click to enlarge
I don’t get it. Based on these numbers (from the Hartford Courant), Woodstock students will benefit by a little under $14 each per year and about 7.8 cents each per school day. You wonder if it is worth the cost of the application filing and administrative paper work. Apparently, 67 out of 187 school districts did not sign up with the State Department of Education for this cash cow. This program may only benefit large inner city school systems.
ConnCan’s Statement Regarding the Education Stimulus Money
“The federal government’s $4 billion dollar Race to the Top competition is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Connecticut to reform its public schools. With the largest achievement gap in the country and an enormous budget deficit, no state needs to win this competition more than we do.
On Jan. 19, the commissioner of education submitted our state’s Round 1 application for the Race to the Top. This is a good first step, but its not enough. Connecticut is like a C student applying early admission to Yale–we can’t just count on the application essay to get us over the top.
Fortunately, we have three months to get our education reform grades up before the final application is due. That’s where you come in: now more than ever we need the State Board of Education to take the lead in advocating for education reforms that will make us a national leader in education.
I urge you to support four critical reforms that can make the differences in this competition and for our kids this year. The first is before the board right now,
1) Money Follows the Child. Connecticut’s antiquated school finance system has become fiscally unsustainable. It is high time that we begin the transition to a common sense, transparent, funding system where money follows children based on their learning needs. This year we have an important opportunity to begin these financial reforms–and an urgent need to start with our state’s high-performing charter schools because of Race to the Topss special emphasis on leveraging the growth of these schools as part of a statewide strategy for education reform.
But we will need to do more than just ensure money follows children to charters to be competitive. Thatss why I also urge you to support three other critical reforms that will require action by both the legislature and the State Board at different points this year:
2) Measuring Effectiveness. Connecticut needs an excellent teacher in every classroom and an excellent principal in every corner office. To get there, we must first accurately measure the progress students are making in our schools. Right now we have a lot of snapshots of how students are doing at any one time, but we don’t have a trusted system to benchmark their progress against clear expectations for their grade. Connecticut needs a better data system that both measures this growth and links it to teachers and principals. This new system will allow us to begin to both measure the effectiveness of teachers and principals and the programs that train them.
3) World-Class Standards. To make the most of these new measurements of effectiveness, we need loftier goals to strive towards in our public schools. Connecticut needs to take our academic standards for students to the next level, such as the ability to develop a thesis in English or prove a theorem in Math. These goals must be internationally benchmarked to prepare Connecticut students to compete in the global economy. Connecticut has already signed on to national Common Core Standards Initiative but we must commit to actually implement these new standards by August, 2010.
4) Superstar Principals. Connecticut needs outstanding leadership in our public schools. That means creating alternative pathways for outstanding classroom teachers to become principals. Just like Teach for America created an alternative pathway for some of our most promising college graduates to teach in urban public schools, programs like New Leaders for New Schools can do the same for Connecticut’s principal corps.
States like California, Massachusetts and New York have a head start. They’ve already passed new laws to reform education policies. We have no time to waste in Connecticut.”
It sounds like the program will benefit inner city schools the most by far. That’s one of my complaints about ConnCan. To me, they don’t stand up for rural communities nearly as much as they do for inner cities. They seem to be big on bringing reforms to failing schools, including supporting grants to launch public charters in urban communities. Rural communities risk falling below performance goals over time too if habitually, little focus is placed on their improvement and funding as well.
On the other hand, that’s 19K a year for four years that doesn’t have to come out of local taxpayers’ pockets and we’re not in much of any position to turn down money in Woodstock. Apparently, some towns are planning to take their cash for the four years and then drop some of their programs after the four years are up if it turns out they can’t continue to fund them without the stimulus cash. At this juncture, it’s hard to evaluate whether that’s a wise idea or not without knowing what programs would be run for 4 years and then dropped; and without knowing how crucial and beneficial such programs would be.
Sounds like a crapshoot where we hope for the best for our kids. Sounds like Hartford and New Haven will make out just fine though.
Believe me, there are strings that come attached to that money. It’s another way for the federal government to gain control over the schools…
19K is money the Town would not have. You can spend it on something worthwhile.
As to ConnCan’s statements that are published above…
1. “…common sense, transparent, funding system where money follows children based on their learning needs…” Who determines which children need what funding. Before we put too much emphasis on Charter Schools, should we first determine what the reasons for the success of those schools are? Are they doing something more effectively, or are there more motivated/more capable students? I’m not trying to infer an answer, just asking the question.
2. “…Connecticut needs an excellent teacher in every classroom and an excellent principal in every corner office…Connecticut needs a better data system that both measures this growth and links it to teachers and principals…”
Agreed. But simply collecting more data is not the answer. We need effective and reliable methods to measure student, teacher, and administrative performance. Tests, databases, and graphs will not do. Test results can only show what is going on, not why. We need dedicated professionals working in schools to evaluate why things are happening.
3. “…Connecticut needs to take our academic standards for students to the next level, such as the ability to develop a thesis in English or prove a theorem in Math…”
Agreed. But currently some our public schools are doing very well, while others are floundering. Do more affluent districts have the market cornered on excellent teachers and administrators?
4. “Superstar Principals. Connecticut needs outstanding leadership in our public schools. That means creating alternative pathways for outstanding classroom teachers to become principals. Just like Teach for America created an alternative pathway for some of our most promising college graduates to teach in urban public schools, programs like New Leaders for New Schools can do the same for Connecticut’s principal corps.”
Agreed. However, there are a lot more statutes and regulations, curricular issues, management techniques, budgetary issues, etc… that a principal must fully understand before taking over a school. Being an effective leader is hard to teach, and some people are just better at it, and it would be beneficial to attract such people to education. But it is equally important to have administrators who were effective and experienced classroom teachers before they entered administration.
Yes. Once again the city schools get “our” money and we are left to struggle. $20k may be some chump change, but I have to wonder if the time and effort in jumping through the educratic hoops to get it is really worth doing.
In addition, the Teacher’s Union is opposed to this “Race to the Top” initiative. Probably because it is calling for merit-based pay and the development of charter schools.
So while Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport continue to get the lions share of tax payer money and the Teachers Union continues to obstruct hope and change, the working taxpayers have to wear a weight around our necks and keep working to pay for it all.
On a lighter note, Congratulations to Scott Brown and the patriotic voters of Massachusetts who elected him…. now on to getting rid of the liberals in Ct.who are shamelessly choking their middle working class taxpayers!!
Tea anyone?
Teacher,
Maybe someone needs to get control of the schools and reign in their negligent lack of accountability. When Hartford students are getting 16k per student and their drop out rate is 50%, while Woodstock schools get next to nothing and continue to succeed, then I would say that something is fundamentally wrong and that the people in towns like Woodstock are being taken for a ride by liberal politicians.
So yes, someone needs to take control of the schools…it needs to be the taxpayers, teachers who put students first, and a responsible conservative government.
Tax et al,
What do you think the effect would be if these funds were handed out on a performance basis?
Instead of rewarding low performing schools with more money to try to improve them, what about giving the highest performing schools some of the limited funds because they’ve already hit a goal and could use a little cashflow to keep it going. So, give the least dollars to the very top and very bottom performers, and give the lion’s share to those in the middle (and near-top) to urge them to continue to strive for top performance. Support the staff and curicculum to get such schools to the top and dole out the money to the schools in the middle based on how much they improve. Those schools that improve the most get the most. Those schools that improve minimally get a little more than a failing school but not as much as a school making more improvements.
The best ways to promote real, lasting, effective change in anything involving the government is to first rid the system of corruption. There are few, if any, in Washington today who have any interest in any such thing. After that, the next step is not to reward failure in any program – reward success. If a class takes a test and every student gets and “F”, what happens? Some teachers will decide the test was too hard and unfair and let the class retake a second test. Other teachers will decide that the students still hadn’t mastered the necessary material and will reinstuct the material that was on the test, then retest. But what teacher in their right mind would reward the entire class for their failure?
If we don’t reward failing students, why are we rewarding failing schools? Duh.
Agreed Newcomer,
Here’s another option: How about a “public option” for public education? Each child, special ed or regular, gets the same amount in the form of a voucher. No more or no less for any child. If a child drops out or gets kicked out he/she loses his/her voucher. If they stay back, they lose a voucher for that year. The voucher could be used for any public or private school. Transportation is provided only within the town of residence however.
Oh, but I don’t think the liberals would go for this. It makes too much sense and saves too much money.
Any liberals out there got any ideas on how to save our schools besides mo money?
“Teacher,
Maybe someone needs to get control of the schools and reign in their negligent lack of accountability. When Hartford students are getting 16k per student and their drop out rate is 50%, while Woodstock schools get next to nothing and continue to succeed, then I would say that something is fundamentally wrong and that the people in towns like Woodstock are being taken for a ride by liberal politicians.
So yes, someone needs to take control of the schools…it needs to be the taxpayers, teachers who put students first, and a responsible conservative government.”- Taxpayer
Taxpayer, I agree with you completely. We’ve had this conversation earlier too I believe. The way that the state distributes educational funds to towns is criminal. The educational problems occurring in Hartford are not due to the schools. The community is the bigger problem. So how will pumping more money into the schools solve anything?
We need to stop funding education through property taxes. Education needs to be funded by the state. Funds need to be more evenly distributed to towns in the state.
We need to completely overhall the way we fund education in this state, or there will continue to be a rift between property owners that are overburdened or on fixed incomes and those with kids or other invested interests in the school.
I don’t think change should come from the federal level, however. I’ve always strongly believed that state and local government should more control in this arena.
TPV,
Amen!! Well said!! Couldn’t agree with you more!! You made me feel less alone on these issues-thanks!
TPV and Tax:
I agree that the funding scheme is, to say the least, unbalanced. I also believe that there is plenty of blame to spread around when it comes to elected officials from both parties. The Democrats do not have a stranglehold on making decisions based on party lines versus common sense and the good of the taxpayers.
IMHO, there are too many people making policies and enacting regulations who have no first-hand experience with what a teacher does.
Absolutely JK. I am skeptical of the Teacher’s Union, but nonetheless, I think its important for teachers to get involved, go to BOE meetings, and start having a greater say. Teachers and students are on the front line and they can give the BOE information that no one else can.
On your other point, I do think that the Democratic Party has had a stranglehold in the CT. legislature for waaaay too long. I think its time for an upset. I think its important to shake things up every now and then so that politicians don’t get too complacent. Liberal politics in Ct., like on Beacon Hill, has gotten too entrenched and they really have nothing to show for their time in office. The same problems Ct. faces today are the same we’ve been facing for the last 30 years-just getting worse.
I agree with you JK. Both parties have managed to do their fair share to mess things up in education. Bush gave us NCLB (don’t even get me started on that one), and Obama, rather than remedying the problem, has made it worse with this ‘Race to the Top’ (ugh).
I also agree that teachers need to be more of a force to fix these things. I mean absolutely no offense to our board when I say this, but philosophically, I feel education boards should be made up of those trained in the field of education. Teachers need the power to make educational decisions, devise policy, and even police themselves.
This is something our union should be fighting for. I don’t see that happening, however, because more power locally for teachers = less power for the union heads…
All of you are making perfect sense to me. Thanks for the opinions.
Tax,
I like your voucher idea. I’m not sure voucher would be the right word for it since it has now become a right-wing term and such an action would need to be bi-partisan. There would need to be some set dollar amount equally per child, and because cities and towns vary in their size and proximity of schools that could be options, maybe a busing transportation limit in miles would also need to be set. Above that limit, private transportation would need to be arranged. I would also add that accredited online virtual academy tuition should also be an option for parents. This would help both “problem” kids who are suspended/expelled from school, as well as kids with special needs or health conditions that cause them to lose too many school days. It could be legislated that kids in these online virtual academies would be appointed a faculty advisor that they would need to report to so that staff person could track progress and participation.
I feel similar about this issue as I do with health insurance. Both need to operate in systems which give the power and control to the consumers of those systems. If people have control of the cash that a school or a health insurer receives, then the schools and insurers that do not provide top-notch service at a lower cost (ie., the best value) face the consequence of the people taking their business elsewhere. Then a failing school or failing insurer ceases to exist or is bought out by a better performing school or company.
I guess you can gather by my comments under both this article and the cell tower article that I am in favor of the regular Joe/Jane having the power and control over their lives – not a political party, not a private corporation, not a union, not an entire industry, and not the government. The government’s role in my opinion, should be to provide for basic needed services such as infrastructure, defense, fair and honest regulation of private industries and companies so that they do not usurp the power and control of the people. And I feel that government should provide for those who legitimately cannot provide for themselves such as people on limited income, elderly, disabled, etc. But I think this should be done in a way that preserves the dignity of people and encourages them. In other words, government should be giving people a hand up, but not a hand-out. The only people who should be getting a hand-out are those who truly cannot provide for themselves (either mentally or physically – I have disability and birth defects in mind here) and who do not have a family or anyone to help provide for them. For people in such a dire circumstance, it would be a sin to just ignore them and not care what happens to them. But in general, it does not help any person to simply make them dependant on money that may or may not always be there for them, depending upon who takes office or which political party takes control.
I could go on and on but I guess I’ll jump down from the soapbox now.
Taxpayer–
The Teacher’s Union did not oppose the Race to The Top because of the Merit Pay or Charter Schools. We opposed it because, as “A Teacher’s Point of View” said, strings come with the money. These strings have not been defined by the Race to the Top committee and could very well require schools to complete reforms that would cost much more than the money given (which is not given in one lump sum– but over a course of a few years).
That is the real reason why the Union opposed the initiative– there was no discussion of merit pay or charter schools. We were afraid of being burdened with an even bigger expense.
Another Teach,
OK. Good enough for me. I agree. I am skeptical too of the jumps the town would have to go through just to get a pittance of 20K. Chump change. Good for the teachers for taking a position!
I think Teacher and Another Teacher make some valid points. The plan as it was presented last month really didn’t have a lot of detail and it still doesn’t. There also is not a lot of money at stake for Woodstock. I do think there are some fine concepts in the program but I’m even now unsure of exactly what we agreed to do when the rubber hits the road.
I was, and still am, uncomfortable going ahead with this without the backing of the teacher’s union. Their members will undoubtedly do much of the program’s implementation so I consider their buy in critical. For better or worse that would appear to be the direction we have committed ourselves to so we shall see.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.