Himes addresses education issues

“Education should not be subject to the Democrat-Republican warfare that is consuming everything these days,” said Congressman Jim Himes. “We have such a profound shared interest.”

Before taking questions from an audience of about 25 school administrators, school board members and PTA activists in the Ridgefield Community Center on Thursday, Sept. 2, he briefly described and defended education policies he’s backed as a first-term Democrat representing Connecticut’s 4th District.

The Obama administration’s $787 billion “stimulus package” from early 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included “the largest investment Washington has ever made in education,” he said.

Although he said he has “been choosey” in supporting subsequent stimulus proposals, Mr. Himes said he did “vote proudly for $10 billion to go into school systems, $100 million of that $10 billion coming to Connecticut.”

(Governor M. Jodi Rell announced last week that Connecticut would be receiving $110.5 million from the $10 billion federal Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act — money that would be distributed among all 169 Connecticut towns as grants to help retain or rehire teachers and other staff.)

Mr. Himes also said he backs the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” program, which awarded over $4 billion in federal money to education in states that demonstrated commitment to improving public schools with innovation. Connecticut applied but did not qualify for funds.

Race to the Top has been controversial, he said, among liberals concerned by its competitive structure, as well as cost-wary conservatives.

Moderator Kathy McGerald, a former Ridgefefield school board member, read questions from the audience. Why was the Race to the Top competitive? Why not simply set federal guidelines for local schools to receive the money?

Mr. Himes said Education Secretary Arne Duncan had designed the program to make the increased federal money a reward for innovating and finding better ways to teach kids and improve poor schools.

“The old story of throwing money at a failing school system to not move the needle one iota gets abused politically, but to some extent it’s true,” Mr. Himes said.

States receiving grants benefited the most, of course, but he said the competition for the federal money has prompted changes — which should ultimately prove beneficial to students — in other states, as well.

The competitive format encourages states all around the country to design their own innovations, allowing educators to figure out which models are most successful.

“We’re still in the world of seeing what works,” he said.

“Washington is uniquely well situated to disseminate best practices: Philadelphia did this and it really worked.”

School Superintendent Deborah Low had a concern.

“I do applaud federal emphasis on education,” she said. “I’m not wildly in love with Race to the Top.

“Most educators support innovation ... Sometimes the non-educators try to prescribe various quick fixes. Race to the Top had a little of that,” she said. “...Charter schools, for one.”

Students, families, teachers, community support — many factors beyond program design contribute to educational success or failure, she said.

“Trying to reduce a very complicated set of factors that go into any school’s success, trying to pull out one and saying ‘here’s the bullet, now do it’ ... It gets oversimplified,” Ms. Low said.

Mr. Himes admitted he’d made the mistake. “Those of us who get a camera stuck in our face and are asked for 20-second answers are guilty of oversimplifying,” he said.

On standardized testing he showed nuance and brevity.

“I do support national testing,” he said. “...I’d like less and better testing.”

Ms. McGerald brought up the No Child Left Behind Act’s mandate for testing every year from third to eighth grade, and again in 10th grade. “Is third grade too early?” she asked.

Mr. Himes thought this was a question better answered by educators than politicians.

“I’m an informed amateur,” he said.