The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, standards and assessments here, data systems here, teachers and principals here and turning around struggling schools). This post focuses on the last of six selection criteria: general stuff (not the most creative name).
General (55 points)
F1. Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Extent to which:
i) The percentage of total revenues available to the state that were used to support elementary, secondary and public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the percentage of the total revenues available for FY 2008
ii) The state’s policies lead to equitable funding between high-need districts and other districts, and within districts between high-poverty schools and other schools
The percentage of total revenues for K-12 and higher education did increase in the 2009-11 biennial budget, as compared to the 2007-09 budget — an increase of one percentage point, largely due to shrinking revenues. Because Washington budgets bienniums rather than individual years, it makes more sense to compare the biennial budgets. Comparisons between FY 2009 and 2008 can be extrapolated from comparisons of the biennial budgets.
| 2007-09 | 2009-11 | |||
| Amount | Percent | Amount | Percent | |
| Total State | $32,597,107 | $31,388,596 | ||
| K-12 | $13,297,765 | 40.8% | $13,311,962 | 42.4% |
| Higher Ed | $3,581,124 | 11.0% | $3,262,624 | 10.4% |
| K-12 + Higher Ed | $16,878,889 | 51.8% | $16,574,586 | 52.8% |
| Note: Dollar amounts in thousands | ||||
Generally speaking, Washington’s funding model is fairly equitable between districts. Those districts with higher percentages of low-income and ELL students typically receive more funding. Because budgeting is done by districts, it is hard to know about the funding equity between schools within districts. And this isn’t to say that every district receives the same amount of funding per student, but compared to other states, our distribution of funding is fairly equitable across districts.
F2. Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools (40 points)
Extent to which:
i) The state has a charter school law that does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing charter schools
ii) The state has laws, statutes, regulations or guidelines regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize and close charter schools
iii) The state’s charter schools receive equitable funding compared to traditional public schools, and a commensurate share of local, state and federal revenues
iv) The state provides charter schools with funding for facilities, assistance with facilities acquisition, access to public facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill levies or other supports; and the extent to which the state does not impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools
v) The state state enables school districts to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than charter schools
First thing’s first: Washington does not allow charter schools. The criteria for charters was more exhaustive than what is included above, but considering Washington’s lack of charters I saved my fingers some typing. Now, Washington does have what the U.S. Department of Education calls “innovative schools.” I don’t know all of them, so please forgive me if your local school isn’t included, but examples of such schools in Washington include: Delta High School (Tri-Cities), Aviation High School (Highline), Tacoma School of the Arts, The New School (Seattle) and TAF Academy (Federal Way). Washington will probably make the case that these schools fit this criteria of R2T.
F3. Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
The extent to which the state has created, through law, regulation or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased students achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps or resulted in other important outcomes
Well, if a state earns points anywhere else in the R2T application, it seems the state deserves to earn the 5 points here. My guess is these last 5 points may serve more as tie-breaker points than anything else.
