Washington’s Race to the Top (R2T) application team — led by the governor’s office, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education — is drafting a reform plan to include in our R2T application (and drive education reform in WA, generally). And they want to hear from you! We’ve already submitted our two cents (OK, more like $1.17), and you should add your voice to the chorus.
Here’s our take — first, the good:
- The goals of the plan are worthy — of both our time and effort.
- The outcome measures are valid, and if the related data where made available data nerds like me would do a happy dance.
Next, areas for improvement:
- It’s hard to know where you’re going if you don’t know where you are — the absence of baseline data will make it hard to benchmark progress.
- The goals, while worthy, need dates next to them. A goal isn’t worth much without a deadline attached.
- The identified strategies are too vague. Ex. “Deliver highly effective, differentiated and personalized instruction supported by skilled teachers and building-level leadership.” How will WA do this? What specific steps are necessary?
- The outcome measures are more progress indicators than final outcome goals. We should determine what we are actually aiming for and quantify it.
- The plan does not differentiate between state and local initiatives. Some reforms will need to occur at the state level while others will be better suited to district implementation.
Now it’s your turn. The latest draft of the reform plan is available here, you can provide your feedback here.
It is so crazy and stupid that the Dept of Education is forcing states to change their policies in order to even apply for this money. It would be fine if it were based on data tested and proven educational policies (such as proper funding, smaller class sizes, encouraging innovation, etc.) but they are not doing that. They are requiring states to have merit pay and charter schools- something that Washington wisely does NOT have, for many good reasons.
As an educator, an informed voter and an activist, I am mixed as to whether we should even take the money. It should always come down to this- is it better for students? One could make a very very strong argument that the pittance of money we might get from RttT would be negated by the draconian changes would would have to make to our educational system.
That said, I am personally waiting to see what the Governer’s office and the OSPI come up with. It would have been great if they had collaborated with local educators’ unions- this would have been much better for many reasons. The biggest reason is that it actually favors us in the race. (why do we need a race anyway? Don’t ALL kids deserve a great education? This is like a bunch of rats fighting over the last bit of cheese). The reforms they choose may or may not be good for students. There are certainly reforms that can and should be made- raising the levy lid, expanding innovative programs and alternative education, funding skills centers to expand Career and Technical Education, expanding support for farms to schools programs and much more.
A little birdy tells me that is probably what they are working on though.
Race to the Top MIGHT result in a one-time payment of maybe $50 per student, which is about 1/200th of the yearly cost of educating a child. And for this we would substantially alter public education in Washington State to kow-tow to unproven, probably damaging “reforms” pushed by the Gates/Broad/Duncan gang?! We would be absolutely crazy to give RTTT even one iota of attention, and the only reason we are is that “alliances” and “coalitions” are being co-opted by the same Gates/Broad money to sing their song.
I hope the public wakes up to this farce before we federalize (and then privatize) public education completely.
Heather,
You call yourself a “data nerd.” Are you interested in data that shows that the reforms in SB6696 and RttT are ill-conceived? I would be glad to share with you links to a peer-reviewed literature synthesis that says High Stake Testing is a misuse of standardized assessments, and a non-peer-reviewed literature review by a university professor and his team that finds that the Federal models of school restructuring that SB6966 says must be used for turning around 5% of the states schools every year (that’s 50% of state’s schools in ten years) at best do little good, and often do much harm to the affected students.
Does this kind of data interest you? Your boss Chris Korsmos probably doesn’t have time to read these reports. How about you?
I make a bet this comment doesn’t pass your filter.
Joan,
You refer to links for peer-reviewed literature, please post them here. The more information and evidence available to all, the better.
The 5% mark you refer to is not for 5% all all schools, but schools that are not meeting specific standards. I think there are only 12 schools on the list for 2011, way less than 5% of all schools.
Looking forward to the links!