Earlier this week, The Education Gladfly gained access to a confidential memo from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel about the first round of Race to the Top. Due to its obvious implications for education policy, we reproduce it here in full.
TO: Rahm Emmanuel
FROM: Arne Duncan
DATE: March 30, 2010
RE: Race to the Top Round 1 Winners
I appreciate your interest in our Race to the Top competition. As you requested during our phone call “check-in” yesterday, here is an explanation of our rationale for spending $600 million on “two s---hole states with 14 f---ing electoral votes between them," and for not funding states “that we actually give a rat’s a-- about.”
Let’s start with Ohio, the subject of much of our somewhat abrupt "conversation" yesterday. I comprehend that helping Strickland trounce Kasich in November is paramount, and that Representatives Boccieri and Space were given certain “assurances” when you negotiated their health-care votes. But the peer reviewers just wouldn't take our "advice" regarding Ohio's RTTT application. Seems that, when asked “how will you promote the development of high-quality charter schools,” the Buckeye response was “send our charter schools to other states that might actually want ‘em.” As for teacher merit pay, they assert that “we find much merit in our uniform salary schedule.” So I told Uncle Ted that he needs to clean up the language and we’ll find a way to help him out in Round Two. (Did I mention that those second-round grants will be announced six weeks before Election Day?)
Massachusetts is trickier. Everybody will say we’re just punishing them for the Scott Brown insult—and maybe we should—but that isn’t what happened. It seems there was a minor misunderstanding on the peer review committee. Two of the panelists apparently confused state education commissioner Mitch Chesterwith Fordham Institute president Chester Finn. And boy do they dislike Finn. (I kinda like him, myself, at least once-a-week.) The bean-eaters also lost points for “stakeholder support” because the Pioneer Institute refused to sign onto the application, and it got all eighty-one of the state’s newspapers, plus 345 parish bulletins, to editorialize against it. But again, we’ll fix these problems for Round Two. I’m well aware of the President’s affection for Deval.
Aside from those, there are plenty of other decisions where I think you’ll agree that our judgment was sound. First, there was Kentucky, which we Mitch-McConnelled. It was fun to say “no” to Mr. No himself. We’ve also put a hold on his state’;s ability to get the reviewers’ comments—we told him he needs to round up sixty votes before we’ll release them. Florida was a close call—their education-reform track record is pretty neat—but no way would we give Jeb’s 2012 campaign that sort of jump-start. South Carolina had a strongapplication except for its “cultural exchanges with Argentina pilot program,” which cost them big-time. As for our home state of Illinois, this was a case of slightly too much stakeholder support; whoever decided to get Blagojevich to sign on to the application is a blooming idiot.
The toughest call was Rhode Island. I really wanted to give them a grant, what with all they’re doing to push the reform ball forward. But as you probably know, the Secret Service signaled that they can no longer risk letting the President travel to Providence to promote the award. Kabul in the dark is one thing, but those Central Falls teachers are really pissed, and they don’t play games. (One of my predecessors aptly termed their union a “terrorist organization.”)
Other states fell short on the merits. North Carolina’s application, for example, hinged on Jim Hunt running for a sixth, seventh, and eighth term, which the reviewers deemed “unlikely.” D.C.’s depended on getting a new teacher contract, which now isn’t expected until 2026, partly because Michelle Rhee is booked solid with media interviews for the next decade. Louisiana’s plan counts on another hurricane to “take its reforms to the next level.” And we figured New York should get Bloomberg to fund their reform efforts himself. Besides, we’d rather keep Paterson out of the media spotlight until November. Georgia’s proposal was surprisingly good—until we realized that they had cheated. Colorado’s was viewed as “too square.” (Something to do with the map.) And Pennsylvania—well, honestly, we couldn’t remember why we put Pennsylvania on the finalists’ list in the first place. And we’d rather wait closer to Election Day to make sure Specter doesn’t change parties again.
Which brings us to Delaware and Tennessee. Our watchwords here are “buy-in.” (Some murmur “sell-out.”) Both states got unanimous support from their teachers unions, and yes, I remember your vivid point about the NEA’s campaign spending during the 2008 election cycle and how critical a repeat will be for 2012, in light of the Supreme Court decision and all. Still, as Vice President Biden said, his home state of Delaware had a “f---ing awesome proposal.” And we all agree that keeping Lamar Alexander from donning another plaid flannel shirt is a good thing.
So there you have it. I promise to give you more of a heads-up before we announce the winners for Round Two. (Actually, we should know those by tomorrow—and we kept back plenty of $$ to shower upon them.)
Speaking of showers, see you at the gym.
—Arne
p.s. If you haven't had a chance to review some of the RTTT finalists' presentations, here's a sample we put together as a White House FYI.
The Best Race to the Top Presentations from Education Gadfly on Vimeo.