Comments on: A Not So Amazing Race?

By: Denice Irvin

Denice Irvin — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:19:02 +0000

Issues are so screwy, it may well solely get better

By: kimimaru

kimimaru — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:00:32 +0000

hi, thanks for this post. wishing you a good day, and more blessings to come.

By: alexander

alexander — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:14:15 +0000

great comment, joan — well put. the politics aren’t proportional to the payout, but folks don’t seem to get that.

i’ve been trying to make this point for weeks to no avail, though i think that some journalists are finally figuring out that, even if you agree with the priorities, the hype isn’t matched by the dollars — and that states aren’t dummies.

By: joan ne

joan ne — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:50:43 +0000

Why is the every pundit, journalists, and politician has failed to put the RTT funds in context? Because it would show that the RTT funds are too small to justify the profound changes that are required for states to qualify for a one-time payout.

Let’s do the numbers for my home state, Washington (by way of example):

Potential “winnings” from the RTT competition: max $ 0.7 billion (more probably $200 million, since WA has relatively low population)

Magnitude of the State’s K-12 budget for this year: about $8 billion [about $13 billion and $16 billion, respectively for the 2007-2009 and 2009-2011 biennial periods].

Relative magnitude:

If Washington state were to win $0.4 billion (an optimistic estimate), this would amount to only 5% of this year’s State K-12 budget.

Considering that the legislative changes will have profound changes for decades to come, the relative magnitude is really diminishingly small.

The trivial magnitude of whatever amount WA might get from the RTT fund makes us wonder if the pro-RTT statements by influential individuals, organizations, and news outlets reveal STUPIDITY (the most charitable explanation), or INTENT TO MISLEAD VOTERS as to the actual interests that will most benefit from the pro-charter and pro-merit pay legislative changes that are needed in order to “win” the RTT funds.” The primary beneficiaries will be the private businesses that run the charter schools. They losers will be students, teachers, communities; of these, students from low income neighborhoods will suffer the most. It is their schools that are most coveted for conversion to charter schools, the reason being that these provide the greatest business income and profit opporunity.

To all pundits, politicians, journalist, and pro-reform advocates, I say this: If pro-charter and pro-merit pay legislation is in the best interests of the public, then go ahead and make the case. Try to convince the public of this. And then, when you succeed, go ahead and pass the appropriate legislation. But do not rush through unpopular, controversial legislation for such weak justification as you are giving.

By: Denny

Denny — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:47:10 +0000

You make a great point. I have heard from friends in smaller states like CT, RI and DE that the funding amounts proposed for these states has completely taken the wind of their sails. We need states to take on these changes and strive to win, regardless of the outcome. Come on ED, show us some love!

By: IndyColtsFan45

IndyColtsFan45 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:41:18 +0000

Check out these comments from IN (a potential winner). They certainly don’t believe that everyone should get a medal!

http://www.doe.in.gov/news/2009/11-November/race.html