Cobb superintendent is racing on
by Lindsay Field
June 14, 2012 12:49 AM | 4933 views | 43 43 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dr. Michael Hinojosa<br> Photo by Laura Moon
Dr. Michael Hinojosa
Photo by Laura Moon
slideshow
MARIETTA — Cobb Superintendent Dr. Michael Hinojosa is seeking the school board’s permission to apply for $25 million in Race to the Top funds.

At their Wednesday morning work session, board members discussed the grant application, spent more than an hour talking about how to implement the “flipped classroom” and Bring Your Own Device programs, and decided not to move forward with a lawsuit against the state for Quality Basic Education funds.

Hinojosa learned about the grant three weeks ago in an email from the federal Department of Education. He isn’t required to have the board’s approval for grant applications, but said after the meeting that he “didn’t even want to push that gas pedal down based upon the last grant.”

In January, some board members were unhappy when they learned that he had applied for a $350,000 grant with Teach For America and a $50,000 grant for a start-up charter called STEM Inventors Academy.

“We want to make sure that at least the majority of the board was comfortable going after it,” he said.

Hinojosa plans to bring the final application back before the board in early fall for consideration.

“Whatever ideas we come back with, we’ll definitely come back to the board for them to discuss in a public meeting,” he said after the meeting.

The grant money could be used for anything that the district wants, including salaries or for the newly mandated College and Career Ready Pathways initiative that the Georgia Department of Education will be implementing starting in the fall of 2013 in lieu of No Child Left Behind.

However, Chief Academic Officer Dr. Judi Jones said they won’t know what the money would be spent on until after the grant is prepared, which riled some board members.

“I want to know what you want to do with that $25 million,” Lynnda Eagle said. “I don’t want to prevent us from getting more money or from preventing the superintendent from moving ahead, but again, I think that if our job too is to protect our employees and look out for everything, we have to ask those hard questions.”

Kathleen Angelucci, who opposed applying for the grant when running for the board seat in 2010, seemed to hang onto that same judgment during Wednesday’s meeting.

“It expands the federal role in education,” she said. “We are exchanging our local control for money, and that very much bothers me.”

Even so, Angelucci thanked Hinojosa for asking for their input, because she was so upset after he applied for the other two Race to the Top grants without advising the board.

Bartlett, who represents central Cobb, said she was concerned that the district would be on the hook for anything they use the grant for after it expires.

“Every report that I’m reading on the Race to the Top grants are that most of the systems are finding that the costs are not going to be sustainable in the future, and that’s a real concern for me because we already have serious budget issues,” she said.

Hinojosa said the district should “build a safeguard” so that issue doesn’t come across their table at a later date if they were to receive the grant money.

Tim Stultz, who represents southeast Cobb, said nothing good could come out of the grant.

“There’s a possibility that there will be a new administration in D.C. next year, and Race to the Top might not still be around,” he said. “There’s too much uncertainty and too many strings attached, and … I can’t support it.”

Vice Chair David Morgan told Stultz it’s too early to reject the grant based on those concerns.

“If the strings attached are too much and we are tying the hands of future boards, then we will clearly see that in the information,” he said. “(We should) give them an opportunity to write it.”

The grant specifics will be released sometime in July, the submission date is around September and the awards will be granted on Dec. 31.

The grant application outlines five priorities, of which the district must meet two to qualify. Jones recommends the district focus on personalized learning with students and performance-based teacher evaluations, which will be required by the state department of education in fall 2013.

Hinojosa’s predecessor was not interested in seeking Race to the Top dollars.

In January 2010, then-Superintendent Fred Sanderson recommended in a memo to the board that the district wait for more details before seeking any part of the $462 million in Race to the Top money that the state of Georgia had sought.

Twenty-three other districts in Georgia did apply for a portion of those funds, including Gwinnett, which is the only district in the state that is larger than Cobb, and Cherokee.

Cobb’s school board, though, never even discussed the issue in open session.

In the summer of that year, during the primary elections, then-candidates Scott Sweeney and Angelucci both told the Journal that they did not think the district should seek federal Race to the Top dollars in the future.

Said Sweeney: “With federal dollars, you know there are long, strong strings attached and at what cost. You give up what makes this community so special: local control. … Federal programs are usually proven to be very inefficient. The costs for Race To The Top funds from a dollar, resource, administrative and time perspective are likely to outweigh the proposed program cost benefits. This is especially true when considering the unfunded mandate costs the Cobb County School District will realize by adopting Race To The Top initiatives.”

In regards to the flipped classroom and BYOD programs, the board heard from Deputy Superintendent of Operations Chris Ragsdale and Jones about how they would work. The district is planning on implementing BYOD at Lost Mountain, Daniell and Floyd middle schools and the flipped classroom initiative at Dodgen, Smitha and Pine Mountain middle schools.

Ragsdale said his goal next year for the BYOD program — in which students would be encouraged to bring laptops, tablets and other electronic devices to class — would be to determine what devices students will bring, if the program is safe, if students and teachers are ready for it, and what the benefits of it are.

Jones said a “flipped classroom” is a class in which students watch lectures at home and do work in the class.

“We are changing the way that we are doing business,” she said, adding that the program would not replace teachers.

Angelucci asked if there were any districts where they could see the success rate behind the two programs.

“The students could fall further behind because the human connection is gone,” Angelucci said. “I need more hard data and assurance that this is successful. I want to see how it’s made a real difference.”

However, she did agree with Eagle that the initiative would encourage students to be more responsible for their instruction and allow parents to get more involved.

“I don’t think all the responsibility belongs to the school,” Eagle said. “The responsibility belongs to parents … If our goal is to help students become independent learners, they’ve got to assume some of that responsibility.”

Bartlett, who was worried about expanding teacher workload with the initiative, asked what would happen if parents didn’t want their child to participate in a flipped classroom, to which Jones replied that the child would be moved to another class.

Hinojosa was introduced to the programs a few months ago at the National School Board Association Meeting in Massachusetts. At that time, he heard from Sal Khan, the creator of a free online tutorial website called Khan Academy that some districts have used to complement traditional lectures.

In other news, the board decided not to move forward with suing the state for failing to fully fund QBE since 2003.

Bartlett had asked that it be placed on the agenda with hopes that it would be a possibility.

“My goal was that we would agree to talk to other school districts and see what the interest was,” she said after the work session. “My feedback (Wednesday) is that the Cobb County School Board does not desire to sue the state and hold them accountable.”

Bartlett said she didn’t plan on bringing the topic back up but would just wait to see what happens in the November presidential election.

Is $25 million in federal Race To The Top funding worth the federal requirements that come with the cash?


Comments
(43)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Flipped Class Advoca
|
June 15, 2012
Those of you dismissing the flipped class idea need to realize it is MUCH more than just "watching videos at home." If that's what the board thinks it is, and that's all they support, then, detractors, you're right - it won't work.

However, if they allow the teachers the opportunity and support to implement it properly, then it should actually allow MORE one-on-one time between the student and teacher - with class sizes of 35 , how can that be a bad thing?
NtheNo
|
June 14, 2012
News Flash: Federal Government is BUSTED, BROKE, OUT of MONEY....the Sugar Daddy is no more....get used to it and live within the local budget.
Jim Stoll
|
June 14, 2012
Recently I was in a conversation with another old geezer like myself and he told me that Hinojosa reminds him of a "Post Turtle" When I asked him what a Post Turtle was he explained. " When your driving dow a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a "Post Turtle". You know he didn't get up there on his own, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, he's elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb dodo put him up there to begin with. Best description I've heard yet.
Mike O. Bedenbaugh
|
June 14, 2012
The flipped classroom won't work just like the open pod classroom did not work in the early 1970s that Alton Crews went to California to see. They told him it did not work and was returning to individual ordinary classrooms. He came back to Cobb and sold the School Board a snow job on it. His thinking was we will be the first on the Eastern side of the US and look like a leader in education. They found out You can not put three classrooms into one with three teachers trying to teach their class as the more interesting subject is listened too. Who is going to make sure the kids are viewing and studying the lectures on TV when they can switch to other more interesting shows they normally watch; not mom and dad? They are too tired after working and setting in traffic for two hours trying to get home to rest. As for the kids bringing their own lap tops and other electronic gadgets; not every one can afford these and the school board shot down Fred Sanderson when he tried to buy a lot of lap tops for the county students; too costly then and especially now in these economic times.
Absolutley correct
|
June 14, 2012
There are MANY college kids who fail online courses. This is not going to work, and they are wasting more of the kids valuable time. This is so very sad!
To Mr. Bedenbaugh
|
June 14, 2012
First, it was Redden, not Sanderson who proposed laptops for students. Second, expecting students to watch lectures at home is no different than expecting them to complete homework. Some will do it, some won't. Those that do, will have a more enriched learning experience when they are at school. Those who don't will continue to struggle.

Allowing students to bring electronic devices only opens the door for more opportunity. Not every students may have them, it doesn't mean no one should have the possibility to, though. Not every student brings a pencil or other writing instrument to school, either. Does it mean we shouldn't expect or allow anyone to bring a writing utensil?

These proposals are both about bringing education into the current times. It may not work for everyone, but that doesn't mean it can't be implemented for those that may benefit from it.
Absolutely Wrong
|
June 14, 2012
MANY college students fail regular classes. So, based on your logic, should their be no class at all!
Mr. B
|
June 14, 2012
Please join us in the 21st Century...no hurry
Shaking my Head
|
June 14, 2012
PEOPLE - YOU SHOULD BE OUTRAGED WITH THIS PROPOSAL - FOR ALL OF US THAT MOVED TO COBB COUNTY FOR THE SCHOOLS THIS IS THE DEMISE AND WITH THAT SO IS YOUR PROPERTY VALUE.
R. Lee Bays
|
June 14, 2012
What are the actual "strings" that are attached with this grant?
anonymous
|
June 14, 2012
Bartlett is 100% correct. It is the constitutional obligation of the state of GA to fully fund education. It is acceptable to take funds from students earned under the QBE formula. It is sad that Banks, Sweeney, and Stutz are so under the thumb of the local Cobb delegation that they disregard their elected responsibility to protect the students of Cobb County.
frogbreath
|
June 14, 2012
I worked for a major inf system company. I was a techie. That company experimented with, I will call it remote learning. Students sat in a room with a large monitor and a control box that allowed one to question the instructor.

The concept was to be able to educate large numbers of people -- up to 3 classrooms vs traditional single classroom.

I speak for me only here, I did not learn the materiel. I was quickly distracted by- anything--! This was further compounded by eliminating the tests we used to take in the regular classroom. Evaluating myself, I felt I learned as little as 10% of what I would have in the traditional classroom. It was OJT that got me up to speed on the subject.
CLARIFICATION
|
June 14, 2012
THIS IS NOT WHAT SWEENEY SAID AT THE BOARD MEETING - Said Sweeney: “With federal dollars, you know there are long, strong strings attached and at what cost. You give up what makes this community so special: local control. … Federal programs are usually proven to be very inefficient. The costs for Race To The Top funds from a dollar, resource, administrative and time perspective are likely to outweigh the proposed program cost benefits. This is especially true when considering the unfunded mandate costs the Cobb County School District will realize by adopting Race To The Top initiatives.”

THIS IS WHAT HE RAN ON!!! THIS IS NOT WHAT HE NOW SUPPORTS. SWEENEY IS IN AGREEMENT TO SELLING CCSD TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM - RACE TO THE TOP! SWEENEY IS IN AGREEMENT TO SELLING CCSD TO ANYONE THAT HAS MONEY TO GIVE NO MATTER WHAT THE COSTS ARE TO THE DISTRICT. MORE IMPORTANTLY SWEENEY IS SELLING OUR KIDS TO ANY FAD THAT COMES ALONG. 1 DAY WASTED ON A FAD IS 1 DAY LOST TO A KID TRYING TO GET A GOOD EDUCATION AND THAT DAY LOST CAN NOT BE MADE UP! ADD UP A YEARS WORTH OF FADS AND IT IS A YEAR OF EDUCATION THAT THAT CHILD CAN NEVER GET BACK! THAT IS A SAD STATE OF THIS DISTRICT. SCOTT SWEENEY HAS NOT KEPT ONE PROMISE EXCEPT FOR THE CALENDAR. IT IS UNDER HIS WATCH THAT THIS DISTRICT WILL CRUMBLE.

Hysteria
|
June 14, 2012
Cats and dogs living TOGETHER!

TIC
|
June 14, 2012
Hinojosa is a addict to the distribution of Federal "crack".

Once our school system is "hooked" they will claim to never be able to function effectively without another "hit" of Federal dope.
JUST SAY NO
|
June 14, 2012
CCSD CAN PAY FOR HIS REHAB PROGRAM - SEND SWEENEY AND MORGAN WITH HIM.

DRUGS CAN KILL AND FEDERAL CRACK WILL KILL CCSD.
Cobb Watcher
|
June 14, 2012
The walrus is a loose cannon, completely out of control. It's time for the CCSB to wake up.
westcobb
|
June 14, 2012
Let's see, I would guess the funds will be spent for....Teach For America!!! Then we can hire non-certified teachers and pay extra money to train them so they will work for 2 years, then leave. Sneaky Mr. Hinojosa! For the last 15 years, I have worked as a parapro with a net yearly salary of approximately $11,000. Not much money for a single person to live on. I am a parapro because I love my school and working with the children. I usually work more than my 7.5 hour workday. At 15 years, we only get a step increase every 3 years. Why do I continue to work as a parapro? Because I love teaching the children. I see teachers work 11 to 12 hour days spending huge amounts of their own money for basic supplies in the classroom. Don't bring in non-certified teachers. Quit putting the teachers down. There are a few bad teachers just like any other profession. However, the majority of teachers are wonderful and your children's hero. Honor them and pay them what they are worth.
Off Balance
|
June 14, 2012
Amen!
Not our Problem
|
June 14, 2012
re: "I have worked as a parapro with a net yearly salary of approximately $11,000. Not much money for a single person to live on. I am a parapro because I love my school and working with the children"

Not our problem. You live with the choices you make, or you change them. If you leave, 15 minutes later a qualified replacement would be identified.
Cobbparent
|
June 14, 2012
I am not usually a supporter of Ms. Bartlett, but I agree with her that the state should be sued for the QBE funds. I am disappointed with the decision the board made yesterday. Our class sizes continue to grow and programs for students continue to be cut as our school board and administrators make difficult decisions because of budget issues. I am not sure federal funding with strings attached is the answer to anything. If our district was supposed to receive a certain amount of funds from the state and has not been receiving them, someone should hold the state accountable? I would be surprised if people in other school districts did not agree. Since the money has not gone to the districts and been spent on education, I would also like to know where the money has been spent.
East Cobb Parent
|
June 14, 2012
If Eagle actually said "I think that if our job too is to protect our employees and look out for everything....." no wonder our kids are getting a bad education. Her job should be to make sure our kids are getting the best education...not to worry about protecting employees. If the employees are good...then they don't need protecting and our kids will have a better education.

Cobb Teacher
|
June 14, 2012
I understand that our children come first, but remember that childrens' learning environment is our working environment. If employees are treated bad, it will affect children. If we have fewer teachers, it will affect children. If teachers have to speand hours doing paperwork, it will affect children. If class sizes increase, it will affect children.
Another EC Parent
|
June 14, 2012
Thank you EC Parent for noticing this. I've followed the school board for years, and NEVER ONCE have I ever heard them discuss how the issue and/or resolution affects the kids' education. But then again, wasn't it a few years ago that our board didn't know what their own mission statement was?
Another ECParent
|
June 14, 2012
Eagle, Crowder-Eagle, or whatever she wants to call herself now has always been this way on the board. She apparently views herself as a teacher's union shop steward. Her wide-open mouth gasping when it was suggested that administrators accumulated vacation pay perk should be eliminated was priceless.

So very glad that she is going.
To another EC parent
|
June 14, 2012
Like Eagle or not (although obvious that you don't) Not sure why exactly. What I heard her say was that employees and kids. You do realize that if you don't treat the teachers fairly, it WILL show up in the classroom. You must be one of the Bartlett/Angelucci supporters. Always after someone who doesn't agree with them. As far as Eagle going, she may be taking Bartlett with her.

oh, and could you advise Mrs. Bartlett to use words correctly. It's embarrassing. It's usurp, not upsurt. It is quite funny though..
@To another EC paren
|
June 14, 2012
It would be nice if some teachers grew up and realized that life isn't fair and stop whining.

Over the past several years, teachers have been treated "unfairly" compared to prior years. They've also been put on notice to perform or risk being cut. The result of this "unfairness"?

- greatly reduced operating costs and

- improved test scores

Apparently it IS showing up in the classroom
Everyone jump ship
|
June 14, 2012
No wonder Alice Stouder and Mike Addison are retiring so suddenly, after just a year of working for the new Supt. They knew that this Race to the Top nonsense was coming down the pike and wisely wanted to get the heck out of Dodge City first!
Cobb Taxpayer
|
June 14, 2012
This is not the way to get involved with another Obama federal education action - strings my foot, I see chains of control for a long time for our local education system. What is the Cobb School District thinking about ??
totally agree
|
June 17, 2012
Federal government programs sound wonderful, BUT there are always regulations and a lot of times, the counties are left holding the empty checkbook. I'd also like to know what they would be spending it for and what's expected of the teachers before signing off on a pig in a polk.

I'd like to see the Assistant Superintendent positions that Redden created go away! That would save quite a bit of money right there. The county structure it too top heavy. We NEED our teachers to be supported with the necessary materials and reasonable class sizes. The way it's going, we're in the wrong places and will pay for it when our children grow up.
Gimmicks redux
|
June 14, 2012
More gimmicks and snake oil solutions, less common sense and good old fashioned hard work. I hope the new Board members will regain control of the system from the Super and start telling him what to do in January...
Band Aid Solution
|
June 14, 2012
Ms. Bartlett is right. The federal money will only postpone the inevitable cuts, and the spending will not be sustainable long term. What will happen when the grant runs out, or if/when their is a new republican administration in D.C. in January? Then, we'll be faced with an even bigger problem, having just "kicked the can" down the road.
Sold soul to feds
|
June 14, 2012
So, the Supt. is willing to sell CCSD's soul to the feds, in exchange for Race to the Top grant money that only amounts to less than 3% of the District's annual operating budget? Definitely not worth all the strings that will be attached!
Maverick?
|
June 14, 2012
Why would a Supt., who presumably wants to keep his $240,000/year job, knowingly pursue a RTTP grant if 4-5 of his Board members oppose it? Just because he can apply for the grant without Board approval, it does not mean that he should apply for it when a majority of the Board say no. Who the heck is in charge here, anyway? The Board or their employee the Supt.? The Board should retake control and direct their employee not to apply for RTTP until a majority of them support it.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides