State Deputy Superintendent Rick Miller, who has the dubious honor of being a point man for Race to the Top,  revealed the state’s evolving strategy for the federal program during a listening tour of the state this week with Kathryn Radtkey-Gaither, the governor’s Undersecretary of Education. I caught their joint appearance Wednesday  in Redwood City at a Race to the Top hearing.

Their strategy is a combination of  inducements to districts to participate, such as waiving parts of the onerous state education code, and quiet negotiations to enlist the support of the California Teachers Association and urban superintendents.

The competition among the states for the $4.3 billion grants will be intense. California’s share  could be as much as $500 million, assuming 10 or 12 states are chosen, at a time when California is looking at more budget cuts next year.

But Race to the Top is proving a hard sell.The California School Boards Association is signaling to local districts to be skeptical of one-time money and wary of the feds’ requirements. The CTA remains obstinately opposed to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s prerequisite of  agreeing to use student test results to evaluate and pay teachers in an as yet undefined way. The best that the state’s team can probably hope for is that the union’s top brass will go neutral on the issue and let the locals decide for themselves whether participating in Race to the Top is in their interest.

Other states like Colorado are charging ahead without ambivalence; 95  of 178 school districts there already have signed a letter of intent to participate. Even Miller admitted that California is well behind others in the process. If final regulations come out this month, as expected, the deadline for applying will be only 60 days later, in January. And there’s another issue complicating California’s application: confusion over who’s in charge: the governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell or the State Board of Education.

The smart money says California won’t make the first round cut anyway and should focus instead on applying in the second round, in April. But Schwarzenegger and O’Connell have vowed that the state would apply now, and Miller, in an interview, made a good case why Race to the Top can be vital for reform and good for districts that participate.

The feds will require that state applications must encompass four areas: using data to increase student achievement; upgrading standards and assessments;  improving teacher effectiveness, and turning around the lowest achieving schools. Miller said the state has chosen to focus its application on the last criterion, the poorest performing 5 percent of schools, numbering about 500. Districts with Title I schools that don’t fall in the bottom 5 percent can still sign up, Miller said.

Some superintendents won’t participate because they don’t like Duncan’s limited options for dealing with the worst schools: close them, bring in a charter or other nonprofit operator; replace the administration and some of the staff; or impose some other tough transformational strategy.

But Miller made a three-fold case for districts to consider.

First, he acknowledged it’s not for everybody. “But for those districts that are engaged in serious discussions about structural reforms, Race to the Top offers perhaps the only additional resources to help you succeed in what you were going to do anyway.”

Second, get used to it. Duncan is proposing the same prescriptions for turning around schools that will likely be required for federal School Improvement Funds and they’ll likely be written into the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. They’ll be no escape.

Third, there are sweeteners. They’re not rock solid yet, but Miller said participating districts could benefit from what the state’s likely to establish with its share of the federal money:

• Giving charter-like freedom from the education code;

• Offering a new pre-kindergarten through grade 3 teacher credential, with training for teachers;

• Enhancing training for new teachers through the BTSA induction program;

• Establishing an institute for training principals for turnaround schools.

And districts will get money to implement their own ideas and programs that align with federal goals. Miller and Radtkey-Gaither wouldn’t say how many districts they foresee partnering with the state. But Miler said he hoped some of the larger districts he’s been in contact with –  among tem Los Angeles Unified, San Jose Unified, San Francisco, Long Beach, Fresno, Garden Grove  –  would join in.

Union agreements will be the biggest obstacle. Each local would  have to sign a district’s memorandum of understanding. But Miller said that districts and teachers unions will have flexibility over performance pay – there are many models – and they could limit it to a few Title I schools. This would involve a waiver from the contract, not a rewrite.

School districts, of course, would have to be confident that the state could deliver on its promises before they’d sign an MOU. But school board members, CTA leaders and superintendents shouldn’t be sitting around waiting for the final application regs. That’s an excuse for inaction. They should be having serious discussions now.

By John Fensterwald on November 5th, 2009