Race to the Top Analysis: Spreading The Wealth

EPILOGUE (8/24/2010): Well, my predictions below didn't quite pan out. FL and RI came in strong, but IL and SC flopped (but by mere points, of course). I was almost right that with two large states funded -- Florida and New York -- it would limit the number of winners. But the predicted nine became ten with the surprise inclusion of Hawaii (75 mil) among the winners, along with DC (also only 75 mil). For more on the winners, see here.

---

Education Week (and its Politics K-12 blog), the Hechinger Report, the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch, and the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education have provided some excellent Race to the Top Phase 2 analysis.

Based on Phase 1 scores, reviews of Phase 2 applications, and other considerations, I believe Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island and South Carolina are locks for Phase 2 funding. [UPDATE (8/4/2010): One thing that should be concerning to Georgia is an extremely low level of district buy-in (14%) to its application. The only two other states below 50% buy-in are California (18%) -- by design -- and Pennsylvania (32%). As a result I've moved Georgia from a 'lock' to a 'strong' contender.]

Further, I think that Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania have strong chances at winning Phase 2 funding. (That would place the remaining finalists -- Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii and New Jersey -- outside the winners' circle.) That said, which and how many states will eventually be funded from the remaining pot of $3.4 billion is largely contingent upon the successes of the Big Three, each eligible to win $700 million: Florida, New York and California. The presence of numerous $400 million eligible states in the mix also has the potential to limit the number of winners.

Let's look at a variety of scenarios, assuming in each case that Florida can bank on the $700 million. Of the three, I think New York has the next best shot at the dollars, with California's chances slightly less. In each case, I have listed the states in Phase One rank order (so feel free to replace any with your preference).

Scenario #1 (Florida only)
TOTAL = $3.375 billion 11 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
No. Carolina	$400,000,000	12
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #2 (Florida & New York)
TOTAL = $3.425 billion 9 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York Georgia	$700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Pennsylvania Rhode Island Kentucky	$400,000,000 $75,000,000 $175,000,000	7 8 9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10

Scenario #3 (Florida, New York & California)
TOTAL = $3.325 billion 8 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
New York California Georgia	$700,000,000 $700,000,000 $400,000,000	15 27 3
Illinois So. Carolina	$400,000,000 $175,000,000	5 6
Rhode Island Kentucky	$75,000,000 $175,000,000	8 9
DC	$75,000,000	16

Scenario #4 (Max. Applicants w/ Florida)
TOTAL = $3.4 billion 12 States

STATE Florida	MAX. AWARD $700,000,000	PHASE 1 RANK 4
Georgia	$400,000,000	3
Illinois	$400,000,000	5
So. Carolina	$175,000,000	6
Pennsylvania	$400,000,000	7
Rhode Island	$75,000,000	8
Kentucky	$175,000,000	9
Ohio	$400,000,000	10
Louisiana	$175,000,000	11
Massachusetts	$250,000,000	13
Colorado	$175,000,000	14
DC	$75,000,000	16

Unless Florida somehow manages to fall on its face in Phase 2, I don't think it is realistic to envision more than 12 applicants receiving funding -- and that would require one of the $400 million-eligible states (such as North Carolina or Ohio) to be eclipsed and knocked out by a smaller state ranked lower in Phase 1 (such as Colorado, Massachusetts and/or the District of Columbia) or by Maryland, which did not apply in Phase 1 [see Scenario #4]. So although the U.S. Department of Education has dangled the possibility of as many as 15 Phase 2 winners, I don't see realistically how we can get there.

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top, Phase 2 Finalists
• Race to the Top Applications Posted
• Race to the Top: Picking Favorites

Race to the Top, Phase 2 Finalists

Education Week's Michele McNeil and Alyson Klein at Politics K-12 have the scoop on the Race to the Top, Phase 2 finalists. There are 19 of them:

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina

Generally, I think this is about the number of and group of applicants that most expected, including me. The two biggest surprises on the list are Arizona (although it received support from Gates in Phase 2) and Hawaii. There are no shocking omissions from the list, although some felt that the likes of Arkansas, Connecticut, Michigan, Oklahoma and Utah had outside shots at success.

Want to read all the finalists' applications to see what's so good about 'em? You can find links to all the applications here.

Winners are expected to be named by the U.S. Department of Education in late August or early September.

This Is Rich

This policy proposal from Senate Republican Leader Jon Kyl (of Arizona) with a $678 billion price tag -- yes, BILLION -- puts the hullaballo over the $800 million "edujobs" controversy into some perspective. How about we tap into THAT source of revenue by letting the tax cuts expire to save teachers' jobs and leave the currently authorized education reform programs alone?

From Huffington Post ("Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit"):

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

With concerns over the massive budget deficit, rising income inequality, and an inability to fund existing programs, why again should we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that were bad policy when they were enacted? And this at the same time when Republicans are refusing to extend $30 billion of unemployment benefits for Americans hit hardest by the recession. That's rich.

The Washington Post editorial page weighed in on this issue in today's edition, too.

Why Students Cheat

Lately there has been a great deal written about student cheating. Today there was an editorial in the New York Times, which as always gets education wrong. Why do students cheat is usually answered by mentioning that it is the fault of the internet or else by listing the big three reasons which are:

The pressure to get good grades

They are lazy and didn’t do the required work

They thought they could get away with it

The Times editorial quotes a professor who says: “This represents a shift away from the view of education as the process of intellectual engagement through which we learn to think critically and toward the view of education as mere training. In training, you are trying to find the right answer at any cost, not trying to improve your mind.”

The editorial goes on to mention “more than half the colleges in the country have retained services that check student papers for material lifted from the Internet and elsewhere.” And then the writer adds: “parents, teachers and policy makers need to understand that this is not just a matter of personal style or generational expression. It’s a question of whether we can preserve the methods through which education at its best teaches people to think critically and originally.”

I wonder if there could be a better explanation of why students cheat? Perhaps the answer is that the professors and their universities encourage students to cheat. Let me explain:

Consider the Motor Vehicle bureau’s approach to education. Why aren't we hearing about rampant student cheating in driver’s license exams? Perhaps there is cheating on the written tests, I don’t know. But I am pretty sure there isn’t cheating on the actual driving test. Why not? Because that test is a test of performance ability, not competence. The driver’s test tests to see if you can actually do something and there is a person looking to see if you can do it.

Now let’s think about the university model of education. Universities don't actually ask professors to see if their students can do anything in a one on one encounter as the motor vehicle bureau does. Why not?

Because the universities are cheating. They are cheating in two way. First they are claiming that education consists of one professor talking to 100 students in a series of lectures and then passing a test. That is not education. That is a way that universities can have 50,00 students while only hiring 2000 professors, a model that really doesn’t work for the students at all. Listening and regurgitating is not education. Suppose we actually tried to teach every student to think for themselves. Wouldn’t we have to individually assess their actual thinking, by engaging them in a real conversation, to see if they can think clearly?

But way more important here is the plain fact that for the most part, we aren't teaching students to do actually do anything. We are teaching them to write papers about what they know which is very different than actually doing something. You can’t cheat in a an engineering class if your job is to build plane that flies and the professor’s job is to watch it fly. You can’t cheat in a music class if your job is play the piano and the teacher’s job is to listen to you. You can only cheat if your job is read and write and the professor’s job is to grade essays as fast as he can.

As long as doing is subjugated to a secondary role in education, cheating will occur regularly. As long as being educated means being able to write an academic essay or being able to fill in dots on a multiple choice test, students should cheat. They are being cheated of an education and they know it, so they should cheat in response.

This is all a silly game and all students know it. What do they have to do to get a degree is their question. No one is really providing them an education. Professors can claim that they are teaching students to think but they are more typically teaching them how to look at the world in the way the professor looks at it.

Perhaps it is time to start producing people who can do things and to stop worrying if students rip off essays from the internet. The simple solution: stop having them write essays. But then someone might have to actually teach someone to do something and then watch and see if they can do it. That thought is horrifying to universities because it implies a different economic basis for the university, one not based on research contracts, as well as a de-emphasis on academic research for students who will never do it as adults.

When professors stop cheating students of an education perhaps students will stop cheating as well.

As an aside, in 35 years as a professor I never once assigned a research essay or gave a multiple choice test. I did, however ask students to think and write about things that had no right answer. And I asked them to build things. I actually expected them to think.