0 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Heckuva Job, Schundlie!

by: Jersey Jazzman

Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 08:54:35 AM EDT

Where are you on this, Blue Jerseyans? - promoted by Rosi

Cross posted from Jersey Jazzman; click through for all links.

After making a high-profile bid for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal education reform money, New Jersey fell three points short of receiving "Race to the Top" funding, in part because of an error by the Christie administration in the state's application, records obtained by The Star-Ledger show.
One five-point question on the application asked for budget information comparing the 2008 and 2009 school years. However, the state submitted information comparing the current year to 2011.
That mistake cost the state 4.8 points. The state lost points in other areas as well, the records show.

But how could they have made this mistake?

New Jersey's application was submitted after a heated battle between Christie and the NJEA.
The union and hundreds of its local chapters had signed onto an earlier version of the application, in which Schundler had agreed to compromises on tenure and merit pay. But the administration hastily rewrote the application over the Memorial Day weekend, scrapping the agreed-to changes.
The final application, which was submitted without the backing of the NJEA, was driven to Washington the day of the deadline because the papers could not be faxed or e-mailed.
"On Friday of Memorial Day weekend we all signed off on the same application," Hiltner said. "By Tuesday morning, a different application had been submitted. How much time could have been put into that application?" (emphasis mine)

Here's the chronology: Schundler and the NJEA agreed on the initial application. But then Jim Gearhart, morning blowhard at NJ 101.5, decided he didn't like the idea of Christie's administration collaborating with the enemy (yes, in his mind, the teachers union is the enemy), and went off on a rant about the governor.

Apparently, when a radio DJ says "Jump!," Christie says, "Off of which bridge?", because Christie forced Schundler to rewrite the application at the last minute to make it more to Gearhart's liking. And then called the DJ to beg forgiveness.

Apparently, that last-minute rewrite didn't catch the fatal flaw. So now NJ loses out on the money because Chris Christie needed to appease a radio personality.

It's a stunning combination of ineptitude and cowardly pandering to your base. Remind you of anyone?

Heckuva job, Schundlie!

Jersey Jazzman :: Heckuva Job, Schundlie!

ADDING: Only the editorial board of the Star-Ledger could be so obtuse as to compare the NJEA's very real and serious objections to the revised RTTT application with a clerical error. But notice how conveniently they disappear the Gearhart connection to all of this.

But why point out the craven pandering of our governor when you can just take yet another shot at the NJEA? Liberal media, my ass.

And, yes, those objections are real and they are serious.

Tags: NJEA, schundler, Christie, race to the top, Education, featured, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Heckuva Job, Schundlie! | 10 comments

frankly (3.00 / 1)

the flaw was probably present in the first version, too

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 15:01:47 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)

... but the rush at the end certainly didn't help.

Also, look at who was on the team that put this together:

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-race-to-top-follies.html

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 16:36:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

thanks for posting the links (0.00 / 0)

I've known Willa Spicer for years, since her days in the South Brunswick school district. I was delighted to see her name, though not in this context.

However, this "team" probably did not write the responses or read the application - they "presented" it. And presenting isn't the same as writing. (Though the 'presenters' dang should have done a better job reviewing it).

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 17:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Spicer stood out... (0.00 / 0)

... on this list. I've never met her, but I know she commands respect from people who know what they're doing.

As to the rest: I report, you decide.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 20:38:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One other point... (0.00 / 0)

The Ledger says the points were based on stability of funding, (ie. that the Feds wanted guarantees the money wouldn't be used to plug existing budget holes)

Given that criterion, I'm not confident we would received the necessary credit anyway...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 16:45:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't think it was (3.00 / 1)

apparently, according to Buono's release on this, that answer was changed by Christie from the first time, even though the question was the same.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

by: Adam L @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 19:30:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

so this question (0.00 / 0)

was one that was edited during the 'rush' job. nice ....

Like I said before, you can't fix what's broken about your enterprise within the context of a grant application, so asking, "Well, isn't it more important that we didn't have the 10 points for no NJEA buy-in?" and so forth isn't pertinent (IMO). Yeah, it would be better if everything was perfect, but you work with what is, not what you wish you had.

If you lost 4.8 points for not answering a question about which there was no way to equivocate as to its meaning, and you were then out of the money by 3 points, then that deliberate attempt to spin is what cooked your chances.

I'd love to see that draft ...

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 19:36:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's a little murky (0.00 / 0)

Here's the release on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/note.p...

Buono acknowledged that the state's application garnered strong points for its vision of reform within the state's educational system. As the Governor noted, the state's application scored more than 50 points higher than its previous effort. However, the deciding point spread came from the state's singular failure to answer a simple, fact-based question.
The question the state missed was left unchanged from last year's Race to the Top application -- the state received full credit at that time. Buono said the Christie administration had no need even to rewrite the response and simply should have left the answer unchanged.

So, in the round DE and TN won, the question was answered differently, according to Buono. That doesn't mean it wasn't changed BEFORE it was hastily rewritten when the NJEA deal fell apart.

I'm with Dennis - we need to see the application the NJEA signed off on. I hope they kept a copy.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 20:50:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

According to Christie (0.00 / 0)

At his press conference, the governor stated that there was ONE person reviewing the grant application, and in the future he would have TWO people review. For a $400 million grant - only two pairs of eyes???

Before I retired, I worked on proposals of similar dollar value. We would have DOZENS of people review them. It seems that the Christie administration is either incompetent or just doesn't care.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 22:28:38 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

One person (0.00 / 0)

They may be saying that it's one person so they can identify one and cut him/her loose and try to make this go away with one firing.

But as information comes in, this is looking more like a policy decision. And that means it's more likely higher than one mid-level person.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.

by: Rosi Efthim @ Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 02:00:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Heckuva Job, Schundlie! | 10 comments