What is Race to the Top?
April 25, 2010
What is Race to the Top?
April 25, 2010
Race to the Top is a federal government program announced by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on November 18, 2009. States will compete for grants totaling $4.35 billion, to be awarded for policies based on four areas:
- Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
- Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
- Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
- Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
The President and Secretary of Education have promoted charter schools and extensive data collection for the purpose of correlating student performance with teachers and principals and rewarding staff accordingly. States will be rated through a point-system, with various educational innovations being awarded certain numbers of points. Although Washington State will lose points by not having charter schools, the state may be able to accumulate enough points in other areas and thus still be competitive.
States are scrambling to adopt laws to give themselves a competitive advantage, but only a few will actually receive a grant. In this way, the federal government will entice states to align with federal education standards without having to give all of them funding.
There will be two rounds of competition. Forty states tried out for Round 1, for which the deadline was in January 2010. The results were announced in April: Delaware and Tennessee received awards. By chance, these were two states that had very strong union participation and support.
The deadline for Round 2 is June 1, 2010, and those results will be announced in September. States which were unsuccessful in Round 1 may compete in Round 2. Washington State will compete in Round 2.
CURE’s concerns:
Both from a Constitutional viewpoint and a practical viewpoint, education is best accomplished through local control—the more local the better. The federal government should not be dictating the policies of the neighborhood school.
Here are some concerns:
- “Internationally Benchmarked” standards could be standards from top-rated Singapore or third-world Sri Lanka. Being international doesn’t make them better, and they would incorporate values from other cultures, rather than American values.
- One-size-fits-all, identical standards for all 50 states means that no state could excel by having higher standards. The result would uniformly mediocre or, more likely, low-performing schools.
- Extensive data-collection is intrusive. In addition, determining teacher quality based on student scores is unreasonable; assessment scores in affluent neighborhoods are likely to be high, while assessment scores in immigrant neighborhoods may tend to be low, regardless of the skill of the teacher. Also, if the assessment is not valid and reliable, or if it measures attitudes and values rather than knowledge, it would be even more unfair to rate teachers based on assessment data.
- Of course hiring and maintaining effective teachers is a good idea, but how is “effective teacher” defined? Is an effective teacher one who teaches facts and knowledge, or one who transforms students’ attitudes and values.
- Turning around low-achieving schools is a good goal; however will high-achieving schools be correspondingly encouraged to go even higher, or will they be neglected?
Most importantly, regardless of Race to the Top’s list of desired innovations, everyone should recognize the federal interference into local state educational matters is unconstitutional.
Joyce Fiess
What is Race to the Top?
April 25, 2010
Race to the Top is a federal government program announced by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on November 18, 2009. States will compete for grants totaling $4.35 billion, to be awarded for policies based on four areas:
- Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
- Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
- Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
- Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
The President and Secretary of Education have promoted charter schools and extensive data collection for the purpose of correlating student performance with teachers and principals and rewarding staff accordingly. States will be rated through a point-system, with various educational innovations being awarded certain numbers of points. Although Washington State will lose points by not having charter schools, the state may be able to accumulate enough points in other areas and thus still be competitive.
States are scrambling to adopt laws to give themselves a competitive advantage, but only a few will actually receive a grant. In this way, the federal government will entice states to align with federal education standards without having to give all of them funding.
There will be two rounds of competition. Forty states tried out for Round 1, for which the deadline was in January 2010. The results were announced in April: Delaware and Tennessee received awards. By chance, these were two states that had very strong union participation and support.
The deadline for Round 2 is June 1, 2010, and those results will be announced in September. States which were unsuccessful in Round 1 may compete in Round 2. Washington State will compete in Round 2.
CURE’s concerns:
Both from a Constitutional viewpoint and a practical viewpoint, education is best accomplished through local control—the more local the better. The federal government should not be dictating the policies of the neighborhood school.
Here are some concerns:
- “Internationally Benchmarked” standards could be standards from top-rated Singapore or third-world Sri Lanka. Being international doesn’t make them better, and they would incorporate values from other cultures, rather than American values.
- One-size-fits-all, identical standards for all 50 states means that no state could excel by having higher standards. The result would uniformly mediocre or, more likely, low-performing schools.
- Extensive data-collection is intrusive. In addition, determining teacher quality based on student scores is unreasonable; assessment scores in affluent neighborhoods are likely to be high, while assessment scores in immigrant neighborhoods may tend to be low, regardless of the skill of the teacher. Also, if the assessment is not valid and reliable, or if it measures attitudes and values rather than knowledge, it would be even more unfair to rate teachers based on assessment data.
- Of course hiring and maintaining effective teachers is a good idea, but how is “effective teacher” defined? Is an effective teacher one who teaches facts and knowledge, or one who transforms students’ attitudes and values.
- Turning around low-achieving schools is a good goal; however will high-achieving schools be correspondingly encouraged to go even higher, or will they be neglected?
Most importantly, regardless of Race to the Top’s list of desired innovations, everyone should recognize the federal interference into local state educational matters is unconstitutional.
Joyce Fiess