« Duncan and Murray: Together for Edujobs | Main | Want Turnaround Money? Involve Parents, Duncan Proposes »

A Reformer's Argument for Cutting Race to Top

The pros and cons of Congress' proposal to trim $500 million from Race to the Top to fund edujobs have sparked quite the discussion on this blog.

Most of the commenters seem to think edujobs is a far better use of taxpayer money than Race to the Top.

But here's one interesting argument in favor of cutting Race to the Top, and not for obvious reasons. Mike Petrilli over at Flypaper says that to leave Race to the Top Round 2 at a bloated $3.4 billion forces Education Secretary Arne Duncan to fund some very mediocre proposals. And that's not very reform-y at all. In fact, Petrilli isn't a fan of continuing to bail out states and fund teacher jobs, but he argues that Congress should cut even more from Race to the Top, whether or not the money goes to the states for education jobs.

What do you think of this line of reasoning?

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Follow This Blog


Most Viewed on Education Week



Recent Comments