History of IDEA
Jeannie Oakes, Founder and Former Director
Youth Voice in School Finance
NEW REPORT: Los Angeles' road to A-G for all
Without Dollars and Sense Powerpoint
Past Educational Opportunity Reports
School Decline as a Spectator Sport
- 07-09-2010
-
By UCLA IDEA Staff
Themes in the News for the week of July 6-9, 2010
After a month-long slog, the finale of the world’s biggest sporting event—the FIFA World Cup—will take place Sunday. From a field of 32 teams, two have powered through increasingly difficult matchups to represent their nations in the final contest—Spain, arguably the best team coming into the tournament, and the Netherlands, who won every match leading to Sunday’s final contest. Who can resist?
At our best, we spectators admire these winners for their sterling performance on the field, and we feel the pain of their worthy but losing opponents. For sports fans, it’s a delicious mix of life’s most consequential moments and complete frivolity.
Let us change the channel now and see what’s of interest on the education network. Hardly a spec alongside the mountain of attention heaped on the World Cup is another contest—consequential, not frivolous, and very sad. We are watching the battle between those favoring a bill by Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., that would skim about $500 million from the president’s Race to the Top education program in order to save some teaching positions (Washington Post), and those who want to preserve all the money for Race to the Top’s competitive grants (National Journal, American Progress, Education Week).
As Californians, it’s hard to know who to root for. Obey’s bill may have an edge in our affections because California schools will be able to retain some teaching positions for its students—how many is not clear. Supporters say that the bill will help schools “weather the draconian teacher layoffs, class consolidations and decline in teacher quality that will likely occur in their absence (American Progress). However, Obey’s bill is a one-year stopgap infusion and a modest one at that. It only would offset a portion of planned cuts in California.
Full funding of Race to the Top has substantial appeal—who can argue with incentives for innovation? But it will take years for “winning” states to fully realize their reforms. And change will not necessarily mean better or more equitable outcomes.
In the meantime, students living in states that are not chosen for the program will not benefit from federal support, however uncertain it is. California and some other states don’t stand much of a chance in this game. We will admire the victors, and feel the pain of the losers who will be, once again, children.
Even before the recession, California was essentially “playing a man down.” It lagged behind much of the nation in student achievement, while having some of the most crowded classrooms in the country (Educational Opportunity Report). With increasing budget cuts and no remedy coming from the state, California can’t compete and future prospects don’t look good (Eduflack, Education Week).
It is important for policymakers, communities, and all those who have a stake in schools to debate whether it’s better to spend money on “motivating” states toward reform or helping schools in greatest need adequately staff their faculties. It’s not a choice that welcomes fans or produces winners.
Send this
Print this
