1. Big picture
MA put itself in a good position to win (even if it’s during Round 2) with the charters-turnarounds-innovation school law. Without that law, we’re probably about 15th to 20th most competitive state.
2. Our Gov
He wins if we win, because he made the law happen.
Very small potatoes onside baseball missed opportunity : I don’t think he went to DC for the interview of finalists 2 weeks ago. RI’s Governor did, by contrast.
(Disclaimer – my bud wrote RI’s app).
My advice would have been: Go. Cheer your team on. Then you do a presser for MA media. (Then Bill S writes a Rounding The Globe thing to criticize the Globe reporter). Lower expectations.
“Our team worked around the clock to pull together a competitive application. A few states, like TN and FL, are stronger in a couple areas. My team is already at work on that stuff, stuff we learned from other states, like X and Y. Whether we win or not, this will help kids in MA.”
If you win, great.
If you lose, you’ve already planted the seeds that you’re close…and can win Round 2.
3. Scoring Politics?
The only thing the Secretary controls is the cut point. I.e., all the applications are scored by readers. So the Secretary can say “Let’s greenlight everyone through #4” or “Everyone through #8.” And sure politics fits in there.
People usually assume that means a state like Ohio would win. Phone rings and it’s Rahm Emmanuel, etc.
But I think Obama right now benefits from any news which says “We drew a hard line with taxpayer money. Only a few states won. We did $100 billion in stimulus the old-fashioned way. This $4 billion is only for those who change. ”
4. Favorites on edublogosphere: FL, Louisiana (LA?), TN, DC…and maybe CO, RI, DE.
Who do you think will win?
Boston.com is reporting we missed out on round 1.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
On the “Mass is in” side:
Obama owes Deval, and sending over some money is one way to pay it off.
Related: it will be hard for Massachusetts to continue to serve as Obama’s policy experiment lab unless the money comes in for this.
<
p>On the “Mass is out” side:
Massachusetts isn’t a swing state; what political benefit to giving us our money back?
Mass. has a long record of the strongest test scores in the nation…tough (but not impossible) to justify mucking about with success
*Mass. has a strong union movement. Better to go to states where people who understand education are more willing to roll over and play dead
<
p>GGW, what is your feeling on Bill 6 in Florida?
<
p>I’m not sure about the roll-over meme.
<
p>If I’m reading this right, the heavily favored “reform” states (FL and LA) lost – because their unions DIDN’t sign on. Doesn’t that cut against your thesis?
<
p>The winners (DE and TN) managed to get teacher buy-in AND pretty big change including some teacher-blessed pay for performance.
<
p>*
<
p>As for Bill 6…I have 2 thoughts…
<
p>1. In my tiny cloistered world, we don’t do pay for performance. I asked our teachers if they wanted it. I figured I could probably do a little fundraising for that, so it wouldn’t be zero sum. But the teachers shrugged. So we didn’t. Two small exceptions.
<
p>Our school participates in the Advanced Placement grant. So some teachers are eligible for that. But the other teachers don’t mind.
<
p>We also have won this award for the past few years based on our kids’ growth scores on MCAS. A check in the amount of about 4x goes to each school leader and x to each teacher.
<
p>The leaders throw their check back into the pot. Then it gets redistributed to all staff, from the receptionist to the I.T. guy, since it’s kind of a school-wide thing.
<
p>We do have year-to-year contracts. But in real life someone wins “unofficial tenure” after Year 1 (we are more aggressive than most schools about not renewing contracts for rookie teachers who don’t seem to show improvement over the year).
<
p>I wouldn’t want a state-imposed solution for my own school.
<
p>2. Big picture, though, I think pay-for-performance is coming.
<
p>Randi W is smart in that she’s trying to find better ways to do it. But she’s like Gorbachev w/o the little spot on her head. Too slow for reformers, too fast for her locals.
<
p>Bill 6 to me seems like an in-artful way to try to do it, with little worries for various unintended consequences and imprecision.
If I get a Principal’s Pet or Commissioner’s Pet bonus, I’d want to spend it on a two-hour open bar for my colleagues. Only a moron thinks test scores are achieved in a vacuum.
<
p>As for pay-for-performance, I’m all for it, as long as I’m being paid for actual performance, which precludes test scores.
“If I’m reading this right, the heavily favored “reform” states (FL and LA) lost – because their unions DIDN’t sign on. Doesn’t that cut against your thesis?
<
p>The winners (DE and TN) managed to get teacher buy-in AND pretty big change including some teacher-blessed pay for performance.”
<
p>According to this, then, the states that won were states with unions willing to compromise their principles. Teachers are unwilling to accept pay-for-performance in circumstances where performance is largely outside their control. Those who would sell out that idea for money had stronger applications.
<
p>That about right?
teacher locals which sign on to “pay for performance” with factors out of their control are sell outs.
<
p>i’m guessing, though not sure, you mean that you think kids’ learning as measured by sep-to-june gains are outside their control. is that the right characterization?
<
p>if so, would you call AFT President Randi Weingarten a sellout?
First, there ARE no Sep. to June measurements available. Signing on without seeing what would be used is crazy. What we DO have are MCAS tests for which growth models are, effectively, impossible to construct meaningfully. Signing on with THAT measurement is folly.
<
p>Randi has problems within her own union;and there are plenty in AFT who would not object to your characterization. She claims to be “proactive”, but there are many in AFT who suggest she has “left the reservation” without her tribe. Leaders are wise to convince and reassure the larger group of their position and THEN lead towards a change.
<
p>Many educators still cling to the crazed notion that we should be judged on OUR performance rather than student performance. Similarly to the method in which doctors are judged: treatments/regimens/etc. applied to the situation of the patients, and their performance in doing that the basis of their evaluations rather than “outcomes”, which are so often outside their control. Not that they don’t care about the outcomes…
<
p>What I do in that classroom based on the students involved, their situations and their lives is a valid basis for judging me. How they do on a test is too often outside my control…not that I am not interested in those outcomes. They may change my performance in class…the “treatment” I provide. In other words, the patient’s death should not be “hung on” the doctor…and isn’t. The treatment the doctor provided is judged.
<
p>NEA and AFT resolutions…the principles I spoke of…are based on that concept. Is Randi a sell-out? That depends on the depth of your feeling about her abandonment of that idea and the extent which you believe she HAS abandoned it.
I’d make 2 observation about your analogy to doctors.
<
p>1. The barriers to becoming a doctor are so high that 99% of us can’t become doctors should we want to. There’s not many professions like that.
<
p>2. I don’t quite agree on your characterization of how doctors are judged.
<
p>Certainly it is partially true: a typical patient who sees the surgeon and dies is not “hung on” the surgeon.
<
p>And I’d agree that it’s very possible to get bad measurements. Top surgeon might take on more difficult cases, higher mortality rate at first glance.
<
p>But surgeons are often measured by how they perform with similar patients (those with baseline conditions judged to be equivalent), precisely on the outcomes of those patients.
<
p>And this sort of measurement is happening more often.
in Northampton on Saturday at Stan Rosenberg’s annual shindig, sponsored by the Hampshire and Franklin County Councils of Government.
<
p>Jay Gonzalez, Michael Widmer, Jay Kaufman, and some kid–an extremely impressive kid who works for Pangiotakos–spoke about our dire financial straits. Then the Governor showed up and delivered a keynote address. It’s only the second time I’ve seen him in public. He needs to get out more. The guy really lights up a room. I’ve been a pretty vocal critic of his education policy and general political skills, but I see why he was elected the first time. The man is impressive.
<
p>Chester spoke for a while said they wanted to make sure teachers were getting evaluated to help their performance in the classroom; he quickly glossed over any plans for teacher pay-for-test scores. The rest of the time played with his phone like it was a spinner. No kidding.
<
p>While listening to them talk and listen Hampshire and Franklin County people ask questions and make comment, I was taken aback by how much our educational agenda differs from the what seems to be the Eastern Massachusetts agenda.
<
p>There was mention of charter schools and funding, but most of the conversation centered on issues of regionalization and unionization. State Rep. Marty Walz also spoke. She was both informed and sympathetic to our issues.
I’m guessing the person from Panagiotakos’ office was Doug Howgate, his new budget director. He’s very bright… in fact, for all the anti-hack stuff see on the news, the staff on both the ways and means committees are really crack staff. They are some of the brightest and hardest working people I’ve ever met, and I’ve worked with a number of them in the past 10 years.
<
p>If you’re ever looking to hire a smart, hardworking staff person… go find an ex-W&M.
The kid was very good.
2. TN
3. GA
4. FL
5. IL
6. SC
7. PA
8. RI
9. KY
10. OH
—
13. MA
<
p>source. Apparently Massachusetts’ score went up, but not sufficiently.
Or at least the parts that were just sucking up to the feds while actively harming our schools?
we lose Round 2?
Then you have a shot at funding.
would have been proud of. It’s a union busting policy. I was very disappointed to see the MA leg support changes to our educational system in order to get in on the “race to the bottom” funds. Your poll is misleading. It assumes Arne Duncan’s anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-community, anti-student policy is the only way to spend on K-12. I think we should spend heavily on K-12, I just think this particular policy isn’t based on evidence and will ultimately fail. My preference would be to start by ensuring all schools have the basics, like books.
my poll is also misleading in suggesting that josh beckett is seeking $200 million. my understanding is that he only wants $80 million.
<
p>tufts, however, does cost $67 million/year, if you factor in all the fees and tuition.
I know that’s crass and not very nice, but Duncan represents what’s wrong with education: the unquestioning acceptance of ed reform dogma.
<
p>I was never fooled into believing Obama was progressive, but he showed his true colors when he chose a know-nothing like Duncan over an established researcher and educator. Darling-Hammond has serious resume, and she would have brought the point of view of educators and education researchers, both of which are lacking in policy-making circles. By contrast, Duncan is a rank amateur.
<
p>Why did Obama choose Duncan over Darling-Hammond? Because Duncan represents the “educational entrepreneurs.” Darling-Hammond had the temerity to criticize Teach for America’s early “efforts” at preparing its teachers for teaching. She was also perceived as somehow being pro-union.
<
p>The problem with education policy-making these days is the fact that business leaders are driving policy and politicians and bureaucrats are all too willing to come along for the ride.
I saw him on Meet the Press a few months back, and while my memory of the details is completely shot at this point, I do remember thinking at the time that I liked a lot of what he had to say. I’m asking about what positions you object to and why.
Actually both Duncan and Obama support merit pay. Hard to believe they are Democrats.
whether to seriously engage w you on this,
<
p>is that what you teach your students, that people with policies that u disagree with are crap?
<
p>that would mean Doc Rivers for me. i love the guy. but he cannot play big baby! he’s the least efficient big guy in the league.
<
p>btw, not for nothing, duncan stripped Teach For America of their $18 million earmark, in freeing up federal dollars for lots of teacher prep programs to compete for, including ed schools.
administration and stands up and applauds the mass firings of teachers at a particular school in RI, not because they were thought to be poor teachers mind you, but because the superintendent couldn’t get the union to accept her demands, basically rendering the union powerless to negotiate, qualifies as a piece of crap.
Do you honestly think that Duncan’s policies are not consistent with Obana’s?
Of course. My point still stands. I haven’t said what I think about a Democrat in the WH implementing such policies and appointing a piece of crap like Duncan.
..but the numbers of consultants (who stand to make money on this), was overwhelming.
I would tolerate a student ranting, but, of course, I would ask for details. I’ve been pretty ranty lately. Masslib says it best by pointing out Duncan cheering the mass firing at Central Falls High School. Not only applauding the firing, Duncan seems to have designed it as one of four options.
<
p>
<
p>So Obama and Duncan dangle federal funds in front of the poorest district in Rhode Island and offer provide four options to try to get it. It’s kind of sick. These Harvard guys (and yeah, I do have a prejudice against the privileged class) who know next to nothing about education, and absolutely nothing about this particular high school, and decide what’s good for it. There something gross and bourgeois about it. Look what we can do: Offer the plantation overseer money and watch him beat the slaves in the name of education. Watch us applaud while they all dance.
<
p>Will Obama’s four paths for Race to the Top money improve education? I have serious doubts. The general ideas are supported by research, but the specific policies? Not so much. Is it possible that the superintendent of Central Falls doesn’t know what she’s doing? Is it possible that her decision that will improve her marketablility and build her resume (I assure you, no ambitious administrator wants to end their career in such a school system)? Does it matter?
<
p>My theory in a nutshell: market-based or business model educational policy is less concerned with education than with anxiety over the twilight of the neo-liberal view of the world.
<
p>Sorry, I think I ranted again.
One thing that stands out to me:
<
p>Barack Obama: Abroad until grade 5, private education from then on
<
p>Arne Duncan: “Laboratory school” until college, private education afterward
<
p>Deval Patrick: Illinois public ed until grade 7, private education after that
<
p>Paul Reville: Details of education absent from official bio.
<
p>Of the four people with the greatest influence over public education in Massachusetts, there’s a whopping 7 years total experience in public education, none of it happening in this commonwealth.
<
p>It’s like making someone a surgeon because they’ve watched a few seasons of “ER”.
…I would only add that the research is pretty shaky on these models, in fact.
but you can find the comments of the evaluators here:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ra…
My guess is that this will be the blueprint of what the Commissioner will be putting together for Round 2.
Also, from the actual comments of Duncan today, it sounds like having 100% sign-on from districts in TN and DE was a big deal. That wasn’t the case in MA. Chester may even re-open the MOU for new districts, ‘though I don’t know why they’d sign on now.
I have many friends that serve on school committees across the Commonwealth. I served myself for three years. The lack of buy in (100 districts?) had a lot to do with the simple notion that some districts do not trust the BOE, Reville, etc. That about says it all.
(six years and up for reelection this year for three more) and I’m also a public school teacher. I have to say that the hysteria reported about the MOU business was a bit blown out of proportion. The willingness with which some unions signed on–both my employing district and my home district–differs greatly with most of the drama manufactured, imho. My employee union leadership, not terribly progressive despite having a new and trusted superintendent, was highly skeptical. My home district, not having a terribly progressive superintendent, signed on with their usual productive attitude with very little heartburn. Several districts in this area signed on similarly, hoping for an opportunity to exercise some creativity down the line. Much has to do with the nature of the union, its relationship with its administration, and the academic success of the district historically.
<
p>I, too, know many school committee members, but my experience is different from yours. Consequently, I caution you against making a broad-brush generalization that is simply not true or accurate.
Why would a district not sign the MOU? I stand by my statement that “The lack of buy in (100 districts?) had a lot to do with the simple notion that some districts do not trust the BOE, Reville, etc.” Do you trust Paul Reville, Mitch Chester, and the BOE?
people in those districts couldn’t tell you who Paul Reville is, and they CERTAINLY could not tell you one thing about a single person on the BOE. They know Chester because his name appears on their mail, but most couldn’t tell you a bloody thing about him. I don’t think that the distrust comes from those individuals personally at all.
<
p>What I think you’re seeing is the distrust between unions and administration playing itself out. Many unions, populated by old school types who reflexively reject anything new coming down the pike, are distrustful and vociferous. Their anxieties manifested themselves in rhetoric that was not necessarily accurate or vetted. I heard my own union president say, “I just don’t trust this whole thing.” They signed on at the last second.
<
p>So, I don’t think your statement is accurate. I think the lack of buy-in from SOME districts and the foot-dragging in others has little to do with the individuals you mention and more to do with simply being change and risk averse.
Do the younger “more progressive” union members speak up or do those “old school types” dominate the dialog?
Who are these younger union members you speak of? lol.
<
p>I should have hyphenated “old-school” in my original comment. They are not necessarily old in chronological age, but old (or traditional) in their thinking and habits.
<
p>Generally speaking, very few younger teachers demonstrate interest in union matters until they are well established in a district. So the union folks in both districts I have experience with are all in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, but, again, some of the older ones are more progressive than the younger ones.
In my local’s decision not to sign were distrust of Reville, Chester and Patrick (remember that the Central Falls debacle was also in the air around then); and the fact that the wider membership knew very little about RTTT; and there was no time to explain, educate, and vote on it. Remember we got the grant proposal on December 23rd, immediately were on vacation, and had to sign or not sign by January 13. There was great suspicion that this was done on purpose.
<
p>Obama announced RTTT last July, put out the grant in December and we had 21 days, minus a school vacation to consider it. Prime conditions for mistrust. And it’s still there since the Central Falls “blame the teachers” orgy.
<
p>Don’t forget that you had Patrick claiming he doesn’t blame the teachers in failing schools like CF, but signing and praising a bill that took away their bargaining rights in precisely “those schools” in Massachusetts. I think lightiris’ union president was making a rational statement; and yet signed the deal. Why would they insist that we sign on to a program that we have no time to explain to those most affected?
pablophil:
I certainly agree with you on the distrust of Reville, Chester and Patrick and I would agree that the decision to sign/not sign was forced upon teachers without lots of deliberation. That being said, how come teachers cannot work/meet/evaluate/discuss when they are “on vacation?” I recognize it was the holidays, but at the very least your local union officials could have meet to discuss the proposal. My guess is carving out a few hours post XMass and pre New Years would have been time well spent.
in Executive Board for four hours in two meetings devoted to the issue, and I sent them to the webinars. Was that participation sufficient for you? It was not for us. We want to represent the membership…and they knew nothing about this. Nor was their time to educate them; nor was there bylaw-sufficient time to have a general membership meeting to get their approval.
Do you folks think this was some small-time, “hey, what the hell” kind of program? A Mickey Rooney, “let’s put a show on in the barn?”
We are talking about evaluation, licensure, pay, ending the system as we have known it for our entire lifetimes. Sort of like “wages, hours, and working conditions”. People want us to cavalierly put all that on the table…and for what?
If you knew you had no Level 4 schools, you had a different cast on what was going to be required–or demanded–than the communities that did.
And how much Title 1 funding you get might well not make it worth some communities’ time.
has minimal Title I and is a top ten percent performer in the entire state and they signed without qualms. The relationship between union and administration, I think, has more to do with the willingness to sign, irrespective of any under-performing schools in the district or percentages of Title I.
But the lack of chance of any Level 4’s means that the district could entirely ignore that part of the requirements, which is the most draconian.
I think there’s a distrust of federal education policy, too, for those who are paying attention to it.
I was all for signing the MOU, but wouldn’t commit to anything until I saw what rules Obama’s basketball teammate / secretary of education wrote up in conjunction with our Nixonian bureaucrat friends in Malden.
Just wondering, as there seems to be a good number of school committee members and other administrators commenting on this thread, have any / many school districts included any amounts potentially resulting from this grant in their budgets? If so, we would be looking at not only not “winning” the grant, but having additional budget gaps to resolve for next year.
<
p>Thanks
No.
Worcester hasn’t, I can say.
Also, the Commissioner was VERY VERY clear that it was a bad idea.