Common Core Part 2 - Race to the Top

          I had intended to follow up my first post much more quickly than this, but the busyness of summer vacation with four kids at home, family in town, and an unfortunate bout of stomach flu has prevented me.  Also, my research took me on several tangents wherein I learned more about the creation and evolution of the Department of Education, early efforts of founding fathers to create national schools and/or curriculum, and the history of competitive grants.  Since each of these tangents ending up taking me quite a distance from the topic at hand, I will, in general, constrict my comments here to the Race to the Top competitive grant and its relation to Common Core.

The Facts:

• Race to the Top was announced July 24, 2009.  Awarded funding for Race to the Top was to be $4.35 billion.  This money came from stimulus funds set aside by the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009.
• There were four main criteria on which grant applications were judged.  These areas dealt with standards, effective teachers & principals, data systems, and turning around low-performing schools.  There was also competitive preference priority given to states who emphasized STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) throughout their applications.
• According to Appendix B of the Race to the Top application, to get points in the standards section, all LEAs (Local Education Agencies - meaning school districts) and charters had to "Review and adopt CCSSO standards by August 2010" and "Participate in review of new standards and preparation of grade-level expectations (All LEAs/charters)".  There are other requirements listed in this section, but these are the most relevant to the current discussion.
• 40 out of a possible 500 points was directly related to Common Core - 20 points for "Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards" and 20 points for adopting a set of common standards.  This is a relatively small number of points, but there are two other areas that could potentially be affected by the decision whether or not to adopt Common Core.  Additional points that seemed relevant to me are 1) "Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments" (10 pts), 2) "Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments" (20 pts).  It seems obvious that common assessments are linked to common standards, but transitioning to enhanced standards could apply to state-developed enhanced standards.
• In all, standards (comprised of the four areas in the previous bullet) combined represents 70 points or 14% of the total points available.
• There was one "absolute requirement" in order for states to be awarded a grant: that they submit a comprehensive approach to education reform and that they address all four of the main criteria (one of which was standards).
• I have not confirmed the following and am not sure how I would go about confirming the veracity of the article from which I got it.  This "fact" therefore, must be taken with a grain of salt.  According to an article posted here, one state specifically asked if they could develop their own standards and still get points for Race to the Top as is allowed in the ESEA waivers discussed in my previous post.  Here is the reported answer from Race to the Top Chief Joanne Weiss:

"The answer is no," she wrote in an e-mail. "The RTT requirements, because it's a discretionary program, are actually tighter than ESEA and are not changing."

To get full points in Race to the Top, she explained, a state has to adopt the common standards by August 2, 2010. To get partial points, it has to do so by December 31.

"The higher-ed certification option," she said, "Does not apply to RTT."

 My Opinion:
          Traditionally, grant programs provided by the Department of Education have been much smaller than Race to the Top.  They have allowed states, districts, schools, and individuals who are interested in implementing a specific improvement to apply for funding to do so.  A search of grant opportunities on the Department of Educations website yielded hundreds of results, from "Teaching American History" to "School-based Student Drug Testing Programs" to "Investing in Innovation Funds".  And the list continues almost indefinitely.  Many of these programs are allocated money as a result of legislation passed by congress to fund specific pieces of education policy or research.  Funding is increased or decreased over time as legislative priorities and interests change.  However, Race to the Top is by far the most comprehensive and highly funded competitive grant I could find. 
          In my opinion, Race to the Top represents a gross overreaching of designated authority by the Department of Education.  While I agree with most of the reforms RTT sparked, I do not agree with the intense involvement of the federal government in pushing that education reform.  There was no legislation passed by Congress that designated the priorities listed in RTT as had previously been done to designate the Department of Education's goals for America's schools.  It was one department, comprised of appointed (not elected) officials, deciding what the goals should be for a vast number of America's schools.  This is one of the main reasons I have been advocating for a bill that would prevent the Department of Education from such gross overreaching in the future.  It is HR1386, The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act and can be found here.
          Despite my objections to the Department of Education's overreaching, meaningful school reforms (many of which were included in Race to the Top) need to be addressed.  Replacing years of experience with quality/successfulness of teaching in pay raise decisions, promotions, bonuses, and firings is imperative.  Replacing social promotion with meaningful promotion requirements (meaning not letting students advance to the next grade if they're not ready) has been proven to improve student outcomes.  Creative strategies for turning around or closing low-performing schools is certainly important as well.  These are all things that were encouraged and received points in the Race to the Top application.  It is clear, then, that inclusion of an education reform in Race to the Top does not automatically mean that that education reform should not be undertaken at the state or local level.  We must, therefore, judge Common Core on its own merits rather than disregarding it because of its inclusion in either Race to the Top or ESEA waivers.
          My next few posts on Common Core will deal with the standards themselves and with a comparison to previous standards and previous methods of creating standards.  I will see what I can find on their comparison to standards used to create international tests and what research was used in their development.