Managers of the Race to the Top, the federal funding program aimed to help out states with qualifying education plans, announced that Rhode Island will not be receiving funding after this first round. Applications were evaluated on a 500 point scale, Rhode Island received 419 points, and ranked eighth out of 16 finalists. Only two states, Delaware and Tennessee, qualified for the grant.
This morning the Providence Journal outlined why Rhode Island was not one of the winners. To summarize the reasons in two broad points:
1. The 200 page application only received endorsement from two (Providence and Foster) out of Rhode Island’s 40 unions
2. A lack of a school financing formula indicates a failure to show that Rhode Island has made education funding a priority.
The Journal also included this link which provides access to the application’s technical review form. The review form includes the breakdown of the application scoring as well as commentary for the given score. After reading over the commentary, it appears that Rhode Island’s application came across as containing lofty goals, but with no clear or pragmatic mode of implementation; no doubt a result of having no support from the unions, and no objective state-wide financial model for ongoing support.
The United States Department of Education has sent Rhode Island’s Education Commissioner Deborah Gist back to school, requiring that a revised application include input from the unions and perhaps a funding formula! Applications for the second round will be due on June 1, 2010.
Sam — thanks for commenting. I think that the funding formula is the key, as it’ll bring in the unions and help with the other metrics has well. We wrote a letter to Duncan urging him to urge us to adopt a funding formula. I’m hoping that’s what’s going on.
Thank you for this Sam.
With regard to the funding formula, the judges asked Rhode Island to provide data concerning the percentage of State money being used to fund public education in the previous three years. The Rhode Island application did not provide the information requested, stating instead that RI’s overall per pupil expenditure was the 6th highest in the country. This was not responsive to the question, because the U.S. Government wanted to know what the State was doing, not what local communities were. The judges’ comments display some frustration in RI’s failure to provide a direct answer to what was a straightforward question.
More generally, Rhode Island’s state share of school funding in the most recent year available (2007) was 36.2%, seventh lowest in the country. In contrast, for example, Massachusetts’s share was 47.7%, and the national average was 50%. Massachusetts allocates an additional $1,500 per student in state aid above what we do in Rhode Island. This extra money could improve the quality of education dramatically, particularly for kids in poor districts that cannot afford adequate school programs. The Rhode Island General Assembly has enacted resolutions confirming a goal of 50% on several occasions, including when it enacted the Paiva-Weed law placing limits on local school appropriations.
In short, Rhode Island’s state government is not doing its share to fund public education, and while this year’s fiscal climate is difficult, a funding formula should include a long-term commitment to bring State funding up to the levels that prevail in Massachusetts, New England and the rest of the United States of America. It is unlikely that the current RIDE funding formula proposal, which calls for flat overall State aid for the next 10 years, will score many points with the Race to the Top judges.
It’s really sad and pathetic that this kind of money is tied to the unions endorsing it. What? They don’t actually want to work for their money?