The U.S. Department of Education rejected Connecticut”™s application for $175 million in funding in the second phase of the federal Race to the Top competition, which rewards states for innovative educational plans.
Connecticut submitted its 300-page application in late May, just as the Legislature passed an education bill providing funding for central tenets of the Race to the Top competition.
In a prepared statement, Gov. M. Jodi Rell dubbed it a “profoundly disappointing decision” and “an affront,” but did not publicly level any blame at the leaders whose plan failed to reach the finals.
“At its heart, Connecticut”™s plan for comprehensive educational reform is about success ”“ specifically the academic and personal success of all students,” the state wrote in its Race to the Top application. “Preparation for this success must begin before students stand at the door to kindergarten for what should be, for all, a sustained and grand adventure in learning.”
The ideas supporting that vision statement were not good enough for the U.S. Department of Education. A review of New York”™s application showed many things in common with Connecticut”™s ”“ and some proposals that did not show up in the application of its small neighbor. Among other proposals, New York said it would more than double the number of charter schools and create a program that would allow for the formation of external “partnerships” to turn around underperforming schools.
Among neighboring states, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts all reached the finals of the competition, with final awards expected by Labor Day. Connecticut”™s education Commissioner Mark McQuillan spent most of his career in Massachusetts before taking his present post in 2007, replacing Betty Sternberg who became superintendent in Greenwich.
Both McQuillan and Sternberg spoke up after learning of the latest setback.
“I am very disappointed that we did not reach the finals ”“ in fact, I am hard pressed to understand why we did not, given all the changes and exceptional pieces of legislation that were included in our (round two) application,” McQuillan said, in his biweekly circular issued last week. “Despite the judgment of the readers in Washington, I believe our application put into place several essential initiatives that must go forward, even without the extra funding. I will be devoting the month of August to develop plans for implementing several of the key reforms called for in our proposal and required by legislation (e.g., secondary school reform, common standards and assessments, and new tools for supervising and evaluating principals and teachers).”
Sternberg shared her thoughts in an op-ed published in the Hartford Courant.
“Let”™s not waste time pointing fingers and, instead, realize that the real winners could be the states that have not secured the D.C. dollars,” she wrote. “Free from strings from Washington, local school districts with the right leadership can create real reform that does not necessarily require money, but does require a change in attitudes and behaviors.”
With no real money on the table from Washington, however, the new Connecticut law could be hamstrung from the get-go amid a continuing budget crisis. Among other components, the new law would:
”¢Â   add coursework in science, mathematics and languages;
”¢Â   require schools to use a teacher evaluation system linking student and teacher performance;
”¢Â   expand the state”™s “longitudinal” data gathering system on student performance;
”¢Â   waive enrollment limits for high-performance charter schools; and
”¢Â   establish authority for “innovation schools” within priority school districts.
