Reflections on the evolving RTTT situation

I wanted to put down a few thoughts regarding a number of related stands - the RTTT application process, how turnaround is presented in the application and in the School Improvement Grant guidelines, and the power of foundations and some of the larger consulting firms.

In developing policy briefs for a number of states on each of the four "priorities" in the RTTT application, it became clear that there were a small number of organizations that were on the A list of providers. As a policy analyst, I look at the application guidelines (e.g., what the government wants to happen) and then look at current policy, think tanks, publications....to see what could be the most strategic approach for a state to take in writing an application. After reviewing all of the information that I could lay my hands on, it was clear that a successful application needed to imply that there would be a partnership with one or more of the major teacher quality organizations or charter organizations. The circle of "eligible" organizations became smaller and smaller the more I looked at the RTTT guidelines.

Consider then, the influence of the larger consulting firms - those "approved" by the Gates Foundation to work with a set of SEAs on developing RTTT applications. There are a limited number of large-consulting groups providing support to states, funded by foundations. These consulting firms undoubtedly have connections with many of the major education providers. In actuality, there is little opportunity for real innovation. The only hope is that the major education providers - the current A List - are actually in this for the right reasons - to support kids.

Consider how the Turnaround Options, as presented in the SIG guidelines and the RTTT application, have moved away from the original intent of Turnaround concept. As someone involved in a number of conversations regarding "turnarounds" before they were actually written into policy, I am uncomfortable with the current iteration of the concept. The turnaround work was primarily focused on CHANGING THE CONDITIONS - the policy environment - in which schools operated to allow for dramatic and profound change. In other words, firing principals or firing teachers was not part of the equation. Where the rubber hits the road, however, is when school board, unions, or the state do not have the will to change policy conditions. For instance, the situation in Fall River is not about "firing teachers", although that is the outcome that is presented to the media. The real issue is that the school board wanted to change the conditions at the school to allow for dramatic change, and when the teachers union refused to do so, the only recourse was to dismiss the teachers. However, the crux of the issue is that conditions need to be changed to allow teachers to do what they need to do.

The policy manipulation taking place is interesting, to say the least. And it is clear that the democrats are just as, if not more, susceptible to inside politics as republicans. I just read the blog and email thread (The Frustrated Teacher) of Dean Millot that relates the censorship of his column that was originally posted on Russo's This Week in Education . Check it out for some good reading.