With the announcement of the Race to Top (RTT) winners expected in early April, many of us in the edu-space have turned our eyes back to the Obama administration’s $4.3 billion education initiative. Today a
new report has been released, which takes an in-depth look at the RTT application process to date. Among other concerns, Andy Smarick, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Education, worries that “many states were giving the impression that they were competing not because they were deeply committed to reform, but because the recession had decimated their budgets.” Both the rhetoric and the numbers appear to lend credit to such a concern.
Smarick gives several examples in his
third report of the Education Stimulus Watch series: New York Governor David Paterson seemed to make his motives clear when he said, “There is a potential $400 to $700 million that can come into this state to help pay off some of these bills. Seven hundred million would be very helpful right now.” Ohio’s—a finalist state with a weak application, notes Smarick—Senator John Husted said, “During these tough and uncertain financial times, I believe it is imperative that Ohio be in a strong position to take advantage of the Race to the Top dollars.” And more overt was Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s declaration that “we want to get Illinois in that race and make sure we get as much money as possible from Washington.”
In addition to such rhetoric, the numbers seem to raise suspicion. As shown here, 15 of the 16 finalists in the first round of RTT requested more than their maximum recommended amount per guidelines from the Department of Education. Massachusetts, whose budget range was $150-250 million, asked for $287 million. New York, with a $831 million request, asked for $131 million more than their $350-700 million suggested amount. Top prize goes to Florida, whose $1.1 billion ask was $400 million above their budget range. All told, these states requested $6.5 billion, or more than $2 billion more than the entire RTT fund.
It’s understood reform efforts cost money to enact over the long haul—reason to be even more skeptical of RTT, since this $4.3 billion is just a drop in the $64 billion federal education bucket. But in the face of these extraordinarily high ask amounts and worrisome comments from state politicians, it’s hard not to believe this is simply another overly ambitious and ill-timed reform effort that starts strong but lacks proper oversight.
The underlying fear is, in the face of massive budget shortfalls, winning states will use RTT money to plug budget holes instead of investing in promised reforms. This worry is only exacerbated by requirements under the brand-new health insurance bill
requiring states to maintain current Medicaid and children’s health insurance levels, potentially
making spending cuts in education far more likely. As the RTT round-one winners are announced and states begin to enter the second round of applications, the Department of Education would be wise to stop and consider states’ motives.
