Last month, President Obama and Secretary Duncan launched the federal Race-to-the-Top (RttT) initiative, releasing draft guidelines by which states would apply for $4.35 billion in grants, appropriated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; i.e., the stimulus – see SIIA analysis). Duncan calls this the “largest pot of discretionary funding for K-12 education reform in the history of the United States.” He may be right. But what kinds of reform and innovation? What exactly is reform and innovation in our K-12 public education system – vouchers, charters, teacher performance pay, e-learning, personalized learning, RtI, constructivist learning, etc.?
As outlined in the RttT draft (which implements the State Incentive Grant program authorized as part of the ARRA State Fiscal Stabilization Fund), reform and innovation in this case are first and largely about enhanced data systems that can match student and teacher performance, globally competitive learning standards and aligned assessments, and charter schools. SIIA generally supports these goals and the four assurances overall, including also the RttT focus on struggling schools.
But in SIIA recommendations filed recently in response to the U.S. DoED request for comments on the proposed RTTT priorities, SIIA challenged Secretary Duncan to go further in the Department’s definition of innovation:
“SIIA proposes that the RttT be leveraged to further incentivize a shift from a seat-time, assembly-line education model to a more flexible, student-centered model built around individual learning needs and pace, anytime-anywhere learning, and differentiated instruction. . . . [SIIA proposes] A more ambitious innovation agenda that goes beyond the education reform infrastructure of the four assurances and emphasizes further the transformative reengineering of education service delivery models needed for our students to compete in this digital age and global knowledge economy.”
Quality data systems, learning standards and assessments are necessary education infrastructure, but are they sufficient to lead us to the “transformational change” the Secretary suggests? In some cases, probably they will help, but in other cases, it would seem schools and instruction could continue as usual. Of course, much will depend on how states respond to the grant competition (and its many requirements, garnering many mixed reviews) to be run in two phases (late 2009 and Spring 2010), and how the U.S. DoED judges and funds these state proposals. But why take this chance? SIIA therefore recommends a more explicit RttT call for states (as well as the Department and local districts) to both identify how they will drive innovation in education delivery, curriculum and instruction (including through the use of technology and e-learning), as well as to indentify and address the regulatory/budget barriers that limit such alternative, innovative models.
The RttT draft State Reform Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria include important moves in this direction, and Secretary Duncan and team are doing great work and have no small task, but SIIA hopes the final version will go further. Otherwise, might RttT be another, albeit better-funded, missed opportunity to drive (technology-enabled) transformational innovation in our educational system so necessary for it to truly reflect and prepare our students for the world of today . . . and tomorrow?