Comments on: What's Washington doing to win Race to the Top dollars? http://www.educationvoters.org/2009/11/13/whats-washington-doing-to-win-race-to-the-top-dollars/ Leaders for quality public education from cradle to career Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:00:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: joan sias http://www.educationvoters.org/2009/11/13/whats-washington-doing-to-win-race-to-the-top-dollars/#comment-261 joan sias Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:30:22 +0000 http://www.educationvoters.org/?p=4792#comment-261 It makes no sense to argue that the state legislature should pass pro-charter/merit pay/school turnaround law because of a fiscal need. The most we can get is $$250 million. This amounts to at most 3% of the state's K-12 budget for this year. The changes will affect the state and localities profoundly for decades to come. If the legislative changes are in the best interest of the state's students, teachers, schools, and communities, then why is this tiny little carrot being used to justify the changes? The fact is, these changes are not in the best interest of the states students, teachers, schools, and communities. Is LEV in favor of the RTT competition because the legislative changes serve the interests of Nick Hanauer, founder of LEV?. Does Nick want to own and operate charter schools? I certainly understand that charter schools in low income neighborhoods with non-unionized teaching staff, Title I funds, and buildings donated by the School District have the best business income potential. Or does Nick have some interest related to real estate? If high quality charters are set up in gentrifying neighborhood, and in which an investor has heavily invested, the property value effect is potentially very lucrative. It makes no sense to argue that the state legislature should pass pro-charter/merit pay/school turnaround law because of a fiscal need. The most we can get is $$250 million. This amounts to at most 3% of the state’s K-12 budget for this year. The changes will affect the state and localities profoundly for decades to come.

If the legislative changes are in the best interest of the state’s students, teachers, schools, and communities, then why is this tiny little carrot being used to justify the changes? The fact is, these changes are not in the best interest of the states students, teachers, schools, and communities.

Is LEV in favor of the RTT competition because the legislative changes serve the interests of Nick Hanauer, founder of LEV?. Does Nick want to own and operate charter schools? I certainly understand that charter schools in low income neighborhoods with non-unionized teaching staff, Title I funds, and buildings donated by the School District have the best business income potential.

Or does Nick have some interest related to real estate? If high quality charters are set up in gentrifying neighborhood, and in which an investor has heavily invested, the property value effect is potentially very lucrative.

]]>