Seattle Racing for the Top
Seattle Public Schools is joining with six other local school districts in an application for a federal Race To The Top grant.
This year, the competition for federal education grants has been expanded from just states to include school districts. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Seattle, has teamed up with the school districts in Auburn, Tukwila, Highline, Renton, Federal Way and Kent, to submit a shared application.
Details are available in a press release here.
This year, the competition for federal education grants has been expanded from just states to include school districts. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Seattle, has teamed up with the school districts in Auburn, Tukwila, Highline, Renton, Federal Way and Kent, to submit a shared application.
Details are available in a press release here.
Comments
-reader
-reader
In the meanwhile, I'd be interested to hear what anyone who has read these rules thinks will likely to be those costs (strings), and whether the cost is worth it. I have no opinion at the moment. Here's the link to the rules: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/2012-executive-summary.pdf
The Dialogue with the Gates Foundation: What happens when Profits drive Reform?
In my opinion, if there are problems with RttT, they are not with the concept of having Districts/States compete for awards. Instead, they are -- as Jack points out -- problems at the District/State level, in not thoughtfully considering the "cost" of participating. Are the Feds goals aligned with ours? What is the dollar cost of participating (and where would those dollars/hours be going if we passed? Are there "hidden" costs in terms of using less than best practices (i.e., does participation require that you reform your evaluation system to use expensive high stakes tests that are inaccurate, incomplete, lead to cheating scandals, etc. -- when, left to your own devices, you might develop and implement a much saner system?) We need to grow up and take ourselves (as a District/State) seriously enough to decide when to play, and when to take our cards, go home, and pay for (and run) our OWN darn education systems.
Frankly, I would love to see the Dept. of Ed budget reduced to the point where there is no RttT, because there is no funding for it. I don't want to abolish the entire Department, because I want to see things like student loan subsidies, Pell grants, etc. survive, along with federal support of SPED and gifted ed. But I have much more faith in local communities to "figure out" education than I do in the feds to do so. Congregating all that money and influence does little more than give the Wall Street ed reform crowd a bigger jackpot to aim for, with less work required to win it. Instead of convincing a bunch of parents all over America to let them experiment on their kids -- all they have to do is convince a much smaller bunch of lawmakers, few of whose kids are in public schools, and all of whom need campaign financing, to let them experiment on "other people's" kids.
We need to learn to analyze the bait more carefully, and to have enough spine to pass on it, if it is a bad deal. By the same token, if it aligns with what we want to accomplish, and the cost is reasonable -- we should play.
In my opinion, if there are problems with RttT, they are not with the concept of having Districts/States compete for awards. Instead, they are -- as Jack points out -- problems at the District/State level, in not thoughtfully considering the "cost" of participating. Are the Feds goals aligned with ours? What is the dollar cost of participating (and where would those dollars/hours be going if we passed? Are there "hidden" costs in terms of using less than best practices (i.e., does participation require that you reform your evaluation system to use expensive high stakes tests that are inaccurate, incomplete, lead to cheating scandals, etc. -- when, left to your own devices, you might develop and implement a much saner system?) We need to grow up and take ourselves (as a District/State) seriously enough to decide when to play, and when to take our cards, go home, and pay for (and run) our OWN darn education systems.
Frankly, I would love to see the Dept. of Ed budget reduced to the point where there is no RttT, because there is no funding for it. I don't want to abolish the entire Department, because I want to see things like student loan subsidies, Pell grants, etc. survive, along with federal support of SPED and gifted ed. But I have much more faith in local communities to "figure out" education than I do in the feds to do so. Congregating all that money and influence does little more than give the Wall Street ed reform crowd a bigger jackpot to aim for, with less work required to win it. Instead of convincing a bunch of parents all over America to let them experiment on their kids -- all they have to do is convince a much smaller bunch of lawmakers, few of whose kids are in public schools, and all of whom need campaign financing, to let them experiment on "other people's" kids.
We need to learn to analyze the bait more carefully, and to have enough spine to pass on it, if it is a bad deal. By the same token, if it aligns with what we want to accomplish, and the cost is reasonable -- we should play.