I had to look up the Act Relative to the Achievement Gap
Mayor O'Brien argued that much of this is going to happen to us anyway (even if we didn't take the money)
Novick argues that the teacher evaluation system is faulty (40% accuracy, at last citation)
would expect more money after all the hype
Most of this money is going to stipends, consultants
Boone argues that this is not different from Title 1 (which I would dispute)
share concerns on MCAS: suggests that it go to Legislature
Foley: concerns about MCAS
would love to see more local control
"I like what I see in the planning...there's a benefit there"
Joyce (I'm going to have to give him his own tag here, if he keeps this up)
"unfortunately it seems like anytime the federal government hands out money, there are so many strings attached"
is the money worth the loss of the educational flexiblity?
Monfredo says education across the nation has failed (!)
Tracy, you are 100% right about this. (Sorry, I know I said I would stay out of WPS but Title I was my baby for so many years...) Title I funds are entitlement funds. The feds HAVE to give the WPS those funds--there is no competition at all for Title I, Part A funds. These $$ are determined using a very specific formula. Race to the Top are competitive funds which a district MAY choose to apply for with a specific purpose in mind. Title I "strings" are very minimal and are not connected to test scores. Perhaps someone can loan the Supt. the Title I Handbook so she can better understand the genesis of Title I funds.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you, Joan!
ReplyDeleteYes, my thought exactly. Plus Title I can be used for concrete things like teachers in classrooms, was my thought last night.