Teachers unions in two states have apparently decided their best route to attack the $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) Fund, the largest discretionary federal investment in public education ever, is to impugn it as “top-down” management.
I don’t get it. Aren’t all federal programs inherently top-down? Isn’t that what makes it federal, as opposed to state or local?
RTTT, as opposed to other portions of the stimulus bill, was specifically designed as a discretionary pot of money to be spent according to the US Secretary of Education’s wishes. The Secretary has outlined a very clear rubric on which he’ll be scoring applications, and states can choose to apply or not. As much as states and localities might protest about losing local control in the process of meeting the criteria, this money is part of a competitive grant process and is entirely voluntary.
Lowering Student Loan Default Rates: What One Consortium of Historically Black Institutions Did to Succeed 
College and Career-Ready: Using Outcomes Data to Hold High Schools Accountable for Student Success
03/19/10 | Ben Miller is quoted on college graduation rates and the NCAA Tournament in the Detroit Free Press.
03/19/10 | Linda Perlstein links to Education Sector's "College- and Career-Ready" event.
03/17/10 | Ben Miller's column on graduation rates and NCAA Tournament eligibility is mentioned on The Wall Street Journal's The Daily Fix.
03/17/10 | Kevin Carey's critique of Diane Ravitch's latest book is quoted in Doublethink's Conventional Folly blog.
03/15/10 | Ben Miller pens an op-ed for US News & World Report on using graduation rates to determine NCAA Tournament eligibility.
Chad,
Don’t hate me for saying this but I addressed you as Kevin because your post was written in his style. While your definition of federalism is off-base, you are right that the money is distributed by the Secretary’s wishes, but he also wishes for RttT to succeed. He wishes to make things better.
Regarding the “he said she said,” you have to realize that we’re getting into legal areas where words and evidence have meaning. If we want this to work, spin can’t be the prime method. Here’s the dynamic that you guys must recognize if you want collaboration and innovation to work. Even in an at-will state where you can fire someone arbitrarily, once you present a reason for a termination, that reason can’t be arbitrary. So, if you want VAMs for evaluations, those VAMs must be able to withstand cross-examination. And we must devise systems for which the VAMs are not demonstrably invalid. Right now, you guys aren’t even close to that. It serves no purpose to try to get around that with spin.
And as I’ve consistently said, it would be so much easier for reformers in the unions to improve teacher quality, if you’ll would drop this demonization strategy. If we can’t look at the evidence together in a collaborative way, then it will be the courts that sort it out in a lose-lose situation.
Sherman,
This passage in the EdWeek article is key:
The Race to the Top initiative requires states to take action around four broad “assurances” in the stimulus legislation, including ensuring effective teachers in all classrooms. The largest percentage of points—138 out of 500—will be awarded to states that overhaul their teacher-quality systems, in part by evaluating teachers annually and tying the results to how teachers are compensated, granted tenure, and promoted.
In true federalism form, the federal government established their criteria, the states have designed their rules that follows logically from those of the feds, and now the locals are complaining about top-down management. It’s federal money; there is no other “top.”
And, if you think this is not a fight about Race to the Top more generally, see the teachers union comments here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9v3y3a
or here:
http://tinyurl.com/lus6q4
Chad,
I know the RTTT guidelines make applications with MOUs more appealing; that’s not what the state union affiliates are criticizing. What they’re criticizing is the fact that the SDOE in each case wrote the MOU in what the affiliate says is a top-down manner.
If you can find ANY language from the president of either state affiliate that directly criticizes the existence of RTTT rather than the state DOE for a draft MOU, I’ll eat my words. But I’m quite confident that at least in the case of Florida, you’re factually incorrect on what the state union leadership said.
Kevin,
Isn’t RttT supposed to be about innovation? Do you want the Feds to predetermine results? Do you want them to mandate politicized science?
We teachers can not accept data-driven systems used in an invalid manner to destroy our profession. In too many places, the laws will have to change in a way that permanently undercuts due process. For instance, how could the Florida system survive cross examination in court? The only way that many evaluation systems using VAMs could survive is by creating at-will employment. Is that what you really want? Have you just decided that your best route is to change the subject away from evidence and the power of teachers to use evidence?
By the way, the word federalism riles me, but here there is an argument for local control. When unions and districts have trusting relationships, they can negotiate thinner contracts and more efficient termination processes. In districts where such trust does not expect, teachers and unions can’t be expected to commit suicide.
Sherman,
The federal rubric specifically rewards states that have signed Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements with local districts. Florida and Minnesota are trying to enhance their applications by signing these agreements, and this is where the “top-down” criticism has come in. It’s pure federalism. The federal government dictates its criteria for states to apply, one of which is local buy-in to enhance implementation. Then, to distribute the money to localities, states will set their own criteria. Localities will do the same for individual schools or programs.
Chad,
As far as I’m aware from reading the same Sawchuk story, the Minnesota and Florida affiliates were criticizing the approaches of their state departments of education as top-down towards planning RTTT. Whether you agree with them or not on the facts, given the USDOE’s desire for collaborative planning, it’s not a criticism of the RTTT program itself.
Disclosure: I am a member of the Florida Education Association and a member of the FEA governance board in 2007-09 (my term ended in the summer).