Race to The Top Round Two
MOU Concerns and Talking Points
CTA is recommending that
local chapters not sign the California Race to the Top Memorandum of
Understanding that went out to Local Education Agencies on Monday. It's
unfortunate that state policy makers have failed to learn from the mistakes
made during Round One and have again come up with a process that excluded
stakeholders in its development, that again pressures districts and chapters to
sign off without time for discussion or even seeing the final state plan, that takes
away local control and accountability, and that has enormous cost implications.
There has been a lack of collaboration once again. The state failed to involve teacher or parent groups
in the development of the MOU and state plan. The state is asking districts and teachers to sign the
MOU without evening seeing the final state plan and application. This is
exactly what happened in Round One. No one considers it good business practice
to sign or agree to something you have not read or seen. RTTT stresses the need
to involve all stakeholders in developing a comprehensive plan and that simply
didn't happen. Local teachers were
not brought to the table in most districts. For example, in San Francisco and
Los Angeles, teachers were not involved in any of the discussions. Parents were
also ignored. In states that were funded in Round One, state agencies and the teachers
union worked hand-in-hand in developing and writing the MOU and their state
plan.
The timelines are rushed and unrealistic. The state MOU was sent out at 8:00 p.m. on Monday.
Districts and teachers were supposed to express intent by Wednesday and sign by
Friday. Stakeholders had no time
to read or discuss it, and the state appears to not be taking any changes.
Actual program implementation
is also rushed and impractical. California will learn at the end of July
whether it will receive RTTT funding. Yet according to the MOU, some programs
must be in place by September, giving the state and participating school
districts one month to get ready.
One example: common core standards are supposed to be implemented by
mid-August, but the state still hasn't put together the committee that will do
this.
There are enormous ongoing cost implications for local
school districts. If selected, California could receive $700
million in RTTT funding. The state can keep half of that, leaving $350 million
in one-time money for local districts to deal with the ongoing costs they'll
continue to incur after the RTTT funding is gone. At a time when local school
districts are dealing with massive funding cuts, mandating additional ongoing
programs and costs is irresponsible. Among those ongoing costs:
· MOU requires districts to hire data coaches to assist
in the implementation. This could mean many news positions for some districts.
So as districts are laying off teachers, they will now be hiring staff for new,
non-classroom positions.
· The MOU calls for teacher planning time in all schools,
a good idea, but unfortunately with billions in state budget cuts, planning
time has been decimated or eliminated in many districts.
· The MOU calls for assistance for teachers who receive
an unsatisfactory evaluation, yet
California's Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program has been eliminated in most districts due to lack of
funding.
· Training costs for teachers and principals on how to
use the new data system.
·
Training for
principals on the new teacher evaluation system.
·
The MOU requires
all participating districts to implement at least one additional high school career
and technical program.
· Alternative pay models. Without ongoing new revenues,
if some teachers are paid more, others will have to be paid less or additional
program cuts will need to be made, even though many educators have already
taken significant pay cuts. How would districts sustain these plans after the
funding runs out? Teachers experienced this back in 2001, when the state
rewards program was eliminated due to lack of funding.
· MOU clearly states that the local school district will
be required to provide additional funding to implement one of the federal
government's four, unproven reform models for schools on the state's persistently
lowest-achieving schools list. According to the MOU, this additional funding
will come from the local district and cannot be RTTT funds.
· Creates a new state bureaucracy (The RTTT Board of
Directors) to oversee implementation of the plan.
The RTTT MOU takes away local control and public
accountability. The MOU gives
unprecedented power to unelected superintendents. It does not require the
signatures of either local school boards or teacher unions. Undermining local school board
authority on decisions that have enormous educational and cost implications
takes away public accountability for these two key areas. The plan also mandates many programs
and procedures - taking away the authority of local schools to do what best
meets their needs of their students. (Note that some school boards may have
taken votes in support of RTTT during Round One and those votes could be
binding in Round Two.)
CTA also
continues to have concerns about the competitive funding nature of RTTT as it
creates winners and losers, with the losers being our students. California
should be working to achieve adequate funding for all public schools, so every
student has an equal opportunity to succeed.
We continue
to have concerns about the four limited and unproven options for
lower-performing schools as research shows the prescribed solutions have
limited success. School reform works best when local parents, teachers and
administrators work together to best meet the needs of students in their
neighborhood schools.
