The “Race to the Top” education initiative is one of President Obama’s most vaunted domestic-policy successes. The name itself connotes progress, forward movement, even competition. And there’s plenty of substance for the president to brag about: Forty-six states and the District of Columbia signed on to rigorous common standards; dozens of states got serious about teacher evaluations; key jurisdictions removed caps on charter-school expansion. This is what New Yorker contributor Steven Brill called “a sweeping overhaul” of the system.
With the Department of Education proposing a new $5 billion Race to the Top–style competitive grant program aimed at teacher policy, however, it’s worth taking a closer look at Race to the Top’s results. When you do, the scorecard changes considerably.
Advertisement
Ponder: Did the 2009–10 period, in which states were competing for Race to the Top funds, see the most reforms ever enacted? No. That distinction belongs to 2011, after the 2010 midterm elections swept historic Republican majorities into office in state after state.
Start with teacher evaluations. In 2009, no state specified ineffectiveness as grounds for the dismissal of a teacher (incredible but true!). By 2010 — in part because of Race to the Top — four states did (Colorado, New York, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island). But in 2011 — after the main Race to the Top competition was long past — eleven states joined the club (Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming).
Or take “last in, first out” policies — i.e., basing layoffs on seniority rather than effectiveness. In 2009, only Arizona prohibited school districts from basing teacher layoffs on seniority. Colorado and Oklahoma followed suit in 2010. And then, in 2011, the issue really took off, with seven more states jumping on board, most of them Republican strongholds: Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, and Utah.
And of course, 2011 was also the “year of school choice,” with seven states enacting new voucher or tax-credit programs (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) — versus just two each in 2009 and 2010.
Race to the Top wasn’t meant just to catalyze legislative changes. Winning states made bold promises about implementing the reforms they’d enacted, and Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, issued stern statements about their intention to pull dollars away from jurisdictions that fell short. How has that effort fared?
In short: not so well. Eleven states and the District of Columbia won first-round grants of up to $700 million from the $4 billion Race to the Top pot in 2010, promising to deliver a range of ambitious programs and results. A little more than a year later, every one of those grantees has amended its plans at least once, with the Department of Education approving a grand total of 47 amendments to date. Maryland asked for another year to finish its teacher-evaluation system, while North Carolina opted for a more modest teacher-retention bonus program. Time and again goals have been lowered and timelines extended. When in late 2011, in response to Hawaii’s stalling, Duncan finally threatened to cut off the Aloha State’s funding, it marked a sharp and belated shift from the dozens of accommodating letters of approval his department had sent to states wavering on their commitments.
Scaled-back ambitions are only half the problem: Many states seem to have barely started putting their plans in motion. As of May 2011, a year after the first Race to the Top awards, just over $80 million of the $4 billion in funding had actually been spent. While it’s at least reassuring that states haven’t been burning through the money, the urgency of the “Race” petered out once the awards were made. With the latest round of grants awarded with little fanfare, the Obama administration’s signature effort is losing steam.
So the Race to the Top was good for education reform. But the 2010 election, it turns out, was much, much better.
— Michael J. Petrilli and Tyson Eberhardt are executive vice president and research fellow, respectively, of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-policy think tank. This article is drawn from a recent Education Next feature, “Obama’s Education Record.”
Reading your comment I was happy to discover the book Another reference to keep in mind is Charles Murray who speaks extensively about eduction. Too many things are on the shoulders of the teachers. They are not only expected to teach but to became personal counselor, moralists, etc. In general the assumption in the US seems to be: "students and parents are innocent victims, professors entirely responsible" . Students and parents are directly responsible, professors cannot pay for students' laziness, irresponsibility, selfishness. Finally one must understand that if the student is not gifted, there isn't much to do. That's one thing Obama administration does not seem to get it, but the same can be said about the others.
Of course! That's it - American government-run high schools turn out "graduates" who can't read and write or perform basic arithmetic because the students aren't "gifted."
Employers now demand a "four-year" degree in order to verify basic literacy and an advanced degree to verify professional competence. Soon you'll need a doctorate to get an entry level position outside of the mail room.
Government-run education is an utter, flea-ridden, disgusting failure. It is not because children are now somehow less intelligent than previous generations. It is because government-run schools employ incompetent teachers and power-hungry, dishonest, incompetent administrators. Throw no more money at this.
Privatize. There will still be schools run by incompetents, but only briefly.
Dear " Mr. Mark" !
Thank you for your comment.
While I do live in Florida, I do not know enough about
"[...] the state of Florida to take away school vouchers from disabled kids".
I am deeply grateful to Florida Public Schools, through which schools two my own kids went.
The only way to correct the dismal performance of schools would be to get the federal government and the NEA out of the picture. Every state has an education department capable of tailoring curriculum based upon community standards and expectations. Just as states who champion right to work laws excede in jobs and business creation so to would they excede with local control of their school systems including the college and university levels. One slight tweak that would change the outcome of education for decades to come would be the addition of graduation requirment including a 100% passing of the same test every legal immigrant must pass to become a citizen of America. Civics would mean more than just a filler class.
What did Hitler say; “Give me your children!” His objective—when we can propagandize the children in their first learning experience, their foundations of “conforming” to society—we can make then as absolutely irrational, and as dumb downed as required to advance…without challenge…a governance of complete domination.
How well did it work? History tells us the fanatical actions of teenagers enthralled by the ideology of the National Socialist Society were some of the most difficult to defeat in WWII. We see it today in those who have been propagandized by the dementia of islamism where to kill an infidel is the highest achievement of this absolute inhumane ideology of “submit and obey.”
This nation’s genesis believed that the American people required two things from education. It was their conformity, required to be a citizen of this nation. First, as this nation’s design has no value to an immoralist population—and as our foundations are constructed around the philosophy of Protestant Christianity—the mores, the morals, and the culture of this theology must be known. They also acknowledged that in this greatest experiment of all mankind—a nation where the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people can only succeed if that population which composes the electorate is knowledgeable in making that vote. So they must understand the design and the fears of knowing the character of man—and the fear of power…the sovereignty of power…that all government in the known literacy of mankind has shown to always result. Our population must never forget that government is as fire, a wondrous tool, but when uncontrolled the most dangerous of all powers.
We need not any conformity from a centralized government. History has shown that this attempt has already been tried. The Soviet of centralized planning in Communist Russia did this. Today some of the most adamant Americans, who understand and believe in the wondrous design of this nation—are the same students who were indoctrinated in this dementia of propaganda.
Those who escaped from all communist societies, East and West revel in the wonder of this nation—while in complete awe of the absolute ignorance of Americans who support a cultural communist with the design to destroy this nation.
No communities make “citizens”, not the indoctrination of some ideology of those but nihilist determined to destroy this nation.
Now class, pay attention as I send Michael and Tyson down to the principal's office.
Let us suppose that there is federal legislation, or exective policy, in year X. It is preposterous to suppose that numerous states will be able to change their educaional systems in year X or even X+1. This requires extraordinary political circumstances, and perhaps an existing framework, at the state level.
In addition, Michael and Tyson have posited no cause and effect relationship between the federal law, and subsequent state laws, other than mere time sequence in which there was an intervening election. Is it the case that most of the complying states, at the state level, swung from Democratic to Republican in the intervening time, and that is the reason? I think not.
Education reform is like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a pointless waste of time and resources.
Here's the fix that any incoming conservative President should implement (and possible jam it down the throats of liberals using budget reconciliation!!) -
1. Totally and completely ELIMINATE the Department of Education (one of many to eliminate)
2. Move any remaining resources (people/policy matters/etc) under one of the remaining departments, such as Interior (the US should create a British-style "Home" Secretary)
3. Completely devolve all educational decision making to the States
4. Block-grant any remaining federal tax dollars for education to the states and create a set of minimum educational and performance standards that each state must meet in order to qualify for block-grant funds (ie, no success = no federal funds, ie, raise your own money for education through state taxes)
Obviously pie-in-the-sky dreaming on my part as president-elects quickly become enamored and seduced by the powers that await them in Washington DC....
Bumbug has the right idea: Petrilli & Eberhardt are (I think deliberately) confusing correlation for causation so as to preach to the faithful about how wonderful it was to make gains in 2010. Instead, think for a moment about being in the Obama White House, always asking the question: "How will this help our re-election in 2012?". Sure enough, actual progress on the Race to the Top shows up -- in early 2012. Just like sure enough, actual increase in the performance of the economy shows up -- in early 2012.
You think that is more likely to be coincidental to the Race to the Top success than the party out of office making gains in an off-year election?
Where, exactly, does the constitution give the federal government to power to tax and spend for the purpose of meddling in education? (Please provide a word-for-word quote.)
I bought a new car in 2010 and there appears to be about as much evidence of that causing educational reforms as these guys provide in connection with the November 2010 election results.
Aside from that, Petrilli and Eberhardt are materially indistinguishable from those running the Education Department under President Obama - who, in turn, are materially indistinguishable from those who ran it under President Bush:
We in Washington know best. We'll take money from your citizens, run it through our administrative machine and send it back to you with a bunch of conditions by which you must abide. You're not smart enough to determine whether and how to tax yourselves and whether and how to use that money to educate your own children. Centralization and uniformity - provided by Your Betters in Washington, DC - is what is needed.
I don't care who the President is - what is the added value provided by the Federal Government when it takes money from Joe in California, takes a cut for administrative costs and then sends it back to California with a host of conditions about how it is to be used to educate Joe's kids? Why is that better than Joe and other Californians, on their own, deciding to levy particular taxes and to use the money, as they see fit, to help Joe educate his children?
Uniformity and centralization - even if disguised as "accountability" (when there is no reason to be giving the money to the states in the first place) - is not in and of itself a good thing. We are not smart enough to know, on a national basis, how properly to educate children. At best, we have a host of theories about what should be taught and how. So let the states do as they wish.
If there is a reason to have narrow federal programs aimed at specific problems that can't properly be addressed by the states, that's fine. But what we're doing is far broader than that.
Conservatives are still content to eat the crumbs that fall off the poison cake baked liberals for the destruction of our Judeo-Christian culture. If this is a war then Liberals have won it. They have defined the boundaries of the national discourse on education. Our children are being indoctrinated by wicked, Godless, humanistic relativists with our tax dollars while we pride ourselves in "reforming" a system that is designed from the ground up to produce little heathens and Philistines. The public school system is not reformable. It is achieving exactly what it is designed to do. Instead of trying to reform public schools conservatives need to fight for the right of every child to a universal voucher system that is not restricted by district or religious persuasion of the institution. Then and only them will you see true competition in education.
