If any members of the General Assembly need a case study in lies, here it is:
Money quote on why CSD rejected the fact-less, baseless “motivational” program that has attracted 2, count them 2 of 168 participants and the DOE’s 100% vindictive response in light of multiple other districts not participating (the actual reason they cited was that we had committed to it, then to read this bullshit lie? Hilarious!):
Ruszkowski saw tremendous value in the DDOE’s ability to respond rapidly to these kinds of data requests. “I would ask a question, and by the end of the day, one of the data fellows or someone at SDP would come back with an answer,” he recalled. “This was not just helpful; it was essential to the work we were doing.”
Department leaders found the ability to conduct rapid, focused analyses especially valuable in their efforts to hold school districts accountable for implementing their RTTT commitments. For example, when the leaders of the Christina School District—Delaware’s largest school system—tried to gloss over high rates of educator attrition in their highest-poverty schools, DDOE leaders used the diagnostic analyses to highlight the severity of the problem and to press district leaders to respond with an appropriate plan. “This was no longer a question of ideology,” Ruszkowski emphasized. “It was about a district’s unwillingness to look at the data in front of them and invest resources in solving the problem.” Ultimately, the DDOE withheld nearly $2.4 million in RTTT funding from the district, using the diagnostic analyses as a core component of their justification.