“Buried within a 263-page application for $409 million in federal grant money, Ohio education officials detail how they want to spend $600,000 for two cultural anthropologists, $400,000 for a video, $320,000 for a communications plan and another $160,000 for ‘creative messaging,’ according to this morning’s Dayton, Ohio news.  This set State Senator Jon Husted, a former education chair and current candidate for Secretary of State off the deep end. He called it an example of why people lose faith in government, and was “embarrassed” by some of the things the state is seeking to fund.

That’s not the worst of it. These abuses of money are obvious, but what about the policies that sound like they are addressing the Administration’s mandate to reform education but are actually carefully crafted to dodge the issue?

Take Tennessee, a state rumored to be a finalist today, whose Governor was lauded for signing into law a bill that requires at least 35% of teacher evaluations be pegged to student growth.  Their ‘Race to the Top’ application appears to imply that a greater amount of student growth counts towards teacher evaluation than is actually the case. The application says, “objective student achievement data will comprise 50% of the evaluation”, but does not make clear that student growth is still only 35% of that process, not 50%. The rest of how they will determine teacher performance is left up to multiple measures, classroom observation and other assessment tools to be decided. Cagey, no?

How about the competition’s push for charter schools? Delaware’s movement toward charter schools was halted by a series of self-imposed moratoriums (not mentioned in their application), they approved zero charters for this current school year and their approval of three new charter schools to open in 2010-2011 is hardly bold. And yet their application states “Delaware is among the most welcoming states for charter schools.”

Reviewers, however, are not permitted to use their knowledge of a state’s policies and environment to judge the applications.  It’s what’s on paper that requires their focus, not what they know (or can easily find out).

These are just a few of the examples that have many wondering how we can give credit to an otherwise well -intentioned program, one that may actually end up rewarding states for creative writing over good policy. Today we will know more when EdSec Duncan announces the finalists. Whether it will mean the race is won, or just starting again, remains to be seen.

“I’m from the state of Ohio, so I think I look at things a little differently because most of our charter schools are not public charter schools. So, you may hear me coming from a very different vantage point.”

- Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio)

(Just one of the headscratchers from last week’s House Education and Labor Committee hearing on charters.)

While the media are paying attention to the now infamous presidential battleground state of Ohio, maybe they can spend a few minutes on the continued and outrageous opposition of that state’s Governor to charter schools, an issue that our POTUS candidates allegedly agree on (though we have some doubts).

Governor Ted Strickland fought hard two years ago to abolish all school choices from the state’s budget. He was overwhelmingly defeated by tens of thousands of people across the state rallying to retain the precious right to direct their own children’s education. Strickland hid behind what he considered gross failures among choice and charter schools - meanwhile, the legislature had already enacted legislation that guaranteed charter school closures when those schools failed to meet state targets three years in a row. Such a standard has never been in place for regular public schools, nor is NCLB working in that state to close chronically failing schools.

But how does Governor Strickland’s attack of charters again this week square with the Obama campaign?

More “Battleground”