home

=**Race To The Top: The Politics of Competition and Incentives** =

By: Jeremy Cole

Race to the Top (RTTT) is an initiative of the United States Department of Education, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. ARRA (H.R 1) was a $789 spending bill which became public law 111-5 on February 17, 2009, after being signed by President Obama. RTTT is policy that created a competitive grant program, administered by the Department of Education, that will award over $4 billion (this number is an estimate and may actually be less once appropriated due to the recent economic downturn- see article on possible cut to Race to the Top Funds from the New York Times on June 30, 2010.). The program asks states to address key issues in education reform, including: supporting high academic standards, improving teacher effectiveness and ensuring quality teachers are equitably distributed across all school districts, using data to improvement student and teacher performance, and improving under-performing schools.

The original policy (ARRA) was written in response to the economic crisis of 2008. Due to the depth of the crisis, and the fear that it created, politicians on both sides of the aisle strongly believed that an economic stimulus was needed to stave off a second Great Depression. While the final vote was highly partisan (only 2 Republicans in the Senate voted Yes on the bill), there was very little disagreement about the need for such a stimulus (although there was some disagreement about the scope of the stimulus, which some liberal economists arguing that $789 billion was not enough, and a few lone conservative economists arguing that the market would correct itself, and no new stimulus funding was needed). Interestingly, this debate has shifted in the last 18 months, with a majority of economists and states urging fiscal restraint to rein in deficits, rather than economic stimulus. Many thinkers on the left, as pointed out by Paul Krugman in a recent article, believe this shift to fiscal restraint will lead to a second Great Depression.

Embedded within ARRA was a substantial amount of money for the Department of Education, including $5 billion in discretionary money for the new U.S. Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan). This $5 billion was used to create the Race to the Top program.

It is not entirely clear how the language of ARRA was translated into the policy of RTTT. ARRA allowed for a certain amount of funding to the Department of Education to be given to states. However, the terms of this deal were not clear. Some (including an article on the the Brookings Institution website) have noted that the actual parameters of Race to the Top were not set by Congress in ARRA, but rather by Arne Duncan and the executive branch. The argument (even from a liberal-leaning think tank like the Brookings Institute) is that RTTT is an example of federal overreach - a policy created by the executive branch that should have been written by Congress.

The Executive summary of Race to the Top Program outlines the criteria for a successful application, including: State Success Factors (such as participation by local districts, ability to scale up, etc.), Standards and Assessments (developing common standards and assessments), Data Systems to Support Instruction (including using data to improve instruction), Great Teachers and Leaders (including improving teacher and principal preparation programs), Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools, and General Selection Criteria (including making education funding a priority). The Summary also explicitly states that states are only eligible to apply if there are no legal / statutory barriers to linking data on student achievement to teacher and principal evaluation.

The Race to the Top funds require many states to enact legislation to change existing laws related to charter schools, teacher evaluation, and education standards. These changes have drawn the ire of many teacher's unions across the nations, and many states as well, who have opted out of the program, in many cases because governors believe the competition represents a federal incursion into an institution (education) that is traditionally controlled by state and local officials. To understand this point from a primary source, read Georgia's application for Race to the Top Funds

However, as many states struggle under constitutionally mandated balanced budget requirements, federal money for education is a very attractive carrot - whether the people, the unions, or the legislators themselves feel positively about the policies or not. This has led many states to quickly enact legislation that has broad implications and long-term consequences (most related to lifting the maximum number of charters allowed, and decreasing barriers in using student data for teacher evaluations), many of which were not considered carefully in many states. Interestingly, although RTTT has incentivized many states to pass education legislation in a fairly shot period of time, the policy itself does not include the term "scientifically based research," and does not offer any explanation or research for its emphasis on charter schools, using student data to evaluate teachers, or on turning low performing schools around. As noted in this article in [|Education Week], RTTT does not consider the fact that the research base for its priorities - charters, teacher evaluations, and turning around low-performing schools - is weak.

Thus, RTTT is a policy that has pitted states rights advocates versus believers in federal solutions, economic conservatives versus economic liberals, and education reformers who believe in school choice, competition, and corporate accountability in schools versus unions and reformers who believe in strengthening public schools and the public sector. The arguments for the policy include the need to break up the existing bureaucratic public school system which is controlled by unions, and which does not incentivize good teaching, nor properly evaluate teachers. Proponents of the policy seek to bring corporate rules of accountability, innovation, and flexibility to the public school system (along the lines of reformers line Joel Klein in New York City, and Michelle Rhee in Washington, D.C.) while also encouraging school choice. The argument against the policy comes from some research institutes (like AERA, which argues that the policy is not research-based), unions, political and economic conservatives (including states rights advocates), some governors, and left-leaning researchers, like Henry Giroux and Kenneth Saltman, who argue that Arne Duncan comes from the corporate model of education, and is not interested in strengthening the public sector, but rather privatizing education.

The disagreement continues to boil to the surface: recently (from an article in the New York Times on July 5, 2010) the NEA and AFT held their annual conferences, and no officials from the Obama administration officials were invited to attend.

Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, director of the [|Brown Center on Education Policy], offers both the positives and negatives of the Race to the Top program in this video:

media type="custom" key="6499565"


 * ANALYSIS OF RACE TO THE TOP**

The Race to the Top program represents a large investment in education made by the Obama administration with specific policy goals. Few of these goals are based on generally accepted research, but rather are based upon the corporate logic of efficiency and accountability. The policy seems more interested in pushing states to do __something__, even if that something is overly general, not applicable in all contexts, and not fully developed. A review of the U.S. Department of Education website (and their research websites: Doing What Works and the [|Institute of Education Sciences] (IES)) recalls many of the tensions from our readings this summer between the need to produce high-quality research, and the growing ways to communicate that research to the public. These websites - particularly "Doing What Works" - present in a slick fashion the research that backs up the RTTT values. With a few video clips of professors explaining the research, and a few short paragraphs, the sites seem to suggest that the core areas of RTTT (data-driven evaluations, charter schools, and turning around low-performing schools) are settled and agreed-upon among researchers. The problem, of course, is that the production of knowledge is a contested terrain, where "settled upon" knowledge is quite hard to come by (and takes many years, if it happens at all). Policy-makers, however, must act in the present, responding to the needs of society, and of individuals within that society. These are both realities pointed out in the book edited by Dr. Hess: as Dr. Wong quotes from C.P. Snow in his book //The Two Cultures//, policy-makers must think broadly and make decisions that have consequences in the real world; scientists must think narrowly about one topic for a very long time, and reserve the right to change their minds. This tension can never be overcome, but perhaps - if properly harnessed - can serve as the creative force behind true (and positive) educational reform.

RTTT further illustrates the power the federal government holds when large sums of money are dangled in front of states struggling to balance budgets. The policy cannot be analyzed from a holistic or ecological perspective, because it seems to push states to adopt a few key educational changes - more charters, using student data for teacher evaluations, and improving under-performing schools - without adequately defining the scope of the problem. Do these solutions solve the problems of immigration, technology, or the environment - issues that Ben-Peretz correctly points out as being key ones in the early 21st century? No, unless one believes that using student data to evaluate teachers in charter schools will help schools to better serve immigrant children or teach the technology of the 21st century. Perhaps these issues will be addressed more clearly in the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind (which will likely be re-branded, but not necessarily changed substantially), but I wonder whether this new, comprehensive educational legislation - once passed - will have as big of an effect on the education system as RTTT.

As Hess points out in the conclusion to his book //When Research Matters//, research does not do a good job of commenting objectively on how we structure organizations and institutions. If we take this statement as true, RTTT relies upon a body of knowledge that is highly unsettled, politically-driven, and contested. The interesting thing about RTTT is that is has pushed states to enact fairly serious changes at the state and local level in a short period of time, and it has boldly taken on traditional union positions. Evaluated from a purely political standpoint - measured by the amount and number of changes the policy is forcing at the state and local level - RTTT is a success. But at what cost? It is a policy creating a lot of change through force, rather than through knowledge.

Further, what is fascinating about this policy is how it has divided politically conservative and politically liberal pundits: on the one hand, it encourages traditionally conservative changes in education (school choice, accountability, and weakening unions), and yet, on the other, it does so by increasing the federal role in education (which is traditionally shunned by conservatives). Reading conservatives trying to support the choice aspect of the policy, while repudiate the federal role in this policy, is an interesting intellectual activity, indeed. Reading liberals commentators justifying a Democratic administration pushing through Republican educational ideas - while trying to mollify their union base - is equally interesting.

In the end, it appears to be a sweeping policy of the executive branch that is using money to muscle through changes to our education system - changes that will fundamentally alter education in our nation, but changes that are not necessarily based on what works. Of course, the long-term implications of the policy will not be seen for years - until after the money is awarded, and states have time to collect and analyze the data. As the readings in this course point out, because education policy follows the political winds, by the time data on RTTT is beginning to be collected, a new administration will likely shift gears and implement new educational values. If RTTT teaches us nothing else, it is that finding policy continuity in a contested, highly political terrain like education is nearly impossible in a democracy.

//Appendix A: Chronology of Round One and Two of RTTT//

Round One

- January 19, 2010: Deadline for first round of applications. 41 total applications: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

- March 4, 2010, 16 finalists (15 states and the District of Columbia) are chosen as finalists. Article from New York Times on this, as well as the Christian Science Monitor. This includes Georgia. The Georgia Association of Educators opposes the application, partly because they were not included in the discussion / application process.

- March 30, 2010: Winners of the First Round are announced. Delaware (winners of up to $107 million) and Tennessee (winners of up to $502 million) are declared the winners. Georgia's score ranks the state in third place. One of the main reasons Georgia did not win, according to an article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on April 8, 2010, is that not enough of the local districts signed on the implement the reforms (only 23 districts signed on - about 41% of Georgia's student population).

Round Two

- June 1st: application process opened for Round Two. Several states actively withdraw from applying in round two. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia apply: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.

- August 2010: second round of finalists to be announced.


 * SOURCES**

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf

- Georgia's application for Race to the Top funds (Round One), http://gov.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_79369762/155733684Race%20to%20the%20Top%20App.pdf.

- Giroux, Henry A. and Kenneth Saltman, "Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling," Z Net, Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

- Maxwell, Leslie A. **"Districts Shun Stimulus Bids; Some Refuse to Sign States' Plans**
 * Education Week **. Bethesda: Jan 20, 2010 . Vol. 29, Iss. 18; pg. 1, 2 pgs.

- National Center for Educational Statistics - http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/#

- The Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu

- The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0304/Race-to-the-Top-Which-states-made-the-list-of-finalists

- The Executive Summary of the Race to the Top program: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

- The New York Times: - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/education/01brfs FUNDSFORRACE_BRF.html?sq=race%20to%20the%20top&st=cse&adxnnl=1& scp=1&adxnnlx=1278345767-re+z3yAPowvOJkYak1rL9g

- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/education/05teachers.html?_r=1&hpw

- What Works Clearinghouse: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/