Santa Rosa School Board member Frank Pugh is also president of the California School Boards Association and as such he spent Wednesday in Sacramento alternately lobbying for greater education funding in the governor’s upcoming budget proposal and trying to figure out what is going on with Race to the Top.

The more he found out, the more he didn’t know, he said.

“We truly don’t know what the true impact of full impact would be to districts around the state,” he said.

Because of the unknown cost associated with embracing the new rules and the unknown payoff for Santa Rosa City Schools, Pugh recommended the board not sign a letter in support of the state’s application to get some of the Obama adminstration’s $4.3 billion in Race to the Top money.

That means if money does become available, Santa Rosa won’t get a slice.

But what would board members say to Joe Public who reads about the district’s financial woes and learns that they are not making themselves available for the Race to the Top money?

It’s not enough money to merit the trouble, they  said.

“The money that is going to schools is going to the lowest performing schools,” Pugh said. “It is theoretically possible that we are going to see virtually none of this money.”

In fact, some of the mandates – like teacher training and transportation for students moving out of underperforming schools – could spur ongoing costs to district long after the one-time Race to the Top money is gone, he said.

“We are left here holding the bag, doing more with less,” he said.

School board members expressed concern that adding that contentious item to ongoing labor negotiations – the California Teachers Association is against the deal largely because of the provision that links evaluations to student test scores – would erode morale and relationships in the district.

Long term contractual changes for one-time money would spur resentment, said board member Donna Jeye.

“I think teachers who have negotiated in good faith would feel betrayed if the money left,” she said.

“I’m not saying these are bad ideas,” Pugh said. “But I’m saying these are ideas that need to be carefully considered and weighed out.”

“Morale in schools is not at its highest point,” he added. “To take another hit like this is a real concern.”

Dan Evans listened to the approximately 40 minutes of discussion at the special meeting Wednesday night and said he was pleased that the board didn’t back the plan. He was willing to take the issue to his members if the payback for the district in terms of Race to the Top payoff was high enough – but that never became clear, he said.

“It’s a very big issue…but I was willing to talk about it, if we had an exit strategy and we don’t,” he said.

Among other concerns, Jeye said the proposal seems to be taking steps toward a nationalized curriculum – something Jeye said would be a non-starter.

“I believe that is why we have 50 states,” she said. “When I read this, this to me is just pushing me in that direction.”

Trustee Laura Gonzalez called the idea of a nationalized curriculum “beyond ridiculous. Unfathomable.”

Much of what she read in the state’s Race to the Top application read like it was from “policy wonks up here who have no idea what happens in a classroom.”

I talked to Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa to gauge how Sacramento was debating the packages.

She said she voted against the Race to the Top legislation because it’s too much, too fast, for too little.

“Race to the Top is very short term money,” she said, saying that the law would bring on “huge new mandates.”

Evans said she is not opposed to linking teachers’ evaluations with their students’ test scores, but not in all cases.

“In some instances yes, in some instances, no,” she said. “Sometimes it’s just not appropriate. Maybe that’s not fair, I really don’t know. It’s hard to say.”