You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “R2T rejection leaves a sour taste”.
R2T rejection leaves a sour taste
Written by Todd Engdahl on Aug 24th, 2010. | Copyright © EdNewsColorado.org
The simple facts are these: Colorado lags behind most other states in closing the gap between minority students and non-minorities. It also lacks the will to fund its schools on a state level. I’m sorry that we did not get the money. We could have used it. But to blame anyone but ourselves is to overlook those two glaring facts. Why should the U.S. Government give us money to take care of our kids when we have demonstrated again and again that we won’t do it ourselves?
I find it ironic that Gov Ritter is so upset at the judges believing them to be bias. However, that is exactly what happens as students get evaluated on tests. Sometimes their good ideas fall prey to a teacher or test evaluator that has a different view of what mastery of a standard means. Let’s see if Gov Ritter is as resilient as our students and see if he can keep moving forward even after getting a poor test score… Always good to see how it feels when you step into another person’s shoes
Imagine that a program generated out of Washington has judges who don’t understand the concept of local control. I truly feel for the many quality individuals who worked so hard on this application but I am thrilled that once again we’ve put some distance between Washington and my school house door.
Joyce, your first simple fact is an accurate observation. Given Amendment 23 and other factors, your second “fact” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. From 1989 to 2009, Colorado state funds appropriated per pupil grew more than 22 percent in real dollars. If you look closely at the application breakdown above, “Making education funding a priority” is one of the sections on which Colorado scored the highest.
Mr. DeGrow, unfortunately, Colorado is a Johnny Come Lately to providing adequate state funding for public education. Colorado has spent the better part of three decades (since the 1970s) racing to the bottom not the top. Any competent researcher examining the financial data knows that glaringly simple fact. Judging from the reaction of various elected and appointed to the state’s failure to gain Race to the Top grants, it appears the lesson’s been lost again. Generally, money was granted to states that have maintained their educational infrastructure. Colorado has not. Not only that, typically, there is no inclination for collective introspection. Why did the state’s bid fail? Was it worth it? Based on the nature of the program, any state, or local school district, that lacked the finanical resources to finance professional grant writers may legitimately claim discrimination based on economic hardship. The opportunity is again at hand to examine the infrastructure and make realistic recommendations for reform beginning at the local level and involving students, parents, teachers, administrators and interested community members. Such reform decisions should be democratic not authoritarian. That’s the current model and that is, falsely, being sold as reform with central and building administrators (principals) deciding curricular and other matters excluding students, parents, teachers and interested community members.