Do Competitive Grants Hurt Equal Opportunity?
Last week, a coalition of prominent civil rights groups released a new framework for education reform that said the Obama administration is pushing policies that will exacerbate inequality. In particular, the coalition's framework takes issue with the administration's signature reform initiative -- the federal grant competition Race to the Top -- and the general emphasis on competitive-grant funding. In this troubled economic environment, most low-income and minority children will be left behind under "competitive incentive" federal policies, they argue.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus asserted that civil rights groups were picking the wrong fight with President Obama and should be cheering his policies, not picking them apart. Obama, who spoke to the National Urban League, one of the member groups, later in the week, defended his education reform policies, calling Race to the Top the single most important thing his administration has done in education.
The coalition says that competitive grants will always benefit the better-off states and localities, which have more resources to innovate and to compete for grants. Are competitive-grant programs likely to exacerbate inequality in the American education system? Should the administration modify its proposals for education reform to adopt any of the ideas offered in the new framework?
-- Eliza Krigman, NationalJournal.com
Diane Ravitch responded to Do Competitive Grants Hurt Equal Opportunity? on August 2, 2010 11:53 AM
Competitions Favor the Strong Competitions are always won by the strong, never the weak. The civil rights coalition statement pointed out that millions of poor and minority children live in states that will lose the Race to the Top, as well as those that fail to win competitive grants under the Blueprint. Competition does not lead to
Tom Vander Ark responded to Do Competitive Grants Hurt Equal Opportunity? on August 2, 2010 10:23 AM
Reduce Barriers, Promote Incentives When a system is broken, dysfunctional, and inequitable, investors with a long term view--governments and foundations--needs to take strategic action to promote improvement. That's exactly what Ed.gov did with RttT and i3. Guidelines specifically focused on efforts that will benefit low income and minority students. Proposals and policy changes indicate that the concept worked even better than expected--most states now have a comprehensive strategy to raise standards, use data to drive improvement, intervene in low performing schools, expand options, and improve teacher effectiveness. The worst possible next step, as proposed by the Opportunity lobby,...
Chester E. Finn, Jr. responded to Do Competitive Grants Hurt Equal Opportunity? on August 2, 2010 09:42 AM
Failed Imagination--and Memory The Obama administration's education-reform agenda was already in trouble with the teacher unions. Now it's in trouble with the old-line civil rights community, too. I'm tempted to say this is clear proof of the agenda's wisdom and promise as well as the administration's pluck. But I won't. Instead, I'll mourn the inability of these groups to grasp what is really in the interests of poor and minority kids--and their failure, almost half a century after ESEA was first enacted (and the Coleman Report released), to see that the old input-centric approach to education reform doesn't work. To understand (and...
