Comments on: Blocking the Race to the Top

By: The American Spectator : Obama's New Teacher

The American Spectator : Obama's New Teacher — Mon, 23 May 2011 00:39:46 +0000

[...] didn't even offer much in the way of measurable reform), the Obama administration has disappointed school reformers of all stripes, especially those championing more serious [...]

By: Education Reform – REALLY ?? « 1 Nation Blog

Education Reform – REALLY ?? « 1 Nation Blog — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:03:01 +0000

[...] P. Greene, “Blocking the Race to the Top,” Jay P. Greene’s Blog, March 29, 2010, athttp://jaypgreene.com/2010/03/29/blocking-the-race-to-the-top/ (April 15, 2010). See also Neil King, Jr., “Only Two States Win Race to Top,” The Wall Street [...]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:23:37 +0000

Is it me or was student achievement a very small factor in winning? http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/comments/florida.pdf

Student achievement was 25 point, where as LEA comtiment and support totaled 60 points. THere was another 10 points for ensuring “stakeholder” support.

There were 40 points total for the common core standard intiative…

Florida lost by 12.8 points – clearly union and school district support was key – they were worth 70 points. (at least, I just glanced through).

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:55:49 +0000

There’s nothing “strange” about that. Florida leads the nation (with the possible exception of California) on using data to improve instruction. So obviously what happened here is that one reviewer either didn’t get, or chose to disregard, the memo from the head office specifying that this was the category they were supposed to BS on in order to deny Florida the top slot that it clearly deserves.

Again, it’s not conspiratorial thinking if it’s the only parsimonious theory that covers all the facts.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:03:14 +0000

No, the category is not “data systems,” it is “data systems to support instruction.” Almost across the board, the reviewers dinged Florida for not articulating a strategy to use their data to support instruction. For example, one reviewer wrote: “Their plan…doesn’t speak adequately to how it will use data from these systems to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies and approaches to instruction for all of their students.”
Strangely, one reviewer gave Florida the full 18 points on this section, but all of the others gave Florida low scores. It is section C3. The reviewers comments are here:

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/comments/florida.pdf

I’m not saying I care about this particlular goal, I am just Control B’ing what it actually is.

By: matthewladner

matthewladner — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:18:01 +0000

Control G, plus Florida is on the cusp of passing a bill to actually USE teacher-linked value added data.

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:57:47 +0000

Florida scores low on data systems? In what galaxy? Florida’s data system makes most states look like they’re still using punch cards.

By: rse

rse — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:22:14 +0000

Georgia doesn’t have unions and disregarded the teacher organizations in the state in developing its plan.

They do not seem to have been penalized for this however because they had support from all the state-wide political entities and the business community that has a tradition already of working with the Atlanta Public Schools system. Those business supporters seem to have simply assumed that RTT would be a good thing without scrutiny.

Where Georgia lost its points was the fact that only 23 of the 180 school districts in the state signed on. These districts represented about 40% of the state’s students. Many of the districts that signed up to participate have angry teachers as the terms of participation became public after the MOUs were signed.

It will be interesting to see if Georgia can increase district participation or will lose some of the 23 districts in Round 2.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:00:47 +0000

I spent a little time with the scorecards from Florida, Delaware, and Tennessee. There were 5 reviewers per state. Florida lost points in a number of areas. Of the 5 major areas (not looking at sub-categories), Florida lost to Delaware and Tennessee in 4 categories (A,C,D,E), tied in one (B), and won one(D). I am aso surprised that in most cases, the scores on these applications are remarkably consistent. Delaware knocked it out of the park on C (Data systems to support instruction), garnering a full 47 out 0f 47 from all five reviewers. Florida did pretty bad in this same category, and the scores are fairly consistent. Florida also did particularly bad in D (Great leaders and teachers), and it seems to be the case that most reviewers were not pleased with their lack of a clearly articulated merit-pay plan.

Was union support a factor? Yes. Particularly, look at reviewer 5, who gave Florida 15 points less than the other four reviewers for lack of union support (see section Aii). At the same time, that was only one reviewer in one subcategory.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:18:14 +0000

I know this is only one of many exams, but Florida’s low income students outperform the low income students in Delaware on the NAEP 4th grade reading exam. Delaware stayed at 214 for 2007 and 2009 while Florida increased from 213 to 217. Florida beats some other Delaware subgroups on that exam as well.

From 2003 to 2009 (when all states are taking the NAEP) Only Alabama and D.C. beat the improvement Florida saw on the 4th grade reading exam.

Delaware tied with Lousiana. Tennesse improved more than Delaware but their average student is only doing as well as the average low-income student in Florida.