The Educated Guess will consume many kilobytes in coming months writing about Race to the Top and related,  $5 billion federal competitive grant programs that Education Secretary Arne Duncan is hoping will spur innovation in the states.

Education reform has always been Washington’s biggest shaggy dog, and, for now, Race to the Top is wagging it. What’s surprising is how a relatively small amount of the $100 billion stimulus money for K-12 is already changing conversations nationally, with states changing laws on charter schools and data restrictions (California) to position themselves to pursue grants. Serious discussions about national standards for reading and math, teacher evaluations, and strategies for turning around low-performing schools are happening in Washington and in state capitals. If nothing else, Race to the Top has, for the moment, broken through the polarized debate over No Child Left Behind.

But  Race to the Top have also generated considerable opposition. Some of the criticism is legit: There is a long checklist of requirements that states must meet to qualify, and some of these have little to do with the program itself; it’s Duncan’s leverage to force change.

And some critics say the prescriptive draft regulations are at odds with the program’s goals: to let a thousand flowers of reform bloom.

But in California especially, critics – particularly the California Teachers Association and some Democratic legislators — have mischaracterized Race to the Top, perhaps to discourage the Legislature from acting and the state and school districts from earnestly applying.

For the recipient districts, the money might be significant – and the only source of money, in bad times, to try something different.

That’s unfortunate, because the four issues that Race to the Top wants states to address are critical to improving schools: better use of data to make policy decisions; more effective ways to recruit, evaluate, pay and retain teachers; establishment of common standards so that all states create rigorous curriculums; and the oversight and transformation of the lowest-performing schools.

If not confronted, the bad-mouthing of Race to the Top could undermine the Legislature’s and the state’s resolve to pursue the money. So, let’s deal with the two biggest misconceptions.

#1. The state will get at most $500 million in one-time money. That’s a pittance, 1 percent of the $50 billion that the state spends on K-12 schools.

The total is probably right. But the dollars won’t be spread around to all 1,000 of the state’s school districts – not even to every Title I district. Most likely, a small number of districts would benefit from the state’s grants. They would likely include innovative districts (Long Beach Unified and Garden Grove always are mentioned) that want the money and have solid ideas for using it, and perhaps some districts with the worst performing schools that are either encouraged or mandated to join. For the recipient districts, the money might be significant – and the only source of money, in bad times, to try something different.

Beside the $4.3 billion in state grants, Race to the Top encompasses other competitive programs: $650 million in incentive grants, known as I3, which will go to individual districts, in partnership with non-profits, colleges and corporations to fund ideas proven to work; $250 million for data – money the state needs to improve its new student and teacher data systems; and $100 million for teacher development.

All in all, the feds’ biggest competitive grant program by far is worth pursuing – and undeserving the back of the hand.

#2. Duncan and President Obama are using Race to the Top to force districts to adopt  “merit pay” for teachers based on standardized test scores.

The CTA is spreading that claim, and using it as a rallying cry. It’s why, at a recent regional delegates meeting in Santa Clara, there were boos at the mention of Race to the Top.

Duncan and Obama are unambiguous in advocating the use of data to evaluate teachers’ performance and as a basis for paying them. This is reflected in the Race to the Top draft guidelines. But it’s one of many factors in evaluating a state’s application.

As I said already, creating “effective teachers and principals” is one of four areas states must address with Race to the Top grants. Measuring teacher and principal performance and using the information as a “significant factor”  with regard to hiring, evaluating, promoting, firing and paying are one of many criteria.

The draft regulations don’t quantify “significant”: It could be 20 percent or 50 percent. And the feds certainly aren’t saying that it should be based on a single standardized test, like STAR tests in California.

There has been so much controversy over this issue that I wouldn’t be surprised if the feds backtracked a little in the final regulations, due out later this month.

But labeling Race to the Top as synonymous with “merit play” is a gross distortion and an attempt to subvert a potentially useful initiative.

EdSource has published an excellent 20-page summary of the draft regulations of Race to the Top and where California stands in qualifying for a grant.

By jfenster on November 1st, 2009