Where does the money go?

The Denver Post asks "Where does the School Turnaround Grant money go?"
(A reminder: the STG program is what Massachusetts Level 4 schools get if they choose one of the four "turnaround models," thus at a minimum firing/"reassigning" their principal.)
First of all, I'm really glad to see they're asking. There's millions of dollars going to what is theoretically this effort; seeing in what way--if any--that money touches kids is an excellent track to be following.
And may I just ask now: please, please will someone do this for Race to the Top?
It's a three part series, and I'd recommend part I as being, far and away, the most important. The short version of what they found?

In Colorado — one of the few states willing to tally such spending — consultants are taking home 35 percent, or $9.4 million, of the $26.6 million that came to the state from the U.S. Department of Education in the past two years.

Really, this goes back to what many of us have been pointing out about this and other federal initiatives: there's real money to be made here, and lots of people have their hands out. The assertion that there simply are not this many good consultants in the country is entirely right, and this notion that you can just fly someone in (literally) and have them turn your school around for you is misguided, to say the least. 

There's a few parts here that are a problem: the question around where the money should go, for one. The article questions giving it to the schools, but the push right now is (at least in name) for community control, so running this from the central district office is not going to get you there. The notion that there should be a jump in test scores immediately (if not sooner), and how dare they fund these schools for a second year completely ignores the reality of a school that has gone through upheaval (yes, we've got people weighing in who don't know what they're talking about. Again.).

The second* and third parts of the series track the same way: you fire the principal and replace at least half the staff, and you're expecting the children's test scores to go up in every case across the board? This ignores the reality of schools as a community where children need to feel secure to do well. And just fire those pesky teachers, because clearly that--not lack of preparation coming in, children's needs outside of school, even the sinking school--is the only thing that matters when it comes to the children's success on tests. And don't even bother suggesting that there could be any other measure of success beyond those tests!

I was a bit encouraged by some of what else the Post reports grant funds being spent on:

Greenlee principal Laurie Grosselfinger said grant money is being spent on classroom libraries; new technology, including smart boards; literacy coaches; and after-school tutoring.

Farther down, another school has expanded preschool and full-day kindergarten. No mention in any of this of dealing with much outside of school: housing, nutrition, physical activity, safety, mental health, other family needs...all the rest of what we know goes into having kids who are ready and able to learn when they get to class. That's pretty disturbing, as it continues the myth that what happens outside the school somehow stays there, rather than coming straight into the building with every kid.

Which it does.

Yes, you could do this with Worcester. You'd want to pull information not only from the School Transformation Grant, but also the Race to the Top funds, as that also was spent in part on the Level 4 schools. Offhand, I'll tell you that most of the money went to extended day--required by the state--and professional development for teachers. Some of the RTTT funds went for a half-time librarian for each building (they share one) and expanded school adjustment counselor access.

*but, by gosh, those kids have matching polo shirts, so surely test scores are rising!