Despite the fact that the Race to the Top program disappeared from the news several months ago (winnings for the last round were announced in late August), there have been lingering questions and issues with the program. In Ohio, Race to the Top is staying newsworthy in several ways: through a prolonged debate about whether Gov.-elect Kasich's education plans will put Ohio's winnings in jeopardy (which we think is undue), questions about increasing drop-out rates among LEAs (51 districts have withdrawn from the program, the largest of which is Canton City, leaving $2.7 million on the table), and now the latest ? grumblings that the Ohio Department of Education is being stingy by keeping 50 percent of the winnings.
However, the 50/50 breakdown (half for participating LEAs, and half for the state) is not necessarily an Ohio decision but comes from federal guidance and to the best of our knowledge, this is the formula to which states have defaulted. Specifically, applications were required to:
Give priority to high-need LEAs, in addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs based on their relative shares of funding under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for the most recent year as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA.
Theoretically a state is allowed to divert more than 50 percent to LEAs, as expressed in this set of FAQs provided by USDOE:
Can a state provide additional funding to certain participating LEAs or select certain participating LEAs to implement certain activities?
Yes . ? if a State wishes to provide additional funding to certain participating LEAs, it may do so. ? This additional support must come from the 50 percent of the State's award that is not distributed based on participating LEAs' share of Title I, Part A funds.
Hannah News (subscription required) reports today that Ohio plans to flow ?as much as? $206 million (of its $400 million) to LEAs after the New Year, so it'll be dipping slightly into its own pot of money.
We can see two sides to this. On the one hand, federal guidance allows states to distribute more than half to LEAs, especially those implementing pilot programs (might Cleveland's new efforts at building a better teacher evaluation system be eligible for extra funds?). On the other hand, Ohio had a fairly low participation rate to begin with (even before 51 LEAs dropped out) and one could argue that the state needs its share of funding to ensure that reforms are lasting and reach more than just children in those LEAs that signed up.
Flypaper readers, what are your thoughts? Have you heard of winning states distributing more generously to LEAs and going against the 50/50 default?
- Jamie Davies O'Leary
