The Race to the Top scheme
[Editor's note: The following article was forwarded to Substance by Susan Ohanian and is published here with permission of the writers. More information is available at Susan Ohanian's Web site, www.susanohanian.org. Substance is unable at the present time to produce some of the important graphics that appear in the original because of our repair work on our graphics and photo capacities].
Let’s pose a question. If you wanted to “sell” something that a number of people did not need, how would you do it? You might try setting up a contest where everyone competes for a significant financial prize. After all, Americans love to compete, especially when money goes to the winner.
Here are the contest details: The competitors are strapped for cash; the competitors must give up some of their prized possessions in order to qualify; and the game organizers do not announce all of the rules until the game is well underway. How fair does this sound?
This is exactly what Barack Obama and U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have done with Common Core Standards (CCS) and Race to the Top (RTTT).
Under Obama and Duncan, the federal takeover of our schools is rapidly spreading across our nation.
It is not too late for the "contestants" to quit playing this game. States that have taken no federal Common Core Standards (CCS) money can drop out of the game. Even states that have received some of their Race to the Top funds could make a plea to Congress to pass a "hold harmless" clause that would allow these states some relief.
The questions that states must answer are, "Do we really want the federal government taking control of our public schools? How much will it cost the cash-strapped states to handle the extra expense of CCS / RTTT?”
The U.S. Department of Education created the Race to the Top program under the Stimulus Bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA) in early 2009. With a federal grant of $4.35 billion, Arne Duncan had a very large "carrot" to lure the states to enter the competition.
Have you ever been in a game where the game organizer made up the rules while the game was being played? That is what the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) did in Race to the Top. The Department issued numerous rules, corrections, and modifications while the competition was underway.
Duncan waited until the state contracts were signed before he made the rest of the plan clear: States would have to adopt the Common Core Standards (national standards) in order to qualify for Race to the Top funds. Other “surprises” included national assessments, national curriculum, and an elaborate national tracking system to link student assessment scores to individual teachers.
The Education Department conducted the Race to the Top (RTTT) in two phases. On 3.29.10, the Department announced that the two "winners" of Phase 1 were Delaware (#1) and Tennessee (#2).
On 8.24.10, the Department announced the ten "winners" for Phase 2. The winning states were ranked from #1 (first place) to #10 (tenth place). The ten winners were: #1 -- Massachusetts, #2 -- New York, #3 -- Hawaii, #4 -- Florida, #5 -- Rhode Island, #6 -- District of Columbia, #6 -- Maryland, #8 -- Georgia, #9 -- North Carolina, #10 -- Ohio. (Note that neighbors D.C. and Maryland tied for sixth place, and there was no seventh place.)
The 12 RTTT winners and the Award amounts are shown in the Table, Race to the Top (RTTT) Awards. The Table also lists the rank for each state in the Phase 1 competition and the Phase 2 competition. Note that Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont did not participate. We commend these states for not playing the game.
We reluctantly entered the word "award" in this Table. The Education Department uses the term "award" to apply to the grant passed to the winning states. On the dates mentioned above, the Department notified each "winning" Governor with an "Award Letter" that specified the dollar amount of the grant.
Of course, federal awards or grants must come from somewhere. We taxpayers pay huge amounts of money in taxes to the federal government, and it returns a small portion back to the states and calls it an "award" or "grant." This is not free money!
Race to the Top (RTTT) Awards
(Rank, Awards, Award / Student / Year)
State
Phase 1
Rank
Phase 2
Rank
RTTT Award
Enrollment
(No. Students)
Award/Stud./
Year
Alabama
37
36
748,000
Alaska
--
--
129,000
Arizona
40
12
1,161,000
Arkansas
17
21
487,000
California
27
16
6,435,000
Colorado
14
17
827,000
Connecticut
25
25
559,000
Delaware
1
--
$119,122,128
125,000
$238
District of Columbia
16
6
$74,998,962
70,000
$268
Florida
4
4
$700,000,000
2,771,000
$63
Georgia
3
8
$399,952,650
1,735,000
$58
Hawaii
22
3
$74,934,761
174,000
$108
Idaho
28
--
283,000
Illinois
5
15
2,117,000
Indiana
23
--
1,049,000
Iowa
24
22
480,000
Kansas
29
--
467,000
Kentucky
9
19
692,000
Louisiana
11
13
661,000
Maine
--
33
185,000
Maryland
--
6
$249,999,182
828,000
$75
Massachusetts
13
1
$250,000,000
941,000
$66
Michigan
21
23
1,635,000
Minnesota
20
--
830,000
Mississippi
--
34
496,000
Missouri
33
30
919,000
Montana
--
35
142,000
Source:
U.S.D.O.E.
2.21.11
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_034.asp?referrer=list
Race to the Top (RTTT) Awards (Cont.) (Rank, Awards, Award / Student / Year)
State
Phase 1
Rank
Phase 2
Rank
RTTT Award
Enrollment
(No. Students)
Award/Stud./
Year
Nebraska
39
31
290,000
Nevada
--
24
463,000
New Hampshire
38
29
198,000
New Jersey
18
11
1,362,000
New Mexico
30
28
331,000
New York
15
2
$696,646,000
2,669,000
$65
North Carolina
12
9
$399,465,769
1,520,000
$66
North Dakota
--
--
92,000
Ohio
10
10
$400,000,000
1,802,000
$55
Oklahoma
34
20
649,000
Oregon
35
--
565,000
Pennsylvania
7
18
1,824,000
Rhode Island
8
5
$75,000.000
142,000
$132
South Carolina
6
14
706,000
South Dakota
41
--
119,000
Tennessee
2
--
$500,741,220
1,006,000
$124
Texas
--
--
4,949,000
Utah
19
25
573,000
Vermont
--
--
89,000
Virginia
31
--
1,238,000
Washington
--
32
1,026,000
West Virginia
36
--
281,000
Wisconsin
26
27
861,000
Wyoming
32
--
87,000
Total U.S.
$3,940,861,000
49,788,000
$71
Source:
U.S.D.O.E.
2.21.11
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/score-summary.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/summary.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_034.asp?referrer=list
Notes:
1. The latest available USDOE enrollment numbers are "Projected Fall 2009."
2. Award per student per year is based on the 4-year award period.
3. The Total Award / Student / Year of $71 is based on the total RTTT awards and total students for the 12 RTTT winning states.
For the enrollment numbers in the Table, we used the latest available figures from the USDOE ("Projected Fall 2009"). These numbers include public elementary and secondary schools (K-12) for each state.
The "Award / Student / Year" column needs some explanation. Let's use Delaware as an example. Delaware placed No. 1 in Phase 1 and received a grant for $119,122,128; the state has 125,000 students in its K-12 public schools. [$119,122,128 divided by 125,000 students = $953 / student] For each state, the award period is four years. [$953 per student divided by 4 years = $238 / student / year] Then the Award per Student per Year = $238.
The Award per Student per Year allows us to keep education spending in perspective. Public school education in this country has always been funded primarily at the local and state levels. The federal funding is relatively minor.
Let's take Massachusetts as an example. The state received $250 million in federal RTTT. That amount may seem large, but it represents only about 1/144 (0.70 %) of Massachusetts’ overall school funding for the four-year period. Most states have similar percentages.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is charged with the task of collecting and reporting state education data, much of which has to do with local, state, and federal funding sources. The TEA recently produced the 2009-10 Texas Education Agency Pocket Edition of Texas Public School Statistics (published in December 2010).
According to the TEA's Pocket Edition, the per-pupil spending figure for Texas is $11,567. This figure includes the total per-pupil spending (i.e., expenditures) including local, state, and federal dollars.
Total Revenue Per Pupil -- $9,965
Total Expenditures Per Pupil -- $11,567 -- This figure includes local revenue (47.1%), state (42.9%), and federal revenue (10.0%).
Federal funding is nice when you are getting it, but what happens when the flow stops? States and local governmental agencies got used to the Stimulus funds during 2009 and 2010.
Now that the Stimulus funds are essentially depleted, states and cities are running deficits and are being forced to lay off workers. In the same way, RTTT money is temporary, but the "pain" of Common Core Standards will last for many years to come!
Obama submitted his Fiscal Year 2012 budget on 2.14.11. This budget provides $77.4 billion for the Department of Education. It includes $1.4 billion for RTTT and a whopping $26.8 billion for a reformed Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA)! (Please note that the White House announcement uses the $1.4 billion figure for RTTT.) The link for the Education Budget is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/education.pdf
Fox News has placed Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) Federal Budget Calculators on its website. The FY 2012 Education Budget Calculator link is:
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/fy2012-education-budget.htm
By using this calculator, you can figure out how much your individual share of this Education budget will be. For example, if your Gross Annual Income is $50,000, Your Taxpayer Share = $339.71, just for the federal Education Budget.
The Fox News website also provides Taxpayer Calculators for other parts of the 2012 Budget. As taxpayers, we need to urge our Congressmen to make huge cuts in these proposed budget items.
The White House press release for the Education Budget stated:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/education.pdf
Adapts the Race to the Top Model of Com petition to Transform Lifelong Learning. Widely viewed as leveraging more change than any other competitive education grant program in history, the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative spurred States across the Nation to bring togeth er teachers, school leaders, and policymakers to achieve difficult yet fundamental improvements to our education system.
Clearly, the Obama administration will use the RTTT funds and ESEA funds (billions of dollars) to indoctrinate our public school children. Common Core Standards and Race to the Top are the vehicles to further their agenda. To understand this more completely, please read our report, "Let's Get Off the National Standards Train," by Henry Burke and Donna Garner. Here is the link to the report:
http://www.navigator-news.com/component/content/article/4-national/206-lets-get-off-the-national-standards-train
How would you feel if an outsider came into your company (without your permission) and asked your employees, "Would you like some free money?" (Of course, your employees are required to grant some concessions to get the money.)
This is exactly what Obama is trying to do with his 2012 budget, announced on 2.14.11. In "Obama's Budget Proposes a Significant Increase for Schools," reporters Sam Dillon and Tamar Lewin of the New York Times stated:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/15education.html?_r=1&ref=education
The 2012 budget proposal includes $900 million for Race to the Top, which the administration says would be awarded this time not to states but to school districts. That would make it possible, for instance, to channel money to Houston or other districts in Texas that wanted to compete in the Race to the Top initiative but could not because their state declined to participate.
Reacting to the administration’s budget, Representative John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, indicated a reluctance to invest more in education.
'Over the last 45 years we have increased our investment in education, but the return on that investment has failed to improve student achievement,' Mr. Kline said. 'Throwing more money at our nation’s broken education, system ignores reality and does a disservice to students and taxpayers.'
States like Texas and Alaska have declared that they want no part of the Common Core Standards / Race to the Top program. Even though Texas Governor Rick Perry, Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, and the elected Texas State Board of Education members have all decided not to fall for the “carrot and stick” federal program, the Obama administration is trying to do an end run by inserting $900 Million into the 2012 budget for Race to the Top funds that would go directly to school districts instead of going to the states.
This is where grassroots citizens must take a stand and tell their school superintendents “No, we do not want the federal government indoctrinating our students and controlling our local school districts.”
The costs associated with the Common Core Standards (CCS) are huge! It will cost millions of dollars to convert from the existing state standards to the Common Core Standards (national standards). In California, they estimated the cost at $1.6 billion! Obviously, it would cost much less for a smaller state.
The other major cost element is assessments. The Education Department has made it very clear that online assessments will be required. States will be forced to spend tremendous amounts to support all of the technology that will be needed to administer the new national assessments. What do you think taxpayers will say when states and cities request large increases in their education budgets?
We should point out that each student will need his own technology device ("computer") all year long to be able to take the project-based, interactive, multi-media formative (benchmark) assessments to get each student ready to take the summative assessment.
Along with the expense of each student having his own technology device will be the layers of technology support staffers to keep those devices going for thousands of students per school district.
We wonder where those layers of technology support staffers will come from when districts won’t have the money to pay them what the business world pays.
The obvious answer is that the layers of trained and capable technology support staffers will not be available to the schools; this means that teachers and students will continually have to “fight” to keep the devices working so that the data can be transmitted to the national database in Washington, D. C.
Then there is the issue of replacing lost and broken technology devices, updates, maintenance, repairs, and on and on. All of this costs money.
Just think about what states will have to do to implement the CCS into their schools and how much all of this is going to cost in time and salaries:
1. Provide digitized CCS master copies of documents to all educators
2. Pay the salaries of consultants to come into the state and into school districts to “interpret” to educators what the gobbledygook CCS jargon means. Produce grade-level-specific curriculum documents that break down the broad and generic CCS requirements into explicit goals for teachers/students to reach at each grade level
3. Train teachers at each grade level to understand fully what needs to be taught and help them to develop all new lesson plans accordingly
4. Do intense teacher training to acquaint them fully with the national assessments tied to the CCS
5. Create an entirely new teacher evaluation system that is tied to how well teachers’ students do on the national assessments
6. Coordinate the K-12 curriculum documents and assessments with college admission and higher-education standards
7. Aggregate immense amounts of data in a standardized format to transmit to the national database
States and cities are strapped for cash and many are running huge deficits. Elected officials are looking for ways to cut spending not increase spending levels. Are the state and local taxpayers going to be happy picking up the tab for the Common Core Standards, complete with the expenses incurred for the national assessments?
Strictly from a cost standpoint, we can make a very strong case against the Common Core Standards. When you add the loss of local control, the case becomes even more compelling.
States need to fully understand all of the ramifications associated with the whole Race to the Top and Common Core Standards scheme. This is a big decision that will affect students, teachers and taxpayers for years to come!
Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com
Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com
English Success Standards (K-12)
http://mystudyhall.com/myskillbuilder/articles/ENGLISH%20SUCCESS%20STANDARDS%20(K-12).mht
Please let me know if you do not wish to receive my e-mails, and I will take you off my address list. Thank you
