Within a few weeks, the governor and state education officials must decide whether to gear up for or give up on the next round of Race to the Top funding. Should California’s next application, if the state takes up the challenge, be broader –reaching out for a larger consensus among districts and unions – or bolder?
Eight leaders and respected observers of California education have taken up the invitation to share their views. They include executives with state school boards association, the largest teachers union, education reform non-profits and the state charter schools association, an outspoken teacher and a critic of the proposed K-12 common-core standards. Their perspectives are interesting, articulate – and often at odds with one another. With their wisdom as a guide, I offer my thoughts at the end.
Scott P. Plotkin
California’s rejection in the first round of Race to the Top funding is a significant disappointment, especially for the hundreds of school districts that hoped to rely on the RTTT resources to support the needs of hundreds of thousands of students served by them. However, it is critical that before California policymakers rush to assume why this happened, they wait until the U.S. Department of Education releases the analytical basis for their decision. Otherwise, we are likely to implement a series of ill-informed policies in a hurried manner based on hunch and imagination.
We must also determine if the federal criticism is based on research or popular political rhetoric. It will do California kids no good to rush a series of “reforms” into place if the federal Department of Education’s analysis has nothing to do with what research has proven to be effective for students. If there was no research basis for the rejection of California’s application, then the state should not be quick to reapply for an RTTT grant, even though California’s students are in desperate need of the resources associated with it.
And while policymakers may congratulate themselves for the “reforms” they recently enacted –”reforms” which did nothing to make the state’s RTTT grant more competitive – it is also important to remember that it is those very same policymakers who have slashed the budget for the state’s public schools by billions in recent years. Until California has a reform conversation that includes reform of the dysfunctional finance system under which public schools are forced to operate, we are doomed to be part of a race to nowhere.
Scott Plotkin is executive director of the California School Boards Association.
Arun Ramanathan
The only bubble that hasn’t burst in the state of California is the one surrounding our education system. Our policymakers appear to have assumed that simply being California was enough for us to win the Race to the Top competition.
Unfortunately, the kind of innovative spirit that guides the technological creativity in Silicon Valley is hard to find in Sacramento. Trotting out a tired list of California’s greatest hits in the area of performance standards, testing and accountability systems wasn’t going to cut it as a Race to the Top application. Neither was developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for school districts wanting to apply for RTTT funds that contained few requirements for reform. It certainly didn’t help that our own California Department of Education (CDE) officials then ran around the state trying to convince districts and unions to sign the MOU by telling them that the CDE wouldn’t do anything to enforce it.
This is why some of the recent debate over how to apply for the next round of Race to the Top is so farcical. Rather than recognizing that our failure resulted directly from our inability to create the types of reforms recommended by the Obama administration, there are those who actually believe that our loss resulted from the refusal of some districts and unions to sign onto the MOU. Only in certain corridors in California could appeasing the anti-reform minded with an even less innovative application be viewed as the next best step for winning Race to the Top.
We must do better. We have some of the largest achievement gaps in the nation. We have more Latino students in this state than 49 states have students. We have more English Learners than 39 states have students. Many of these students are concentrated in our highest poverty and lowest performing schools. They deserve a state that prioritizes them. That means putting together a second-round application and RTTT legislation that challenges the status quo. It means requiring districts who want the RTTT dollars to propose real changes to their teacher evaluation and assignment systems and school improvement processes while ensuring the state holds them accountable for implementing those changes. In short, it requires our leaders to show the boldness and courage that is typically required to win a competition.
Arun Ramanathan is executive director of The Education Trust-West, based on Oakland.
Dean Vogel
California lawmakers should always have a goal of developing sound education policy that works to improve the conditions of teaching and learning for all students, rather than racing to pass legislation simply in the name of reform that could have adverse, long-term impacts on schools in exchange for a one-time infusion of a small amount of money from the federal government. By its definition, Race to the Top denotes winners and losers.
The California Teachers Association believes that the state and federal government should provide the assistance and resources needed to help all students and schools to succeed. A system that is based on punishment and more sanctions does not achieve the goal of helping struggling schools improve. As written, RTTT focuses on the wrong objectives and does nothing to provide better and safer neighborhood schools for all students. Successful education reforms start with teachers, administrators and parents working together to best meet the needs of the students in that school in that local community.
Dean E. Vogel, is vice president of the California Teachers Association.
Ze’ev Wurman
Some people express surprise that California is not one of the finalists in the Race to the Top competition; I do not. I want to believe that this, in fact, reflects a cold and rational assessment of the credibility of California’s ability to make good on its RTTT proposal. To put it simply, California has a $20 billion budget hole; a lame duck Governor who doesn’t get along with the Legislature; a weak State Board of Education (and a governor unable to push through the confirmation of its most effective member in years, Rae Belisle, as we speak); a lame duck Superintendent of Public instruction who doesn’t get along too well with the State Board; and the opposition of teacher unions, who viscerally hate the idea of accountability that permeates this competition. No, I am not surprised that peer reviewers did not buy the promises that California’s proposal made.
That said, the effort need not go to waste. Some of the changes we made in our education code to participate in the race are bound to be helpful for disadvantaged children trapped in low performing schools. We may finally, after dragging our feet for 10 years, get a working student data system.
But at the same time we would be fools to trash the good parts of our system that RTTT requires: to exchange our strong academic content standards for the mediocre Common-Core ones pushed from Washington; to rip our teacher education and professional development system based on (and aligned with) them; to toss out our assessment system that took years to align with the standards and provides us with an invaluable track record to guide system improvement; and the linkage we have developed between that standards-aligned assessment system and CSU entrance requirement that is bound to spread also to UC and community colleges in the near future. California has invested multiple billions of dollars into this alignment since 1998 and throwing it out for the hope, in the best case, of $700 million in a one-time grant is not only foolish; it is unconscionable.
We should acknowledge that Washington correctly assessed our ability to deliver. It may not be fair, but it is the reality of the situation. Instead of sulking, let us have the wisdom to take advantage of the positive things we have accomplished as a part of this process, and the courage to toss out things that made no sense for California in the first place.
Ze’ev Wurman, an executive in the high tech industry in Silicon Valley, served as a senior policy adviser in the U.S. Department of Education from 2007-09.
Anthony Cody
There are two big problems with chasing the rabbit down the track in the Race to the Top. The first one is that even if we catch it, the prize is so small – less than $50 per student, for one year. This is not going to make much difference when we are facing huge structural shortfalls in education funding.
But the second is much more fundamental. The Race to the Top has chosen reform strategies that have us running in the wrong direction. Charter schools have not, on the whole, shown themselves capable of solving the problems our urban schools face, and have major obstacles to scaling up. The firing of teachers in Rhode Island that Duncan and Obama applauded has not been shown to work, and neither has performance pay for increased test scores.
There are some reforms the state could pursue that would not break the budget, and could result in some real improvements. First, listen to teachers who clamor for time to collaborate and improve their practice. Take advantage of the thousands who are National Board-certified and create avenues for teachers to take leadership in their schools. Address systemic weaknesses in our teacher evaluation process by involving teachers in peer observation and feedback, and connecting this feedback to professional growth opportunities.
Lastly, if the state is serious about the inequities in our schools, how about addressing the inequitable funding from district to district?
California is not likely to qualify for Race to the Top and should focus instead on strategies more likely to work. Real leadership means we chart our own path, and not chase that rabbit down the hole Duncan has dug for us.
Anthony Cody is a science coach with the Oakland Unified School District, where he has worked for 23 years, and creator of the blog, Living in Dialogue, in Teacher Magazine.
Merrill Vargo
Anyone who thinks that you can hand out billions of dollars in federal funding without sparking accusations of insider deals, ideological decision-making and even downright corruption is clearly naïve. So the various comments that are surfacing in the blogs in response to the announcement of the RTTT finalists are not surprising, and some of them are even likely to be true. Nor is it surprising that California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is mad. After all, O’Connell argues, California made a good faith effort, it took a lot of time, and besides, we need the money. All of this is true is well. As quoted in the Washington Post, O’Connell even threatens not to reapply for RTTT. So what to do?
First, if we are going to wait for perfect policymaking, it’s going to be a long wait. Second, education reform has to happen in the real world. But most of the observers I’ve spoken with assume that California will reapply as a matter of course, and will eventually be funded because, after all, “they can’t leave out California.” This perspective is wrong as well, because it represents a real missed opportunity. The truth is that the California RTTT application was put together in haste under the assumption that getting the maximum number of signatures from school districts was essential, and that the route to that goal was to lower the bar for districts to sign the MOU.
An analysis of the applications from the finalists suggests that this approach was wrong: Other states made the finalist list with ambitious proposals that pushed the envelope but lacked broad support. What we have now is an opportunity, if we have the courage to take it: Reopen the application, budget and all, and ask both state and local education leaders what “version 2.0” might look like. This approach might push the thinking of everyone concerned in ways that would pay dividends whether or not the state gets funded for RTTT. And that’s the only useful way to approach a competitive grant application process.
Merrill Vargo is executive director and founder of Pivot Learning Partners, formerly known as Springboard Schools, a San Francisco-based non-profit.
Bill Lucia
Many are talking about why California didn’t make the cut to advance to the finalist round in Phase I of the Race to the Top competition— the federal competition to incubate public education reform across the nation. Suggestions include technical deficiencies in how the law is being interpreted by California’s state administrative agencies, disputes on satisfying assurances, not enough signatures of stakeholder groups, or simply a poorly done non-competitive application. Three things we know: Until the formal peer review feedback from Washington is made public we really won’t know why California didn’t make the first cut; Secretary Duncan has not minced words in saying that this competition is the precursor to changes that will be enacted in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind; and, thousands of families are already winners with the comprehensive package of state-law changes authored by Sens. Steinberg, Romero and Simitian, and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in January.
The expressed disappointment, angst, and in some cases even glee, are for some an obvious surrogate for the continued power struggle among sincere adults in California over how to improve public education in California, and further evidence that California is still treading lightly on whether to boldly engage to influence the future reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or allow other states to take the lead.
Winning in Phase II in the Race to the Top will require boldness and leadership. Early and active participation by complete teams of local stakeholders who have signed on the dotted line and indicated a commitment to even the boldest of the reforms, is paramount. After all, they are the very leaders who will manage the reform efforts at the local level. Their early and active participation in the plan development will ensure it is implemented with fidelity. California should vigorously pursue RTTT’s second round, with an opportunity to win as much as $700 million. Doing so would better prepare California for the demands that Congress and the Obama administration will likely mandate through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And submitting a strong application will give California a stronger voice in determining what those reforms will be.
Bill Lucia is policy director and COO of EdVoice, a nonprofit based in Sacramento.
Jed Wallace
When California failed to get past the first round in the Race to the Top competition, it wasn’t without disappointment from the charter school community. Of the 809 charter schools in the state, 331 charters signed in support of the state’s application. And charter schools have been touted by the Obama administration as an essential part of the education reform needed in this country.
So, what went wrong? Was California’s application not strong enough? Did legislation approved by the governor and the Legislature not go far enough? We believed that California’s proposal was strong, and were encouraged by the number of charters that participated, bringing their innovation in teaching and their high academic and performance results to the table.
We were also very supportive of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s and the Legislature’s bills to strengthen our possibilities to receive the $700 million.
The Obama Administration is set to release a scorecard with details on why many states were left out in the following weeks. From that, we know the state and charter schools will determine which path to follow for Round Two. In the meantime, charter schools continue to grow and offer choices in public education across California. We will continue to bring change to the status quo that so many parents and students are seeking.
Jed Wallace is the CEO of the California Charter Schools Association.
=======
The others have spoken; it’s my turn.
There are two widespread misconceptions about California’s failure to win first-round Race to the Top money. One is that it’s the Legislature’s fault for not passing the right bill; the other is that California would get money, because, well, it’s California — it educates more kids, especially more English learners and low-income minority children, than anywhere else.
Caution, not inaction, hurt the state’s application. Yes, the Legislature could have done more. It could protect the most vulnerable schools from losing their best teachers during layoffs, and done more to see that effective teachers teach in low-performing schools. The Legislature still can.
But the state leaders who put together the application – the governor, the State Board of Education and the superintendent of public instruction – erred in assuming that an application with as many districts and unions on board as possible would be a sign of strength. In the end, the application was flaccid, and most local unions and many districts refused to sign on anyway.
Washington would like to goad California to change, but not by spreading a few dollars for each of the state’s 6 million students. What it might prefer is for a vanguard of small and large urban districts – or clusters of schools within those districts – to set the example of innovation for others to watch and learn from. Challenge a few local unions or the new schools of choice in Los Angeles Unified to rewrite new teacher evaluations as the first step to redoing the pay scale. Seek some districts willing to replace the embarrassing exit exam with true career and college readiness standards. Solicit those districts willing to create new measures beyond state standardized tests to judge a school’s success.
California gave a vague notion of what districts would do with the money. It said to Washington, trust us to spend wisely.
But why should it?
John Fensterwald
.
