new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/rtt_casestudy.docx · web viewit also...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Running head: RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 1
Analysis of Race to the
Top: A Case Study
Rebeca Gamez
Amanda Inns
Elizabeth Kim
Audrey Moshfeghian
Daniel Princiotta
![Page 2: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 2
Introduction
This case study provides a summary of two of the Obama Administration’s key education
initiatives: Race to the Top (RTT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waivers. First, it provides
an overview of the initiatives and information on their origins. Then, it discusses the extent of the
evidence-base supporting the initiatives at the time of their development, as well as elements of
the evidence-base that suggested potential trouble ahead. The case study continues by discussing
the obstacles the Obama administration faced in enacting their policies and the approaches the
administration took to overcome those obstacles. Then, the study reports on the real and
perceived impacts of the policies to date. The case study closes with lessons learned from the
development and implementation of RTT and NCLB Waivers. Heeding these lessons learned
will enable the new administration to successfully chart a new course for the nation’s education
policy, navigate the current turmoil in the education policy arena, and implement education
initiatives that support student success, thereby strengthening the nation’s economic footing.
Origins and Key Policies
Race to the Top (RTT) is an education competition within the United States initiated by
the Obama Administration for $4.3 billion in funding. Released in 2009, it was part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. States were encouraged to apply for funds from this
stimulus grant that would help them achieve their education goals as well as reorient their
education goals to more career and college readiness and common standards as opposed to the
objectives mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act which encouraged across the board
“proficiency” (Duncan, A., 2009). The White House and Department of Education claimed the
contest would help states “focus on ends, not means” by using incentives rather than sanctions
(Layton, 2014). Under NCLB, states were facing pressure to meet benchmarks that would incur
![Page 3: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 3
loss of funding and other consequences if not met. The President and Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan desired to shift the role of the DOE to that of “capacity and innovation builder, not
compliance monitor” (Race to the Top Program Executive Summary, 2009).
In the competition, states would propose educational policies aligned with the
administration’s goals of performance-based standards for effective teachers and administrators,
Common Core student standards, promoting charter schools, turning around lowest-performing
schools, and building data systems to improve instruction (Unions v. Race to the Top, 2010).
Each category was allotted a point value: 138 points- Great Teachers and Leaders, 125 points-
State Success Factors, 70 points- Standards and Assessments, 55 points- General Selection
Criteria, 50 points- Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools, 47 points- Data Systems to
Support Instruction, and 15 points- Prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math). Those schools with the highest number of points were issued funds according to their
share of the federal population of school age children (Race to the Top Program Executive
Summary, 2009).
Leading up to RTT, a few key education leaders and reformers had already begun a
campaign of change in education, specifically in regards to the creation of Common Core
standards for students and performance-based standards for teachers and principals. Teach for
America and the New Teacher Project (TNTP) had spent a decade or more arguing for more
exigent standards to be put into place for teachers based on students’ performance and for the
removal of the “last in, first out” law which left enthusiastic new teachers out of jobs and
tenured, less than stellar teachers in place (Brill, S., 2010). TNTP even published a book, The
Widget Effect, which identified the need for “more rigorous” teacher evaluations (Weisberg et
![Page 4: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 4
al., 2009). At the same time, new evidence supporting the effectiveness of charter schools was
furthering the crusade to remove state caps on the number of charters allowed (Layton, 2014).
Of particular note are Gene Wilhoit (director of the Council of Chief State School
Officers) and David Coleman (cofounder of Student Achievement Partners) who were each
championing education reform through creation of common standards. Together, the two men
met with the Gates Foundation and proposed a solution to the standards dilemma, offering that a
set of common standards that included college and career readiness should be devised and
adopted by all states (Layton, 2014). The Gates Foundation agreed to fund the endeavor via the
Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association and aided in the
promotion of the Common Core to the states (Dillon, 2009). The effort was so successful that by
2009, all 50 states had voluntarily approved of the Common Core. At this point in time,
President Obama appointed Arne Duncan, who had been involved with the Gates Foundation on
other projects in Chicago where he was CEO of Chicago Public Schools, to be the Secretary of
Education. Secretary Duncan then moved forward in creating a national education plan for the
administration that standardized Common Core and fostered performance-based teacher
standards, another ideal supported by the Gates Foundation (Layton, 2014; Brill, 2010). He also
appointed support staff comprised of many individuals who had previous connections to the
Gates Foundation.
APLUS- Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success- is another effort by the Obama
administration to help states avoid the penalties that would be incurred by 2014 should they not
reach the goals stipulated by NCLB. It offered states a waiver to the NCLB and money in the
form of block grants to continue funding their educational needs that were being supported by
NCLB (McNeil and Klein, 2011). In order to receive funds, however, states had to adopt
![Page 5: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 5
standards for college and career readiness, increase academic proficiency (not necessarily to the
level required by NCLB), test students annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and high
school, focus improvement efforts on the most troubled schools, create guidelines for teacher
evaluations based in part on student performance, and disaggregate data and set performance
targets for key subgroups. Essentially, the Obama Administration was offering states another
avenue through which they could avoid the consequences of NCLB and align themselves more
closely to the goals of RTT (Slack, M., 2012).
Evidence Base
At the time that Race to the Top was announced, there was an uneven evidence base to
support the required initiatives. The policymakers had access to research regarding each of the
main components of RTT, yet the support for some of the required elements of RTT was weak.
That research for each initiative of RTT is described below.
Adopting Common Standards & Assessments
Race to the Top required states to adopt a set of common standards and implement a
common, high-quality assessments matching those standards. Separately from RTT, there was an
effort led by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) to develop the Common Core Standards. By summer of 2009, all fifty states
and the District of Columbia had committed to the process. This simplified this requirement,
because the standards were already being supported by all states.
The evidence supporting common standards breaks into two main categories: college
readiness and international competition. The college readiness argument developed as more
students were graduating with high school diplomas and still didn’t have skills to enable them to
succeed in college or enter the workforce. Standards were developed that proposed to prepare
![Page 6: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 6
high school graduates for college and career success (Achieve, The Education Trust, & Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation, 2004; Conley et al, 2009; Conley, 2003).
In addition to college readiness, the common standards attempted to improve the
performance of U.S. students on international assessments. Several studies examined high-
performing countries such as Singapore, Korea and Hong Kong and discovered that successful
countries had rigorous, common standards, which the United States lacked (Ginsburg, Cooke,
Leinwand, Noell, & Pollock, 2005; Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; Leinwand
& Decker, 2009). Developing and adopting high-quality standards such as these countries was
believed to be one way to improve U.S. performance on international assessments.
Once new standards were adopted that addressed college readiness and mirrored the rigor
of high-performing countries such as Singapore, new assessments would have to be developed to
match these standards. There was evidence suggesting that the current assessments were poorly
aligned to the standards they claimed to measured (Resnick, Rothman, Slattery & Vranek, 2003).
Overall, the evidence supporting common standards and high-quality assessments was
compelling, though perhaps not conclusive. The knowledge at the time justified the decision to
include this in RTT.
Evaluating Effective Teachers & Principals
Another requirement of RTT focused on staffing schools with effective teachers and
principals. At the time, there was a focus on a human capital model of education – that teachers
mattered more than anything else. Yet that idea conflicted with the way schools treated teachers,
as interchangeable parts that were all equal, and where little was done to improve or eliminate
ineffective teachers (Weisberg et al., 2009). RTT was attempting to change that
“interchangeable” approach to teachers.
![Page 7: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 7
There was wide agreement that teacher effectiveness mattered (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Sanders & Horn, 1998), but there was little consensus on what
constituted an effective teacher (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2008;
Neild & Farley‐Ripple, 2008; Teddlie, Kirby, & Stringfield, 1989; Xu & others, 2008).
In addition, RTT supported performance pay and value-added models of evaluation.
There was limited research supporting performance pay (Winters, Greene, Ritter, & Marsh,
2008) and the research on value-added models was mixed (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, &
Hamilton, 2003). While there was evidence that value-added models held promise (Doran, 2003;
Hershberg, Simon, & Lea-Kruger, 2004; Mahoney, 2004), there was additional evidence that
they were not yet ready for widespread implementation due to validity and methodological
concerns as well as not being user-friendly (Amrein-Beardsley, 2008; Doran & Fleischman,
2005; Kupermintz, 2003). Regardless of what the scholarly evidence stated, value-added
methods were already in use in several states, such as Tennessee, though the validity of these
systems was unclear (Kupermintz, 2003).
On the whole, it was not definitely established what constituted effective teaching and
how to identify those high-quality, effective teachers.. However, the argument was logical and
appealed to many, so the need for effective teachers was included in RTT, as well as the
structural supports needed for evaluation – high quality assessments and data systems.
Building Data Systems
Race to the Top required states to develop statewide, longitudinal data systems. This
allowed states and schools to evaluate teachers, schools, and programs and identify areas of
strength and weakness (Data Quality Campaign, 2006). These data systems were key to
evaluating teacher effectiveness and were not universally available before RTT. The research
![Page 8: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 8
around these data systems supported their development, because they improve the efficiency,
accuracy and access to data and allow the use of data to ask--and answer--meaningful questions
(Bergner & Smith, 2007; Kugle & Smith, 2006a; Kugle & Smith, 2006b; Kugle & Smith, 2007a;
Kugle & Smith, 2007b; Kugle & Smith, 2008). There was convincing evidence and a reasonable
explanation for data systems that warranted their inclusion in RTT.
Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools
Race to the Top had a special focus on low-performing schools in the state, so that they
needed to be identified and addressed. Four models were approved for intervening in these
schools: turnaround, restart, transformation and closure. Research on these models was scattered.
The What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide identified evidence-based practices that
could help educators and administrators improve low-performing schools and suggested that
schools change leadership and staff, focus on improvement with data, and generate quick wins;
however their evidence for these recommendations was minimal (Herman, Dawson, Thomas,
Greene, & Redding, 2008). In addition, changes must impact the quality of student learning
(Newmann & Wehlage, 1995) and require flexibility, resources and support (Calkins, Guenther,
Belfiore, & Lash, 2007). However, turnaround often fails (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Calkins,
Guenther, Belfiore, & Lash, 2007; Kotter, 1995) and closing schools doesn’t always improve
student outcomes (De la Torre & Gwynne, 2009). High performing, high poverty schools could
provide some guidance for how to successfully improve the low-performing schools (Duke,
2006), but in general while there were examples of success using these models, there was no
evidence of how to use these models at scale. While the evidence was lacking, it was
unacceptable to continue to allow these schools to continue to underserve students, so it could be
argued that any attempt to improve these schools was necessary.
![Page 9: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 9
Increasing Charter Schools
The final major component of RTT was the support for charter schools. States needed to
allow the growth and development of charter schools. Some states previously hadn’t allowed any
charter schools, and other states had limits to how many charter schools could be approved. RTT
wanted to encourage charter schools as a way to raise the quality of education and allow
innovation in schools. This decision to dramatically increase charter schools was unsupported by
the evidence at the time.
Charter schools have two ideas that mostly come from the business world. First, charters
are thought to provide choice for parents, and the reasoning is that parents will enroll their
children in high-quality charter schools and avoid poorly-performing charter schools, so that in
the marketplace of schools, low-quality charter schools will close due to lack of enrollment. That
idea had limited support (Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2007) and doesn’t hold up.
Charter schools are also thought to encourage innovation and high-quality learning due to
increased freedom from regulations. However, the quality of charter schools vary greatly by
location (CREDO, 2009). While there are studies supporting charter schools, (Booker, Gilpatric,
Gronberg, & Jansen, 2007; Hoxby, 2004; Hoxby & Rockoff, 2004; Solmon, Paark, & Garcia,
2001), there are also studies demonstrating lower achievement at charter schools (Bifulco &
Ladd, 2006; Braun, Jenkins, & Grigg, 2006; Eberts & Hollenbeck, 2001; Nelson, Rosenberg, &
Van Meter, 2004). In addition, there are more studies showing how charter school results are
mixed, depending on school, grade, subject, or other factors (Barr, Sadovnik, & Visconti, 2006;
Betts & Tang, 2008; Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2002; Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006;
Sass, 2006). The wealth of evidence about charter schools painted a complicated picture and
![Page 10: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 10
showed that RTT likely did not have the conclusive evidence regarding student outcomes to
support such dramatic growth in charters.
Challenges to RTT
Although the Race to the Top initiative adopted an incentivized approach that contrasted
sharply with the punitive implications of NCLB, it did not go without its opposition. Both RTT
and NCLB waivers, which are founded on promises of more systematized accountability with
robust data systems and an adoption of explicit college and career ready standards, met
dissention from a wide audience. Outspoken education historian Diane Ravitch was not diffident
in expressing her disapproval of what she perceived as the overemphasis on testing, and
particularly took issue with the notion that RTT was promoting early testing (Ravitch, 2015).
The Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grant competition is an outgrowth
of the RTT competition, which focuses on improving early learning and development programs
for young children, but the priorities of the grant indicate preference for assessments and rating
systems. Moreover, the emphasis on standards and accountability that undergird RTT and the
waiver guidelines seemed to offer very little reprieve from NCLB policies. Randi Weingarten,
president of the American Federation of Teachers, sharply commented on the seemingly circular
logic of the waivers: “the waiver guidance issued today says: No Child Left Behind failed, but
you can get out of it if you have college- and career-ready standards, high-stakes testing on those
standards, and teacher evaluations that rely heavily on testing" (Bidwell, 2014).
The issue of standards has also been divisive among states participating in RTT.
Although 46 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to adopt the Common Core, states
such as Virginia withdrew from the second round of competition because it did not want to
compromise their well-established, validated, and rigorous state standards, the Standards of
![Page 11: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 11
Learning (SOL), for what they perceived as an unvalidated, foreign Common Core which also
lacked appropriate assessment measures (Anderson & Helderman, 2010).
Unsurprisingly, RTT’s recommendation of tying teacher pay to performance met
pushback from teacher unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National
Education Association who contested that pay-for-performance was unfair and debilitating,
instead touting seniority or credentials as a basis for pay. Moreover, RTT appeared to put states
into a Catch-22 bind in which the application guidelines stipulated that states show that they
have the support of the same teacher unions that opposed much of the required change (Bowen,
2010).
School choice was another area in which much dissention emerged. The teacher unions
were not the only groups concerned about charter schools and school choice, but widespread
pushback came from a variety of groups. Groups such as the National Council of the Churches of
Christ vocalized their concerns in a letter to the president, insisting that “we are concerned today
when we hear the civil right to education being re-defined as the right to school choice” (Strauss,
2010). Thus, pushback against school choice came from a diverse array of audiences.
The question of school choice was not the sole concern regarding equity; others
questioned how equitably the awardees would distribute the grant funds to students in need. The
2012 Edition of the National Report Card, "Is School Funding Fair," issued by the Education
Law Center (ELC) presented a less than ideal portrait of how RTT awardees were using their
funds. The report found that all but three states provided no additional funds to educate students
in poverty (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2012). In fact, the average funding levels of the highest
poverty districts were actually lower than levels in the lowest poverty districts in most states. For
instance, North Carolina offered districts with no student poverty at an average of $11,111 per
![Page 12: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 12
pupil opposed to the $8,699 given to the highest poverty districts (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie,
2012).
In response to calls for increased cognizance of how RTT is promoting educational
equity, President Obama proposed a new competitive fund entitled RTT Equity and Opportunity
for the 2015 fiscal year, in which $300 million would be parceled to grantees who could exhibit
plans that aggressively target opportunity and achievement gaps. Despite this well-meaning
gesture to address equity issues, the plan failed to receive funds for the fiscal year (Strauss,
2014).
The delineation between the private versus public has perennially sparked debate in our
nation’s educational history, and RTT was not exempt from this conversation. Some viewed
RTT and its quite specific recommendations for educational reform as a form of federal intrusion
into state affairs. A general sentiment of federal mistrust emanated among states; Governor Rick
Perry’s language in his statement illustrates such mistrust: “Texas is on the right path toward
improved education, and we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in
the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in
Washington, virtually eliminating parents’ participation in their children’s education” (Bidwell,
2014).
The NCLB waivers similarly stirred division in the question of federal incentives
that override state positions. For instance, in 2013 the California Office of Reform
Education (CORE), a collection of eight districts in California, received an NCLB
waiver, which was an unusual move in light of the fact that the state itself had not
received a waiver. Commenting on this disunity within the state, Chris Minnich,
executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, characterized the CORE
![Page 13: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 13
waiver as “an unprecedented shift in the federal role in education — clearly usurping
state leadership” (Fensterwald, 2013). The waiver is the first that was not issued to a state
department of education and has caused tension among state chiefs of education, teachers
unions and some advocacy groups that view the waiver as rendering state and district
asunder.
Perhaps to address the growing concerns from conservatives and states that the federal
government was heavy handed in its involvement with state decisions about education, in 2013
US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan adjusted the requirements of the NCLB waivers such
that they were looser: instead of a two year waiver period the waivers were shortened to one and
the requirements that states needed to show 1) they were doing a better job of ensuring low-
income and minority students were not disproportionately affected by ineffective teachers and 2)
that states would improve their use of federal funds for professional development were no longer
necessary. Although this opened new conversations about equity issues and state fiscal
accountability, the loosening of the NCLB waiver requirements appeared to be a gesture in
scaling back federal involvement in the operation of local education systems.
As RTT was a national competition that involved several raters, unsurprisingly the
question of the fairness and objectivity of the evaluations emerged. In April 2010, Economic
Policy Institute found that the selection of Delaware and Tennessee was subjective and arbitrary,
more a matter of bias or chance than a result of these states’ superior compliance with reform
policies (Peterson & Rothstein, 2010). Shortly after this report, in September 2010, the American
Enterprise Institute released another report finding disparities in RTT scores versus the education
reform track records and ratings of states from outside, independent sources such as the Data
Quality Campaign and Education Week’s Quality Counts (Bowen, 2010). The report further
![Page 14: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 14
applied regression analysis in order to ascertain the extent to which a state’s political climate
related to the RTT score, implicating the possibility that political bias may have infiltrated the
awards. The regression indicated that three components were statistically significant in
explaining a state’s first-round score: projected score based on education-reform track record,
having a Senate seat in play, and having a state governor seat in play. Although establishing a
causal link between political climates and RTT scores is unfounded, there were suspicions and
speculations about bias in the selection process. This may be in part because of the ambiguity of
some of the items in the scoring rubric for RTT applications. Bowen (2010) claims that
approximately 18% of the 30 criteria are subjective and elude ready quantification such as
“translating Local Education Agency participation into statewide impact” (A)(1)iii) and “using
broad stakeholder support” (A)(2)iii).
To assuage concerns about impartiality, Duncan assured that winners of RTT were
selected by teams of impartial education experts who had been fully vetted for potential conflicts
of interest and that he himself was mostly removed from the process (Stegal, 2010). While it is
difficult to evaluate the veracity of the impartiality allegations, they were nonetheless a topic that
generated much dispute.
As is evident from this non-exhaustive list of disagreement around RTT policies, the
initiative did not go without objection. While it may not have garnered much opposition at its
conception, gradual dissention and concern from parties accumulated throughout its
implementation. It is fair to consider then, despite these obstacles whether RTT was a successful
educational policy in increasing outcomes for students.
![Page 15: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 15
RTT’s Impact
This section describes the impact of RTT to date. In particular, it will address the
following questions: (a) What impact has RTT had on state education policy? (b) What impact
has RTT had on winning states so far? What is going well and what is not going well? and (c)
What kind of impact has RTT had at the school system level? It will also examine the public
perception of RTT’s impact, particularly in terms of key constituents affected by this competitive
grant program. RTT has received tremendous media coverage and think tank analysis, yet, most
of the discussion has centered on the program’s design, application, and reward process. Much
less attention and research has been devoted to analyzing its impact on state policy and its impact
at the district and school-level. Information on the impact of each particular component of RTT
on key student and teacher-level educational outcomes are, to our knowledge, non-existent. Part
of the reason why factual information on RTT impacts is so limited is because to win grants
states were strongly encouraged to make a host of complex changes that will take some time to
evaluate. The United States Department of Education, however, has committed itself to
providing more information about its impact by creating a five-year, $19 million evaluation
program, administered through the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance (NCEE). So far, NCEE and the three organizations it has subcontracted –
Mathematica Policy Research, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), and Social Policy
Research Associates (SPRA) – has collected two years worth of data and has published one
report related to RTT titled, “State Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Policies Promoted by
Race to the Top” (NCEE, 2014). As such, to provide a preliminary analysis of RTT’s impact this
section will draw on published material from NCEE, as well as reports conducted by think tanks
![Page 16: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 16
and unpublished dissertations examining RTT. The first section examines public perception of
RTT’s impact on key constituents.
Public Perception of RTT’s Impact
In policy, as in life, perception often trumps reality. This is particularly true when it takes
substantial time to develop rigorous evidence of whether or not a policy is successful. Pundits,
politicians, education stakeholders, and opinion-leaders of all stripes will end up weighing in on
policies before hard evidence is in. In doing so, they can shape public opinion in important ways.
In fact, they can shape whether policies are seen as successes or failures and drive future policy
development and funding, even in the absence of strong evidence.
Perhaps because RTT supported right-leaning policies using left-leaning levels of federal
oversight, thought leaders from both the left and the right assailed the initiatives, arguing that
they were ineffective. For example, from the right, education researcher Rick Hess opined on
RTT that:
When launched, the $4.35 billion competition drew bipartisan cheers and was lauded as
an example of getting school reform right. Five years on, I see it more as a monument to
paper promises, bureaucratic ineptitude, and federal overreach. (Hess, 2014)
From the left, in their lessons learned report on RTT, the Broader Bolder Approach to Education
coalition argued that RTT states made unrealistic and unreasonable promises, RTT policies
failed to address gaps in the opportunity to learn between disadvantaged students and their more
advantaged counterparts, RTT failed to improve teacher quality, and it created state-district and
union-management conflicts that undermined progress (Weiss, 2013).
![Page 17: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 17
Because NCLB Waivers were affected administratively, outside of the traditional law-
making process, they drew the ire of many federal legislators--in particular, rightwing
Republicans. In fact, immediately before House Republicans voted to authorize a lawsuit against
President Obama for executive overreach, Representative Pete Sessions, Republican from Texas
and Chair of the House Rules Committee, cited the fact that Obama “ended accountability
provisions in No Child Left Behind,” to buttress his case against the President (Camera, 2014).
Although a report requested by the House Republicans and authored by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service found that NCLB waivers were, in fact, legal, the House
republicans sought to delegitimize the NCLB Waivers and Race to the Top in the eyes of the
U.S. public via their actions.
State-level policymakers, however, saw NCLB Waivers in a kinder light, as the waivers
enabled states to avoid deeming all of their schools as failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress
under NCLB. This was true for many governors and chief state school officers--on both sides of
the partisan aisle. Take former Republican Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, as a case in point.
Widely known to be no fan of President Obama, Governor Brewer nevertheless touted her state’s
receipt of an NCLB waiver:
“The people of Arizona know what is best for Arizona schools. So, I'm grateful for this
reprieve from federal red tape, allowing our teachers and administrators the flexibility
they require to meet the needs of Arizona students.” (Project Vote Smart, 2012)
Another former governor, Christine Gregoire, Democrat from Washington state also touted the
flexibility provided by the waivers: “This waiver provides our school districts with the necessary
flexibility to improve student learning based on the students’ and their communities’ needs,”
(State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2012).
![Page 18: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 18
Of course, policymakers are ultimately responsible to their constituents--not thought
leaders, pundits or other politicians. A year after the launch of RTT, a 2010 poll by Harvard’s
Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) and Education Next found that a plurality
of Americans (46 percent) expressed no opinion (Education Next, 2010). Among those with an
opinion, 59 percent thought RTT was necessary to improve education while 41 percent thought
the policy was an unwarranted intrusion into state and local government. More recent Phi Delta
Kappan / Gallup polling suggests that the general public is less supportive of education reforms
linked to Race to the Top and NCLB Waivers than the Obama administration would like. For
example, in 2014, six in ten Americans opposed states requiring that teacher evaluations include
how well a teacher’s students perform on standardized tests, according to a PDK/Gallup poll
(Bushaw & Calderon, 2014a). Furthermore, this represented a substantial increase in opposition
from just two years prior, when only 47 percent of people opposed teacher evaluations tied to
student standardized test performance (Bushaw & Calderon, 2014a). More broadly, 54 percent of
people thought student standardized tests were not helpful to teachers. With respect to Common
Core State Standards, 60 percent of Americans oppose having the teachers in their community
use the Common Core State Standards to guide what they teach (Bushaw & Calderon, 2014b).
One element of Obama’s agenda, boosting access to public charter schools, does show strong
support from the public. Seven in ten Americans support charters, though only half know that
they’re public schools (Bushaw & Calderon, 2014b). Broadly speaking, Obama receives
middling to poor marks from Americans in terms of his performance in support of public
schools, with 29 percent of Americans grading the President as a “C” and 27 percent giving him
an “F” (Bushaw & Calderon, 2014b).
![Page 19: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 19
Teachers are a politically influential subset of the broader population, who have a lot to do
with actually implementing education policy on the ground. In some cases, teachers and the
broader public are divided with respect to elements of RTT. For example, in PEPG/Education
Next’s 2010 poll, while most Americans with an opinion supported RTT, teachers with an
opinion opposed it by a 2:1 margin; 68 percent of teachers with an opinion opposed it, while 32
percent of teachers with an opinion favored it (Education Next, 2010). With respect to the
Common Core, EdNext’s 2013 and 2014 polls found that public teacher support for the Common
Core was higher than the general public in 2013 (76 percent versus 65 percent, respectively), but
less positive in 2014 (46 percent, compared with 53 percent, respectively) with greater
opposition (40 percent, compared with 26 percent) (Henderson, Peterson, & West, 2015).
However, as is always the case, how a survey asks a question has a strong impact on how the
respondent answers. One problem with surveys about the Common Core is that many ideas are
wrapped up in that terminology. A Gallup survey of teachers asked public school teachers what
the impact of “having one set of educational standards across the country for reading, writing,
and math” would be, and 76 percent said the impact would be positive (Lyons, 2014). Just a
quarter (27 percent) of teachers, however, said using standardized computer-based tests to
measure all students’ performance and progress would have a positive impact, and only 9 percent
of teachers said that linking teacher evaluations to their students’ Common Core test scores
would have a positive impact--89 percent said it would have a negative impact (Lyons, 2014).
RTT’s Impact on State Education Policy
The Department of Education established a number of criteria that states had to meet to
even be eligible to apply for RTT funds. States had to commit to educational reform at the
legislative level despite the possibility of rejection. These mandates – for example the criteria
![Page 20: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 20
that states not have caps on the number of charter schools permitted to operate or not have
obstacles in place preventing the linking of student-achievement data with individual teacher
information – appear to have had a significant impact on state school reform efforts (McGuinn,
2011; Meredith, 2013; National Center for Educational Evaluation, 2014). Meredith (2013)
examined policies states passed in three policy areas that RTT intended to influence through its
competitive grant program. These include teacher policy (recruiting, developing, rewarding, and
retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most), college and
career readiness policy (adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in
college and the workplace to compete in the global economy), and persistently lowest achieving
schools policy (turning around the lowest-achieving schools). While some of these policy
changes were already underway before RTT came along, many of the policy changes made can
be attributed to RTT. Meredith (2003) looked only at substantive policy changes and found that
from March 2009 to November 2009 states “passed 21 teacher policy bills or administrative
policies, 17 college and career readiness policies, and 14 persistently lowest achieving schools
policies” (Meredith, 2013, p. 118). After the Department of Education released federal guidance
and announced the first round winners, states “passed 30 teacher policies, 31 college and career
readiness policies, and 23 persistently lowest achieving school policies” (Meredith, 2003, p.
118).
NCEE’s second released report takes a closer look at the extent to which states required
teacher evaluation policies aligned with RTT as of spring 2012. Based on structured interviews
conducted with administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia, the report examined
state policy alignment with the eight teacher evaluation RTT application criteria which include,
for example, that states require multiple measures of performance to evaluate teachers in tested
![Page 21: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 21
and non-tested grades and subjects (NCEE, 2014). The study generated several interesting
findings. Overall, it found that, on average, RTT and non-RTT states reported requiring less than
half of the eight teacher evaluation policies aligned with RTT priorities. However, RTT states
tended to require more of these policies than non-RTT states (NCEE, 2014).
A closer look at which of the eight policies were most aligned with states’ policies
suggests that states’ teacher evaluation policies were most aligned with RTT priorities focused
on using multiple measures to evaluate teacher performance using multiple ratings categories,
and conducting annual evaluations (NCEE, 2014). Approximately 75 percent of early RTT states
(these are defined as states that were awarded grants in Rounds 1 and 2) and 71 percent of later
RTT states (states that won grants in Round 3) reported requiring two or more measures to
evaluate teachers in both tested and non-tested grades and subjects. Approximately 5 non-RTT
states reported requiring two or more of these latter measures (NCEE, 2014). In terms of patterns
across states for combining multiple measures to evaluate teachers, the report found that
classroom observations were a key measure required by many states for teacher evaluations
(NCEE, 2014). States’ policies that were least aligned with RTT priorities focused on using
evaluation results to inform decisions about compensation and career advancement. Only 11
states reported requiring that teacher evaluations be tied to annual salary increases (6 states) or
performance-based compensation (5 states). Of the 11 states, half were RTT states. Only one
state (an RTT state) reported requiring that teacher evaluation results be used to guide decision
about career advancement. The study suggests that a potential explanation for why RTT states
have not required all eight policies aligned with RTT application criteria has to do with the
controversial nature of the proposed teacher evaluation policies. In fact, a 2013 U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO, 2013) suggests that “11 of the 12 RTT states
![Page 22: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 22
discussed difficulty of addressing teacher concerns about the scale of evaluation reform” (GOA,
2013, p. 18). The NCEE (2013) report found that those states that had collective bargaining
power reported, on average, having less teacher evaluation policies aligned with RTT. Some
states also did not mandate a statewide evaluation system but, rather, worked at the district level
to ensure that local education agencies put in place an evaluation system that complied with state
statute (NCEE, 2014).
RTT’s Impact on Winning States
What has been RTT’s impact on winning states? What has gone well and what has not
gone as well? Most of the research on RTT’s impact on winning states examines “impact” in
terms of how states have fared with implementation of RTT mandates rather than an analysis on
how different components of RTT have influenced key educational outcomes. For example, the
Department of Education’s RTT annual reports provide information about winning states’
implementation and do provide some information about student outcome variables (such as
states’ National Assessment of Educational Progress scores) but one cannot establish a causal
link between particular components of RTT and any increases or decreases in state assessment
and NAEP scores without more sophisticated analysis. The Center for American Progress
released a report in 2012 that looked at Round 1 and 2 winning states’ challenges and successes
in their implementation of RTT. Overall, the report found that, with the exception of Hawaii and
Florida, most Round 1 and 2 states, as of 2012, were on “track with their early RTT
commitments” (Boser, 2012, p. 10). However, the report also goes on to say that every grantee
has changed or delayed some part of their grant and that this has mostly been due to internal
capacity issues. States particularly struggled with implementation of data systems (Boser, 2012).
The DOE’s second annual progress report showed that, a year later, states were still struggling
![Page 23: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 23
with similar issues. In particular, states faced challenges in the areas of implementing teacher and
principal evaluation systems and building and upgrading data collection systems. While Hawaii
and Florida were initially on the DOE’s “at-risk” list in their first annual report, the second
annual report lists Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland as “at-risk” (Boser, 2012).
Georgia and Maryland were assigned “high-risk” status because, among other things, they have
been sluggish in getting their teacher evaluation systems up and going (Boser, 2012). Overall,
the evidence so far suggests that RTT has impacted states’ in a variety of ways. States may have
designed their RTT proposals without consideration for internal capacity and implementation
context and are now struggling to articulate to the DOE how it is that they will follow through
with RTT requirements.
RTT’s Impact at the School System Level
Evidence on RTT’s impact at the school system level is limited at best. While there are
plenty of speculative and opinion-based reports on perceived impacts, to our knowledge, there
are few evidence-based reports on local level impacts. Searches using the search engine Proquest
that included a combination of the following key words and /or phrases “Race to the Top”,
“impact”, “school level”, “teachers” yielded a few relevant studies published in the last few
years. Most studies employed qualitative research methodologies, using structured or semi-
structured interviews as the primary mode of data collection. For example, in her dissertation
Gutmann (2014) examines how teacher evaluation policies implemented in North Carolina as a
direct result of winning an RTT competitive grant influenced teachers at the ground level. More
specifically, she examined how these new policies influenced teachers’ conceptions of good
practice and professional identity. Gutmann (2014) found that overall the new evaluations put in
place as a result of RTT “only somewhat mattered” to teachers as the evaluations “often failed to
![Page 24: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 24
live up to their full potential.” Teachers described flaws in implementation and no connection
between evaluation ratings and improvement strategies (Gutmann, 2014). A study by Porter,
Fusarelli, and Fusarelli (2014) focused on how teacher, principal, and RTT coordinators
experienced the Common Core Standards in North Carolina. The authors found several key
results. First, interpretation about how to think about Common Core Standards in relation to
instruction differed at each level – from districts, to principals, to teachers. Without a unifying
message about how to implement Common Core Standards, much tension existed between
teachers and administrators. The study also found that teachers felt they were given very little
guidance about how to implement the Common Core State Standards and thus spent a good deal
of time attempting to guess and interpret how the new standards should play out in instruction.
Teachers reported feeling stressed and frustrated. In general, the limited research base suggests
that successful implementation of RTT will largely depend on context surrounding teacher and
classroom use. We will have to wait for results from the IES evaluation of RTT to glean more
conclusive evidence of the impacts of the policy at the state and local level.
RTT’s Impact on NCLB
In 2011, the Obama administration announced that it would award waivers under the No
Child Left Behind Act to states that agreed to adopt policies similar to those promulgated by
RTT. More specifically, the Obama administration,
“would provide State Education Agencies (SEAs) with flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for college- and career-ready expectations for all students; differentiated accountability, including targeting the lowest-performing schools, schools with the largest achievement gaps, and other schools with performance challenges for subgroups; and teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that take into account student growth and are used to help teachers and principals improve their practices” (DOE, 2013).
![Page 25: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 25
As of November 2014, 43 states and the District of Columbia have received NCLB waivers.
These states are eligible to apply to renew their waivers through the 2017-18 school year. States
that the department believes are fully meeting waiver requirements could see their waivers
extended to the 2018-19 school year (Bidwell, 2014). The DOE revoked Washington’s waiver
because it experienced extensive problems with instituting a teacher evaluation program. It also
revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014). As was
described earlier, California presents an interesting example of how the battle over NCLB
waivers has played out in some states. Eight unified districts in California applied for a waiver
through the umbrella organization of CORE. After intense negotiations, the districts were
granted a waiver, making it the first time that waivers were not issued specifically through a state
department of education (Fensterwald, 2013). States that opted out of the NCLB waivers include
California, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Vermont. Montana cited that costs for
implementing changes required by the Obama administration in exchange for a waiver would be
too costly. As the Montana’s education chief Denise Juneau states, "The priorities of the
administration often don't fit rural America, including both small states and frontier states like
Montana…they seem to be designing initiatives for urban areas" (Resmovits, 2011). North
Dakota revoked its application for an NCLB waiver because of disagreements with DOE around
the number of non-proficient students that would need to be reduced. DOE asked North Dakota
to reduce this number to 50 percent over a span of six years, while North Dakota felt that 25
percent was more appropriate (Johnson, 2013). Nebraska initially rejected the waiver because it
felt that under the waiver requirements the state would lose the ability to “follow its own vision
of education” (Reist, 2014). However, as of November 2014 it has been reported that Nebraska is
negotiating with DOE with the hope of applying for a waiver (Reist, 2014). Vermont on the other
![Page 26: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 26
hand has no plans on applying for NCLB waivers. Like North Dakota, Vermont worried that
NCLB waiver did not provide as much flexibility as was initially conceived. A primary concern
for the state proved to be the requirement that under the waivers states still had to give annual
standardized tests. As the Stephen More, the chairman of the Vermont Board of Education,
stated, “"Our main interest was in being able to assess students in a more complete way and not
have the arbitrary testing and all the repercussions from that, and that's not what they meant by
waiver” (Rathke, 2012). In essence states that opted out of NCLB generally felt either that
receiving the waiver would add additional burdens to the state or that adopting Obama’s
educational reform policies as an exchange for a waiver proved to be as rigid as NCLB
provisions.
Conclusion: Lessons Learned
The development and implementation of RTT and NCLB Waivers provides us with the
following lessons learned:
● Pivot away from the problems of your predecessor. Both RTT and NCLB Waivers
were positioned as antidotes to problems with No Child Left Behind, which had built up a
substantial array of detractors over time.
● Take advantage of windows of opportunity. Take Rahm Emanuel’s advice. Obama’s
former chief of staff once said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The
economic crisis of 2008 enabled what enabled RTT, what Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan referred to as education reform’s “moonshot.” There will be opportunities to
advance our administration’s education agenda. We have to be prepared to take
advantage of them.
![Page 27: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 27
● Don’t let your rear guard down. While the Obama administration thought Common
Core standards and assessments were in the bag, they let other voices frame the standards
in a negative light. Never stop building and strengthening your policy coalitions and
getting your message out to key education stakeholders and the broader public.
● Use multiple approaches to advance your policy priorities. Because RTT was a
competitive program, many aspects of the Obama administration’s education policy
agenda weren’t able to be fully implemented in non-participating states. NCLB waivers
provided an avenue to extend reform to nearly the entire country.
● Take advantage of your executive authority. The Obama administration used
congressional gridlock as an excuse to pursue its agenda administratively (e.g., NCLB
Waivers), and at the same time, prodded the congress towards constructive action. Unless
the congress is under your party’s complete control, feel free to bash congress as do-
nothings—the public will agree with you.
● Provide incentives to states and they will adopt your reforms. Money talks. Dangling
money in front of states during a fiscal crisis led to substantial state-level policy reforms
among states attempting to pursue RTT. Competitive grant programs can give you great
bang for your buck by incentivizing policy change among a broader set of states than just
those who earn competitive funds. Enabling states to side-step NCLB requirements via
waivers led states to adopt politically touchy policies around teacher evaluation.
● Implementation is key. Under RTT, many states over-promised and under-produced. Be
sure to make use of frequent evaluation and provide ongoing support and technical
assistance to states to boost the odds of successful implementation.
![Page 28: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 28
By taking these lessons learned into account, the new administration will be well-positioned to
chart a new course for the nation’s education policy, navigate the tricky education policy arena,
and advance the administration’s education reform agenda.
![Page 29: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 29
References
Achieve, The Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2004). The American
Diploma Project: Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington,
D.C.: Achieve, Inc.
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological Concerns About the Education Value-Added
Assessment System. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65–75.
Anderson, N., & Helderman, R. S. (2010, May 27). McDonnell withdraws Virginia from
Obama’s Race to the Top school reform program. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052604480.
html
Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2012). Is School Funding Fair? A National Report
Card. Education Law Center.
Barr, J., Sadovnik, A., & Visconti, L. (2006). Charter Schools and Urban Education
Improvement: A Comparison of Newark’s District and Charter Schools. Urban Review,
38(4), 291–311.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3),
133–141.
Bergner, T., & Smith, N. J. (2007). How Can My State Benefit from an Educational Data
Warehouse?. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544710
Betts, J. R., & Tang, Y. E. (2008). Value-added and experimental studies of the effect of charter
schools on student achievement. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Retrieved from http://econ.ucsd.edu/~jbetts/Pub/A58%20pub_ncsrp_bettstang_dec08.pdf
![Page 30: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 30
Bidwell, A. (2014). Education Department Drops New NCLB Waiver Guidance. US News.
Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/13/education-department-
drops-new-no-child-left-behind-waiver-guidance
Bidwell, A. (2014). The Politics of Common Core. Us News. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/
2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-core
Bidwell, A. (2013). Education Department Loosens NCLB Waiver Requirements. US News.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/education-department-
loosens-nclb-waiver-requirements
Bidwell, A. (2013). Education department drops new NCLB waivers guidance. US News.
Retreived from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/13/education-department-
drops-new-no-child-left-behind-waiver-guidance.
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement:
Evidence from North Carolina. Education, 1(1), 50–90.
Booker, K., Gilpatric, S. M., Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2007). The impact of charter school
attendance on student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 849–876.
Boser, U. (2012). Race to the Top: What have we learned form the states so far? A state-by-state
evaluation of Race to the Top performance. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/rtt_states.pdf.
Bowen, D. (2010). Politics and the Scoring of Race to the Top Applications. Washington DC:
American Enterprise Institute.
![Page 31: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 31
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). A Closer Look at Charter Schools Using
Hierarchical Linear Modeling. NCES 2006-460. National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493062
Brill, S. (2010). The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand. The New York Times.
Bushaw, W. J., & Calderon, V. J. (2014a). Americans put teacher quality on center stage: The
46th annual PDK/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools: Part II.
Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 49–59. doi:10.1177/0031721714553411
Bushaw, W. J., & Calderon, V. J. (2014b). Try it again, Uncle Sam The 46th Annual
PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
96(1), 8–20. doi:10.1177/0031721714547856
Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The Turnaround Challenge: Why
America’s Best Opportunity to Dramatically Improve Student Achievement Lies in Our
Worst-Performing Schools. Mass Insight Education (NJ1). Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED538298
Camera, L. (2014, August 20). Obama Education Policies Add Fuel to Lawsuit Bid - Education
Week. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01lawsuit.h34.html
Conley, D. T. (2003). Understanding University Success. A Report from Standards for Success.
ERIC. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED476300
Conley, David, McGaughy, Charis, Cadigan, Katie, Flynn, Kathleen, Forbes, Jennifer, & Veach,
Darya. (2009). Alignment of the Texas college and career readiness standards with entry-
level general education courses at Texas postsecondary institutions. Eugene, OR:
Educational Policy Improvement Center.
![Page 32: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 32
Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). 2009. Multiple Choice: Charter School
Performance in 16 States. Stanford, CA: CREDO.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8(0), 1.
Data Quality Campaign. (2006). Creating a longitudinal data system: Using data to improve
student achievement. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/109_Publications-
Creating_Longitudinal_Data_System.pdf
De la Torre, M., & Gwynne, J. (2009). When Schools Close: Effects on Displaced Students in
Chicago Public Schools. Research Report. ERIC. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED510792
Dillon, S. (2009). After Complaints, Gates Foundation Opens Education Aid Offer to All States.
The New York Times .http://www.urbaninstitute.org/publications/411642.html
Doran, H. C. (2003). Adding Value to Accountability. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 55–59.
Doran, H. C., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Challenges of Value-Added Assessment. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 85–87.
Duke, D. L. (2006). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. ERS Spectrum, 24(4), 21–
35.
Duncan, A. (2009). Education Reform’s Moon Shot. The Washington Post.
Eberts, R., & Hollenbeck, K. (2001). An Examination of Student Achievement in Michigan
Charter Schools. Upjohn Institute Working Papers. Retrieved from
http://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/68
![Page 33: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 33
Education Next. (2010, August 25). Public and Teachers Divided in Their Support for Merit Pay,
Teacher Tenure, Race to the Top. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/public-and-
teachers-divided-in-their-support-for-merit-pay-teacher-tenure-race-to-the-top/
Fensterwald, J. (2013). Eight California districts receive historic NLCB waiver. EdSource.
Retreived from http://edsource.org/2013/duncan-grants-nclb-waiver-to-eight-california-
districts/36918#.VPU0BrPF991
Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, J., & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassessing U.S.
International Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA.
The American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491624
Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E. (2005). What the United States Can
Learn From Singapore’s World-Class Mathematics System (and What Singapore Can
Learn from the United States): An Exploratory Study. The American Institutes for
Research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491632
Gutmann, L. (2014). How teacher evaluation shapes conceptions of good practice: Policy
intention, implementation, and interpretation. Retrieved from Proquest.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. (2002). The impact of charter schools
on academic achievement.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. F. (2007). Charter school quality and
parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 823–
848.
Henderson, M. B., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2015). No Common Opinion on the Common
Core: Also * Teacher Grades, *School Choices, * and Other Findings from the 2014
Ednext Poll. Education Next, 15(1), 9.
![Page 34: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 34
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Thomas, D., Greene, J., & Redding, S. (2008). Turning Around
Chronically Low-Performing Schools: a practice guide (NCEE 2008 4020) .Washington
D.C. Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2004). The Revelations of Value-Added. School
Administrator, 61(11), 10–12,14.
Hess, R. (2014, July 24). Race to the Top, Wasn't. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2014/07/race_to_the_top_wasnt.ht
ml
Hoxby, C. M. (2004). A straightforward comparison of charter schools and regular public
schools in the United States. Charter Schools Development Center.
Hoxby, C. M., & Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of charter schools on student achievement.
Department of Economics, Harvard University. Retrieved from
http://fugu.ccpr.ucla.edu/events/ccpr-previous-seminars/ccpr-seminars-previous-years/
Sem05W%20Hoxby%20Impact%20of%20Charter%20Schools.pdf
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher
effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6),
615–631.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. (cover story). Harvard
Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
Kugle, C., & Smith, N. (2006a). Utah Case Study: Building a Student-Level Longitudinal Data
System. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544711
![Page 35: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 35
Kugle, C., & Smith, N. (2006b). Wisconsin Case Study: Building a Student-Level Longitudinal
Data System. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544695
Kugle, C., & Smith, N. (2007a). Massachusetts Case Study: Building a Student-Level
Longitudinal Data System. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED544684
Kugle, C., & Smith, N. (2007b). South Carolina Case Study: Building a Student-Level
Longitudinal Data System. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED544655
Kugle, C., & Smith, N. (2008). Louisiana Case Study: Building a Student-Level Longitudinal
Data System. Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544712
Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher Effects and Teacher Effectiveness: A Validity Investigation of
the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25(3), 287–298.
Layton, L. (2014). How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution. The
Washington Post.
Leinwand, S., & Decker, K. (2009). Informing Grades 1–6 Mathematics Standards
Development: What Can Be Learned From High-Performing with Korea, Singapore, and
Hong Kong, China? Retrieved from http://hrd.apec.org/images/6/6d/6.11.pdf
Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic
achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data (Vol. 16). New York: National
Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University. Retrieved from http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6-
04a024ecf7a4/uploads/Public_Schools_Edge_in_Math_Lubienski.pdf
![Page 36: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 36
Lyons, L. (2014, October 29). Teachers Favor Common Core Standards, Not the Testing.
Retreived from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/178997/teachers-favor-common-core-
standards-not-testing.aspx
Mahoney, J. W. (2004). Why Add Value in Assessment? School Administrator, 61(11), 16–18.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating Value-
Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Monograph. RAND Corporation.
McGuinn, P. (2011). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, Competitive grant programs and the
Obama educational agenda. Education Policy. 20(10), 1-24.
McNeil, M. (2013, February 1). Race to the Top progress report: Georgia, D.C., Maryland
flounder. Education Week, Politics and K-12. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-
k-12/2013/02/race_to_top_progress_report_ma.html
McNeil, M. and Klein, A. (2011). Obama Outlines NCLB Flexibility. Education Week, 31(5),
20-21.
Meredith, J.K. (2013). State policy diffusion and Race to the Top: The impact of federal
competitive grants on state policymaking. Retrieved from Proquest. (UMI Number:
3577025).
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2014). State requirement for
teacher evaluation policies promoted by Race to the Top. (Report No. NCEE 2014-4016).
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144016/pdf/20144016.pdf.
Neild, R. C., & Farley‐Ripple, E. (2008). Within‐School Variation in Teacher Quality: The Case
of Ninth Grade. American Journal of Education, 114(3), 271–305.
![Page 37: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 37
Nelson, F. H., Rosenberg, B., & Van Meter, N. (2004). Charter school achievement on the 2003
National Assessment of Educational Progress. American Federation of Teachers, AFL-
CIO. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED483349
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful School Restructuring: A Report to the
Public and Educators. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED387925
Peterson, W. & Rothstein, R. (2010). Let’s do the numbers: Department of Education’s “Race to
the Top” Program offers only muddled path to the finish line. Washington DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Porter, R. E., Fusarelli, L.C., & Fusarelli, B. (2014). Implementing the Common Core: How
educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy, 29(1), 111-139.
Project Vote Smart (2012, July 19). Governor Brewer, Superintendent Huppenthal: Arizona
Granted Relief from Burdensome Federal Education Regulations. Retrieved from:
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/724280/governor-brewer-superintendent-
huppenthal-arizona-granted-relief-from-burdensome-federal-education-
regulations#.VPenDPnF-X8
Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. (2009). U.S. Department of Education.
Rathke, L. (2012 June 3). Vermont opts out of No Child Left Behind waiver. Associated Press.
Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/news/education/articles/2012/06/03/vermont_opts_out_of_no_ch
ild_left_behind_waiver/.
Ravitch, D. (2015). Susan Ochshorn: How Race to the Top Harms Little Children. Retrieved
from http://dianeravitch.net/category/race-to-the-top/
![Page 38: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 38
Reist, M. (2014 November 6). State education officials moving forward on NCLB waiver
application. Journal Star. Retrieved from
http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/state-education-officials-moving-forward-on-
nclb-waiver-application/article_906e1ac0-5208-5c74-847d-1d764ab5f364.html.
Resmovits, J. (2014, November 13). Obama administration issues No Child Left Behind Waiver
Renewal Guidance. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/obama-no-child-left-
behind_n_6153176.html.
Resmovits, J. (2011, July 8). Montana ‘at point of no return’ for No Child Left Behind
compliance. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/no-child-left-behind-montana-nclb-
education-funding_n_893504.html.
Resnick, L. B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., & Vranek, J. L. (2003). Benchmark and alignment
of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 9(1&2), 1-27.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville, TN: University of
Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and
Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
Sass, T. R. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education, 1(1), 91–122.
Slack, M. (2012). Everything You Need to Know: Waivers, Flexibility, and Reforming No Child
Left Behind. The White House Blog.
![Page 39: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 39
Solmon, Lewis, Kern Paark, and David Garcia. 2001. Does charter school attendance improve
test scores? The Arizona results. Phoenix, AZ: The Goldwater Institute.
State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2012, July 6) . Washington
Secures ESEA Waiver. Retreived from
http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/pressreleases2012/WASecuresESEA-
Waiver.aspxhttp://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/11/12/politics-behind-
%E2%80%98race-top%E2%80%99-questioned
Stegal, J. (2010). Politics behind Race to the Top questioned. Retreived from
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/11/12/politics-behind-
%E2%80%98race-top%E2%80%99-questioned
Strauss, V. (2014). Obama’s Race to the Top loses all funding in 2015 omnibus spending bill.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2014/12/10/obamas-race-to-the-top-loses-all-funding-in-2015-omnibus-
spending-bill/
Strauss, V. (2010). Christian Churches Oppose Race to the Top, Obama blueprint. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/no-
child-left-behind/christian-churches-oppose-race.html
Teddlie, C., Kirby, P. C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus Ineffective Schools:
Observable Differences in the Classroom. American Journal of Education, 97(3), 221–
236.
Unions v. Race to the Top. (2010). The Wall Street Journal.
U.S. Department of Education. ESEA Flexibility. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-
flexibility/index.html.
![Page 40: new.every1graduates.orgnew.every1graduates.org/.../2015/01/RTT_CaseStudy.docx · Web viewIt also revoked Oklahoma’s for pulling out of Common Core State Standards (Bidwell, 2014)](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070611/5b0daec17f8b9abc0a8e0c64/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
RACE TO THE TOP CASE STUDY 40
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2011). Race to the Top: Reform efforts are under way
and information sharing could be improved. Washington, DC: Author. (Report No. GAO-
13-777). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657936.pdf
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K.
(2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in
teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED515656
Weiss, E. (2013). Mismatches in Race to the Top Limit Educational Improvement: Lack of
Time, Resources, and Tools to Address Opportunity Gaps Puts Lofty State Goals Out of
Reach. Washington, DC: Broader Bolder Approach to Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.epi.org/files/2013/bba-2013-race-to-the-top.pdf
Winters, M., Greene, J. P., Ritter, G., & Marsh, R. (2008). The effect of performance-pay in
Little Rock, Arkansas on student achievement (Working Paper 2008-02). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University, National Center on Performance Incentives.
Xu, Z., & others. (2008). Making a Difference?: The Effect of Teach for America on Student
Performance in High School. Retrieved from
http://www.urbaninstitute.org/publications/411642.html