Colleen OBrien Educational Measurement Dr. Ateh 29 September 2011 Reformation in Assessment: Race to the Top Reform.

This six letter word is one that educators across the nation know all too well. Whether it is reform in a curriculum, a reform in scheduling, or a reform in graduation requirements, the education system in the United States is perpetually changing. For example, in 2009, President Obama instituted the $4.35 billion competition entitled Race to the Top. Indeed, this program initiated great change throughout the country. Like any major reform, the project has had its fair share of critics, and many are still attempting to determine whether Race to the Top was a success. Many critics have categorized Obamas Race to the Top Plan as a response to the No Child Left Behind Act that President Bush implemented in 2001. However, these two presidents actually had different approaches to education reform. While No Child Left Behind provides incentives for schools to change [Race to the Top] mandates it (Lohman, 2010, p. 1). For instance, the No Child Left Behind Act instituted an accountability system for states and school districts that are funded by the federal government. The Act required that each state have academic standards, and each school should determine that every student maintains these standards through testing (Lohman, 2010, p. 1). Overall, this act was designed to close the infamous achievement gap and ensure that no student should remain behind his or her designated grade level.

As with any type of reform, there have been many criticisms concerning No Child Left Behind. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has expressed his great disapproval of the Act on more than one occasion. In fact, in August of 2011, Duncan announced that he will override the accountability law which states that all students will be 100 percent proficient in reading and math by 2014 (Dillon, 2011, p. 2). According to Duncan, this is due to the fact that No Child Left Behind fails to differentiate among chaotic schools in chronic failure, schools that are helping low-scoring students improve, and high preforming suburban schools that nonetheless appear to be neglecting some low-scoring students (Dillon, 2011, p. 2). Thus, according to Obamas administration, the country was due for a reform in improving education. In response to President Bushs No Child Left Behind, President Obama implemented the Race to the Top program in July of 2009. Obama designed this competition for every school district in the United States receiving federal money. The plan is funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the government has designated a total of $4.35 billion to be shared amongst the winners (Cheers, 2010, p. 3). According to the government, the program is designed to encourage and reward states for creating conditions for education innovation and achieving significant improvement in student test scores, graduation rates and success in college and careers (Cheers, 2010, p. 4). Though there was some opposition due to the competitive nature of this new plan, Race to the Top began without delay for all those states that entered the competition.

Though the applications for the primary competition were due in January of 2010, Race to the Top was conducted in two different rounds. Thus, the winners of the first round were announced in March 2010 (Cheers, 2010, p. 3). The second phase applications were due June

2010 with the winners announced in September 2010 ("Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top," 2011). In order to be eligible for the competition, the states must have had their State Fiscal Stabilization applications accepted by the Department of Education (Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top, 2011). Though many states chose to compete, others decided to opt out of the competition. Their omission was due to the fear that more money from the federal government would lead to more federal control over the states school systems (Cheers, 2010, p. 4). However, though states such as Alaska, North Dakota, Texas and Vermont made the executive decision to not compete, the remainder of the United States underwent their great Race to the Top during 2010.

Though these four states did not submit applications, Obama nevertheless designed Race to the Top as a competition that critiques school districts on a variety of criteria. Each state was evaluated on a five hundred point system that rated states on the performance of their teacher and leaders, the improvement of their lowest-achieving schools, their data systems to support instruction, and the recruitment and ability to maintain their highest preforming teachers (Cheers, 2010, p. 4). Meanwhile, schools who consistently received low test score were expected to close or transform into charter schools. Further, in low-preforming schools, principals will be fired, and all or half of the staff will be fired (Ravitch, 2010). Thus, though many believed that these measures were quite extreme, the majority of the country entered the competition regardless.

After much anticipation, the winners of the first round were finally announced in March 2010. The primary phase winners were Tennessee and Delaware. The two states were offered grants of $600 million which they split proportionally to the number of school-aged children in their respective state (Cheers, 2010, p. 3). The round two winners were announced in late August

of 2010. The Race to the Top Education funds awarded Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, Florida, Rhode Island, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington D.C. a share of the remaining $3.4 billion (Devore, 2010). Among these states was my home, Rhode Island.

Admittedly, I was quite surprised while conducting my research to find that Rhode Island had been one of the winners of the Race to the Top program. Since I was in college at the time, I heard little about our victory of 451.2 points and $75 million (Devore, 2010). However, as I delved into my research, I began to recall recent headlines from the Rhode Island Educational Department that had been broadcasted over the past year. Also, I reflected on my own high school experience, and my small states victory soon made more sense. For, according to the Associated Press (2010), Rhode Island was able to win the funding by lifting a cap on charter schools, adopting a statewide funding formula for the first time in decades, committing to more teacher training, [and] developing a new teacher evaluation system. Indeed, Rhode Islands Board of Trustees went even as far as firing all of the Central Falls High School faculty for the 2010-2011 school year due to the lure of federal money (Khadaroo, 2010, p. 3). Thus, as represented by Central Falls, Rhode Island was certainly quite determined to win federal funding. Though Rhode Islands reforms were broadcasted over the news, I also experienced them firsthand as a student at East Greenwich High School. My graduating class was the first class that was required to do a senior project in order to receive a diploma. Indeed, East Greenwich High school was not the only school that faced this requirement. In fact, it was mandatory for every twelfth grade public school student in Rhode Island to complete this lengthy assignment. The senior project consists of fifteen hours of fieldwork, a research paper, and a fifteen minute

presentation of ones studies. As a senior in high school, I thought the senior project was utterly irrelevant. To me, this project was an unnecessary obstacle that I was forced to overcome. However, after researching Race to the Top, I now understand the reasoning behind this requirement. By making the senior project a requirement, Rhode Island was improving its measurement of student growth. In doing so, my home state was able to push itself ahead in the Race to the Top. Indeed, Rhode Islands new educational reforms allowed the state to be one of the major finalists of Race to the Top. However, after the results were released, many found a major similarity between the winning states: their geography. Indeed eleven of the twelve winners were East of the Mississippi River, and most of them hugged the East Coast (Dillon, 2010, p. 2). Hawaii, of course, was the only exception. Western states argued that many of Obamas requirements were simply not applicable to their rural environment. For instance, in small towns where there may only be two hundred school aged children, setting up a charter school might not be feasible. It can also be hard to attract principals to such communities. And many of rural states do not have the resources or staff to write sophisticated grant applications (Dillon, 2010, p. 2). Therefore, the universality of Race to the Top was heavily criticized by many rural Americans.

Not only did Race to the Top critics argue that the East Coast had an unfair advantage, they also criticized the competitive nature of the reform. Indeed, his program creates a system of winners and losers that could hinder schools in historically undeserved communities (Cheers, 2010, p. 3). Indeed, with competition comes a bitterness that could be utterly

detrimental to the education system. Thus, many firmly believe that Obama should not have challenged America to such a Race to the Top.

After compiling my research, I have considered both the positive and negative aspects of Obamas Race to the Top. While his program has stimulated great change and positive reform in many school districts across the county, I believe that Race to the Top places too much of an emphasis on standardized testing. In high school, I was never a good test taker. Though I received good grades and was consistently on the honor roll, my test scores were consistently lacking. Indeed, many students struggle with standardized testing. Thus, a schools testing scores can be an inadequate reflection of the districts success. Additionally, with more focus on test performance comes even less time available for the arts, science, history, civics, foreign language, even physical education. Teachers will teach to the test. There will be more cheating, more gaming the system (Ravitch, 2010, p. 1). Therefore, I believe that although Obamas Race to the Top undeniably succeeded in some areas of education, it relied too heavily on test scores. Overall, President Obamas Race to the Top is a very controversial program. While it undoubtedly improves many school districts, it fails to acknowledge rural areas and places too much of an emphasis on standardized testing. Further, while the competitive nature of the program certainly motivates many states to improve their schools, I do not believe that competition is the best way to go about an education reform. However, though I certainly have my disapprovals of the program, I do believe the reform as a whole is far more successful than President Bushs No Child Left Behind. The states that were awarded the federal money truly improved and developed their respective education systems exponentially. Thus, though I cannot agree with all of Obamas implements, I have come to the conclusion that there is truly no such

thing as a perfect education reform plan. However, in my opinion, Obamas Race to the Top comes the closest to perfection in comparison to his previous reformers.

Works Cited Cheers, Imani. (2010, August 4). "'Race to the Top' Aims To Overhaul the U.S. Education System | August 4, 2010 | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/july-dec10/race_08-04.html. Devore, Veronica. (2010, August 24). "'Race to the Top' Education Funds Awarded to 9 States and D.C.| The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/08/round-two-resultsannounced-for-race-to-the-top.html. Dillon, Sam. (2010, August 24). "Eastern States Dominate in Winning School Grants." The New York Times. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/education/25schools.html?_r=1. Dillon, Sam. (2011, August 8). "Overriding a Key Education Law." The New York Times. 8 Aug. 2011. Web. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/education/08educ.html?pagewanted=all. "Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top." (2011). The White House. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top. Khadaroo, Stacy T. (2010, February 25). "All Teachers Fired at R.I. School. Will That Happen Elsewhere? - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0225/All-teachersfired-at-R.I.-school.-Will-that-happen-elsewhere.

Lohman, Judith. (2010). "Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top." Connecticut General Assembly. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R0235.htm.

Ravitch, Diane. (2010, August 1). "Obama's Race to the Top Will Not Improve Education." Huffington Post. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamasrace-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html. The Associated Press. (2010, August 24). "RI, Mass. Win Federal 'Race To The Top' Funds." NBC 10 Local News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England | Turn to 10. Retrieved on September 21, 2011 from http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2010/aug/24/18/ri-learn-whether-itgets-75m-education-grant-ar-206313/.