My last post in this series ended with RI’s entry into the RTTT fray. This entry meant that the RI Department of Education (RIDE) would need to put together a compelling application to be considered alongside the other 40 some-odd states that applied for the competitive funds. Because of the way that RTTT has been framed, it seemed that states would need to spend lots of time thinking hard about what innovations and creative solutions they might propose to set them apart from the competition, right? Wrong. The US DOE was not the least bit interested in innovation and creativity. And even though Duncan spends time saying that his office is not interested in creating programs (see Duncan at Harvard post), they have set forth a narrow scope of program prescriptions for states to follow, at least those who want a chance at the extra federal monies. This is the genius of RTTT as a public policy.
First, consider RTTT in the context of the current economic times. There are few, if any, states that can realistically afford not to apply for funds. There are few state commissioners of education who are in a position of saying, “thanks, but no thanks,” to a federal education grant. Thus, state education officials like Commissioner Gist, regardless of their personal beliefs about the types of reforms being promoted through RTTT, have their hands forced into submitted an application for the funds. Duncan and Obama know this, and thus expected that the vast majority of states across the country would submit RTTT applications, and in doing so, would try their hardest to shift the policy contexts within their states to align as closely as possible with RTTT priorities. They didn’t need a mandate, they just needed a policy that would exploit the vulnerability of states’ economic circumstances.
Naomi Klein has coined the term “disaster capitalism” in her book The Shock Doctrine to explain how US “free market” philosophies have been used repeatedly through recent history to exploit public disorientation in the aftermath of collective shocks or disasters. While her book mostly discusses shocks such as wars, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters, I don’t think it is a stretch to consider the current economic crisis as having the effect of a collective shock on much of US society. It is in this context of economic crisis that RTTT employs the mechanisms of free market, disaster capitalism to effectively force education policy change. Remember, RTTT is part of the Stimulus Package. With little choice but to apply, states have little choice but to conform.
Next, if the US DOE’s priorities weren’t clear in their RTTT RFP, The New Teacher Project (an organization founded by Teach for America alum, formerly headed by Michelle Rhee, that offers an alternative route to teacher certification in cities throughout the country) produced and circulated an RTTT application and policymaking handbook for state officials to utilize in putting together competitive RTTT applications. If one takes a close look at the content guidelines laid out by TNTP and the content found in the actual application submitted by states like RI they are similar if not essentially mirror images, thus calling into question any semblance of innovation or creativity that one might expect in a truly competitive application process. In this case, the feds are less interested in what good ideas that individual states might have, and more interested in how well prepared they are to implement the ideas that have been handed down. In other words, how much have you, in your state, been able to shift the policy context such that RTTT priority areas are likely to succeed? Thus, things in RI like a current cap on the number of charter schools and the lack of a state education aid funding formula hurt the application. But, things like Commissioner Gist’s aggressive school turnaround actions that have begun even before the RTTT awardees have been announced will be looked upon favorably.
Finally, the last piece of public policy brilliance is found in RTTT’s multiple rounds of awards. The current stimulus money is going to be doled out in 2 or 3 rounds of awards, and when speaking publicly Duncan alludes to more, without actually saying where the money would come from. We are about to hear (maybe even today) who the lucky winners are for the first round of funds. This announcement will not only move RTTT priorities forward in these states, but more importantly it will set off a flurry of activity in the states that were not chosen so that they might have a better chance in round two. The states that win in the first round will most likely be states that have most of their ducks in a row, that is, they will already have established the policy context necessary for RTTT priorities. The states that have a viable shot at second round funding will most likely be short in an area or two and will get to work on “fixing” them as soon as possible. For example, if RI doesn’t receive funds you can expect that there will be aggressive legislative pushes for a lifting of the charter school cap and the establishment of a funding formula (only one of which I would support…but that’s another post). You can also expect the further vilification of teachers and teachers unions as they by and large did not support the states RTTT application. The message will be that RI had a strong application but for these areas and if these conditions change, then RI will be in a better position for round two funding. Thus, the multiple rounds of funding also act as a mechanism to continue to force policy upon states without an actual mandate.
In the end though, realize that only 10-15 states will receive RTTT funding, yet the 40+ who have applied will have been working diligently to create policy contexts in their states aligned with RTTT priorities. Thus, what we will be left with is a majority of states who have shifted their policies with hopes of being funded, but who will not be a position fiscally or mechanically to actually follow them through. The effect? An unfunded mandate in a new sneaky guise.
