broken out, particularly between would-be reformers and teachers' unions. The nastiest of these disputes appears to have been in Minnesota, which apparently scuttled its application as a result. Just check out these quotes:

Governor Tim Pawlenty, 2012 Republican presidential aspirant: "Unfortunately, the DFL-controlled Legislature in Minnesota refuses to pass these initiatives because the they are beholden to Education Minnesota, which is the most powerful interest group in Minnesota. What we saw in this session should be an embarrassment to the DFL-controlled Legislature. They continue to put the interests of union members ahead of the interests of schoolchildren and education accountability."

Education Commissioner Alice Seagren charged that the state had been "bought and sold" by Education Minnesota, the state teachers' union and made "legislators afraid to step up."

Education Minnesota teachers union president Tom Dooher said that Pawlenty was doing "a great disservice to the state of Minnesota" by deciding not to apply for the second-round grants. "The problem with the governor is that if you disagree with him about policy he calls you an obstructionist. Tim Pawlenty has had eight years to do something about eliminating the achievement gap. Now, given one last chance, he does nothing."

Aggressive policy action has occurred in an attempt to win Phase 2 funding. Colorado's new teacher tenure and evaluation law has been widely heralded as a potential model for the nation. Florida's simplistic, poorly designed legislation, which would have based half of a teacher's evaluation and salary on a single test score, was wisely vetoed by Charlie Crist, the state's Republican governor and now-independent candidate for U.S. Senate.

Other states where notable policy changes have passed, potentially boosting Phase Two competitiveness, include Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland (although on-going disagreements and lack of union support may hurt), North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Legislative efforts continue at the eleventh hour in states like Kentucky, New York (5/28 update), and Pennsylvania. The District of Columbia's IMPACT teacher evaluation system and recent teachers' contract agreement could help its chances, but the lack of support from the Washington Teachers' Union and contentious relationship between the WTU and DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee won't help.

All states are busy gathering stakeholder support for their applications. The deal struck in Rhode Island to save the jobs of teachers in Central Falls should boost that state's chances in Phase Two; the recent announcement that more local teachers' unions as well as the state AFT chapter will sign onto the state's application also bodes well. The New Jersey Education Association, which opposed the state's Phase One application, announced its support for Phase Two. [6/1 Update: Apparently, Governor Christie undid this compromise at the 11th hour today.] Other states that have announced greater stakeholder support than in Phase One include Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Others have set this week as a deadline for districts and unions to support the state application.

Let's look at which states are -- and aren't -- competing in Phase Two. In total, 38 states (and DC) expressed an intent to apply in Phase Two, but by my count 35 states and DC will actually submit an application by the due date (ID, MN and WV filed intents but have since pulled out). By my count, six states which did not submit an application in Phase One are applying in Phase Two: Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada and Washington.

Here's the full breakdown:

OUT (13)
Phase One Applicants (9)
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Minnesota
Oregon
South Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Phase One Non-Applicants (4)
Alaska
North Dakota
Texas
Vermont

IN (36)
Phase One Applicants (30)
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California (applying in partnership with only six large urban school districts)
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts (state education commish has suggested state may not apply)
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
Wisconsin

Phase One Non-Applicants (6)
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
Washington

PHASE ONE WINNERS (2)
Delaware
Tennessee

0 Inn-O-Vate

Yesterday the U.S. Education Department released proposed regulations to govern the $650 million Investing in Innovation Fund, part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, along with the $4 billion Race to the Top fund.

Education Week's Politics K-12 blog has a good summary of the proposed regulations, and the New York Times and Washington Post have articles worth reading as well.

Individual school districts or groups of districts can apply for the i3 grants, and entrepreneurial nonprofits can join with school districts to submit applications.

Under the proposed priorities, grants would be awarded in three categories:

• Scale-up Grants: The largest possible grant category is focused on programs and practices with the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of students. Applicants must have a strong base of evidence that their program has had a significant effect on improving student achievement.
• Validation Grants: Existing, promising programs that have good evidence of their impact and are ready to improve their evidence base while expanding in their own and other communities.
• Development Grants: The smallest grant level designed to support new and high-potential practices whose impact should be studied further.

Here is the link to the Education Department press release.

0 Abandon All Hope (For Reform) Ye Who Enter Here!

At first glance, one might dismiss a recent policy brief authored by a former Bush Administration official as a partisan diatribe against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Obama Administration. After all, a chief conclusion of the brief authored for the American Enterprise Institute by Andy Smarick (former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Spellings-era Education Department and in 'W's White House with the Domestic Policy Council), is: "It appears all but certain that the ARRA’s $75 billion in formula-based education programs are a lost cause for education reform. These funds have been used almost exclusively to fill budget holes, and cash-strapped states and districts will likely use what remains of these funds for similar, reform-averse purposes."

Abandon all hope (for reform) ye who enter here!

That quoted summary language in the paper *is* perhaps a bit over the top. A "lost cause"? Really? And that's certainly been the takeaway of some blog accounts of this paper (such as this). But that's not really what Smarick is saying nor is it the most important part of this AEI brief. And, as much as he is making that point, his 'lacking in reform' criticism is directed more at the 50 states than at the federal government.

Economic stimulus and a minimization of a short-term funding cliff were among the main aims of ARRA and its education-focused formula dollars. I don't think anyone seriously expected differently. If you read the ARRA web page, it largely spells this out. Now, the Education Department did envision that State Fiscal Stabilization Funding would be used to promote reform as well, and despite an initial look by the GAO, some dollars may accomplish reform, but how on earth could there yet be any real evidence of reform let alone impact when the 2009-10 school year has just begun in most places?!? In addition, as Smarick notes, the economic downturn and its effect on state budgets was far worse than anticipated at the time that ARRA was enacted in early 2009, which lessened the likelihood of these dollars doing anything less than filling holes.

Smarick's take on the competitive aspects of ARRA -- the Race to the Top and the Investing in Innovation (I3) funds -- is generally fair and balanced. He raises important questions about the general risks to any reform push, and specifically to ARRA. Smarick identifies several factors that may reduce the likelihood that competitive dollars will further education reform: on-going state budgetary challenges, resistance to specific reform components, and lack of faithful and vigorous implementation. He warns of "Trojan horse" applications where states will seek the money, but won't use it for reform. Of course, unmentioned are a whole host of other potential roadblocks, such as resistance from school districts, lack of buy-in from teachers and school administrators, lack of capacity to implement reforms, consultants and subcontractors who can't deliver promised expertise or technical assistance, data systems that cannot accurately match student and teacher data, etc.

Read the brief. Or check out a summary at Flypaper.