Georgina Burros

Critical Thinking Essay

3/31/2014
Red Group






The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was a K-12 educational initiative launched in
2001 under President George W. Bush. Its main purpose was to promote an equal level of
education for all students by targeting resources to marginalized student populations as a means
of helping to ensure equity of opportunity for all students. (No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) |
ESEA). NCLB experienced difficulty in meeting those goals, due in part to the programs own
unrealistic standards of student performance. (Kafer) In 2009, in response to NCLBs
shortcomings, President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proposed a
new federal educational program known as Race to the Top (Fact Sheet: Race to the Top). RTT
was based on NCLB, but was further reformed to allow more innovation by states in improving
student educational performance. To receive funding under RTT, states must establish teacher
evaluation systems based on student progress. These systems critique teachers based on how well
their students meet state-level expectations on state and national standardized testing results.
Teachers can be fired due to their students lack of meeting these standards, and cases where
students are ill, need accommodations, or do not speak English are not taken into account. These
evaluations can have negative impacts teachers and in the overall planning of the curricula in
schools. The United States current educational policy, RTT, should not require teacher
evaluations based largely on students progress because of unreliable student progress reports,
the federal governments inability to measure all students equally, and the increasing necessity of
narrowing the classroom curriculum for the purpose of teaching to the standardized test to meet
RTT criteria.
The federal government has set national educational goals for the last half century. The
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) | ESEA) was
established in 1965 to fight the war on poverty in all public schools in the United States of
America (Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA emphasize[d] equal access
to education and establishes high standards and accountability. The law authorize[d] federally
funded education programs that are administered by the states (Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA)). Progress was difficult. In the early 1970s, significant achievement gaps
grew between minorities, decreased in the 1980s, but expanded again in the 1990s. Congress
amended the ESEA in 2001 to create NCLB, which was similarly designed to promote equal
opportunity for all students enrolled in public schools to a fair, equal, and significant
opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. (Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). Testing under this plan to provide equal opportunity began in the early 2000s. The
results showed a 31 point higher white student average compared to black student national
standardized testing results (on a 100 point scale) in reading and math, and a 52 point difference
in science (Kafer). The creation of NCLB sought to provide national basic measurements that
would reinforce all students receiving an equal education: The proposal required states to test
all students annually in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics; to disaggregate the scores by
race, gender, English-language proficiency, disability, and socioeconomic status; and then to
publish the data. The disaggregation was meant to ensure that minority populations were
improving. Aggregate school performance can conceal disparities in achievement among
students. (Kafer). NCLB created useful data, measuring student performance across many
groups, including race, gender, and socioeconomic status but did little to actually improve the
performance shown.
President Barack Obama had issued a challenge in 2009, if you set and enforce rigorous
and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the
classroom; if you turn around failing schools your state can win a Race to the Top grant that
will not only help students outcompete workers around the world, but let them fulfill their God-
given potential (Fact Sheet: Race to the Top). Obama backed RTT with 4.35 billion dollars in
federal government grants for states showing an innovative and successful way to improve the
quality of their students education (Fact Sheet: Race to the Top). Thus the Obama
Administration through RTT sought to provide new incentives to meet many of the goals of
NCLB, but with more emphasis on innovation and programs that fit individual state systems. In
2009, 46 states applied for RTT funding, from which 12 states were awarded grants in 2010 of
$70-$700 million per state to install 4 year reforms in their state school systems (Friedmen).
Twelve states that submitted the most creative and innovative reform blueprints received
funding. These states took measures to implement the Common Core standards, which would "
move forward the implementation of the Common Core, helping [those] states develop robust
professional development opportunities around the new standards. (americanprogress) The
awards came with the requirement that teacher evaluations and teacher evaluation systems have
to be constructed to remove ineffective tenured and non-tenured teachers, based on student
performance and student progress reports.
This system is problematic. Teachers are often unfairly removed from employment based
on evaluations of the students they teach. Student progress should be measured by each
individual child, and cannot accurately be measured on a playing field as broad as all the
students in a particular state. Each child is different and their progress cannot be compared to
other children with different learning styles and academic capabilities. Students may have
behavioral problems, academic accommodations or may not be able to fully speak or understand
English. Teachers with such at-risk or challenged students are at a disadvantage compared to
those who do not. Additionally, different states have different state level proficiency levels. Some
might be harder than others, and it is impossible to measure this equally across state
boundaries. Teachers could be performing effectively, and making premature decisions to
remove them can also be harmful to student progress. Where teacher evaluation can be helpful
for improvement, RTT did not give schools and state districts enough time for full
implementation, and evaluating teachers takes away from the time and money that could be used
to examine the students. Similar to evaluation of students, evaluation of teachers can mean
different things across state or even district boundaries. Marylands School systems that
accepted the money had to link 50 percent of teacher-evaluation systems to student achievement,
which basically means standardized test scores. However, Montgomery and Frederick [counties]
were not bound by that but rather to a state law passed by legislators who dont understand
assessment that requires that student achievement be a significant factor in the evaluation
(Strauss). This is a problem that administrators and students, as well as higher ranking officials
across school systems are facing.
Each teacher, according to the RTT plan, is evaluated on their students test scores and
progress based on how they perform on statewide standardized tests. This basis for teacher
evaluation can be an ineffective form of measurement, with results that can be unreliable for
many different reasons. Students who are not English-speakers cannot meet state level
standards, students can have accommodations that prevent them from performing on-grade
level, and other issues can lead to misleading results, In fact, some of the new evaluation
systems linked to test scores are so wacky that teachers wind up being evaluated by scores of
students they dont even teach. Scores are plugged into formulas that purport to measure the
value a teacher adds to a students learning, and that are supposed to be able to factor in all
outside elements that could affect student performance, such as being hungry, tired or suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder (Strauss) Because these student progress reports linked with
standardized testing can be considered unreliable, it is unfair to judge teachers solely on the
turnout of their students performance on one test. In addition, many administrators and teacher
unions disagree with the evaluation process, In New York more than 1,000 principals have
signed a petition protesting the new teacher-evaluation system, and a number of districts in the
state, including New York City, have not yet been able to reach agreements with their teachers
union on the details of the new teacher evaluations. (American progress). Teacher evaluations
are unable to be measured equally throughout all the states. All teachers are paid differently
according to their district. Student progress should be linked to the students and not the teacher.
To remove ineffective teachers, they should be monitored in the classroom to see if their
instruction the factor that teachers control - is appropriate to help students move ahead.
Another problem with this system is the federal governments inability to compare
student progress on a nation-wide level due to the differences of state curricula for math
computation and reading comprehension. Standards for measuring student success differ across
the states. For the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Standardized Testing and Reporting
test of California (STAR), the children taking the test were asked completely different questions
based on a difference of state wide standards (Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving
Education in America?). In addition, it is difficult to measure student progress on a federal level.
If the federal government wants to track student progress to see how grants can be given to
reform and improve classroom education, they should have each student be evaluated uniformly,
using identical tests, in areas such as math computation, reading comprehension, and literacy.
This would be first step toward a nation-wide standard for student achievement. This would also
avoid some teachers being removed from their employment based on their students failure to
perform on grade level, while other, less effective teachers are awarded for having their students
meet more basic standards.
Though some states argue that they should have control over their curricula without
interference from the federal government, basic standards are needed for programs such as RTT
that work with a variety of states. One of RTTs missions is Designing and implementing
rigorous standards and high-quality assessments, by encouraging states to work jointly
toward a system of common academic standards that builds toward college and career readiness,
and that includes improved assessments designed to measure critical knowledge and higher-order
thinking skills. (Fact Sheet: Race to the Top) This may be helpful in working with different
states, but it also has costs. Many of the aims of these states are unrealistic. As of 2012,
Hawaii aim[ed] to erase the achievement gap by 2018, while Tennessee promise[d] to have 100
percent of its students proficient in math and reading by 2014. States and districts very rarely, if
ever, have reached such high achievement benchmarks, and its almost certain that some of the
states will not meet their goals. (americanprogress). Such reforms could cost billions of dollars
for state governments and place enormous pressure on school districts and teachers to prove
them effective. Perhaps in response to that pressure, some cheating by teachers has been
reported, A 2011 USA Today investigation of six states and Washington DC found 1,610
suspicious anomalies in year-over-year test score gains (Should teachers get tenure?).
Classroom curricula are also dumbed down so students can perform better on the test.
Other repercussions of RTT include moving successful teachers to lower performing
classes. Placing teachers in different classrooms based on the strength that their students have
shown can be a good idea. However, removing these teachers from successful students and
placing them in classrooms that are underperforming can also have the impact of matching less
effective teachers with higher performing students, creating misleading evaluations of teacher
success. Students that are performing well may have also benefited from keeping their old
teachers; instead of replacing effective teachers with inexperienced teachers (Should teachers get
tenure?). The administrative costs of moving and re-evaluating teachers could instead be used for
programs that benefit all students. It is important that all students receive proper funding to
improve their education, rather than on programs more concerned with evaluating their teachers.
Every student deserves a chance for a good education. Their teachers provide them with
the opportunity to do so. There are different ways of measuring student and teacher performance,
and these can also contribute to better educational results if they are fair and applied equally
across states. The evaluations of teachers, in particular, should be based on the challenges they
face in individual classrooms and with individual students. Race to the Top has the potential to
become a great program for American students in states able to meet requirements, such as
teacher evaluation systems based on student testing results to compete for federal grants, but to
be truly effective it must treat teachers more fairly, without creating race to the bottom
curriculum based on standardized testing.





Works Cited
"Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)." Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <https://www.k12.wa.us/esea/default.aspx>.
"Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top." The White House. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top>.
Fink, Stephen, Dr. "Teacher Evaluation: A Perilous Race to the Top." Center for Educational
Leadership. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.k-
12leadership.org/news/teacher-evaluation-perilous-race-top>.
Friedmen, Thomas L. "Obamas Best-Kept Secrets." New York Times. N.p., 20 Oct. 2012. Web.
30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamas-
best-kept-secrets.html?_r=2&>.
"Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?" Procon.org. N.p., n.d.
Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://standardizedtests.procon.org/>.
Kafer, Krista. "No Child Left Behind: Where Do We Go From Here?" SIRS Knowledge Source.
N.p., May 2004. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-
display?id=SMCPSSTAFF1-0-
2255&artno=0000187179&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=ESEA&title=No%20Child%20
Left%20Behind%3A%20Where%20Do%20We%20Go%20from%20Here?&res=Y&ren
=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N>.
"No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) | ESEA." National Education Association. N.p., n.d. Web.
30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nea.org/home/NoChildLeftBehindAct.html>.
"Should Teachers Get Tenure?" procon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://teachertenure.procon.org/>.
"States Implementing Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems despite Challenges." U.S.
Government Accountability Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-777>.
Strauss, Valerie. "Marylands teacher evaluation problem." Washington Post. N.p., 4 Feb. 2013.
Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2013/02/04/something-is-wrong-in-maryland/>.

Bibliography
"Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)." Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <https://www.k12.wa.us/esea/default.aspx>.
This website was helpful in providing background information about the ESEA. It shows
a history of education reform.
"Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top." The White House. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top>. This website from the
whitehouse.gov displays many different facts about Race to the Top. It also shows the
mission of Race to the Top.
Friedmen, Thomas L. "Obamas Best-Kept Secrets." New York Times. N.p., 20 Oct. 2012. Web.
30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamas-
best-kept-secrets.html?_r=2&>. This news article talks about Race to the Top and how it
is one of Obamas new plans. It talks about teacher evaluations and what it is doing to
reform schools.
"Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?" Procon.org. N.p., n.d.
Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://standardizedtests.procon.org/>. This pro-con comparison
helped this paper as it compared standardized testing methods. It reviewed how
standardized testing is affecting the effectiveness of Race to the Top.
Kafer, Krista. "No Child Left Behind: Where Do We Go From Here?" SIRS Knowledge Source.
N.p., May 2004. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-
display?id=SMCPSSTAFF1-0-
2255&artno=0000187179&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=ESEA&title=No%20Child%20
Left%20Behind%3A%20Where%20Do%20We%20Go%20from%20Here?&res=Y&ren
=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N>. This website explained the transition from No Child Left
Behind to Race to the Top. This spoke about why the NCLB reform did not work and
what its long term goals are in education.
"No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) | ESEA." National Education Association. N.p., n.d. Web.
30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nea.org/home/NoChildLeftBehindAct.html>. This website
was helpful in talking about the history of education reform in America. This showed
what NCLB and ESEA did to education.
"Should Teachers Get Tenure?" procon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://teachertenure.procon.org/>. This source spoke about whether or not teachers
should be removed because of Race to the Top. It gave an interesting perspective on both
sides.
"States Implementing Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems despite Challenges." U.S.
Government Accountability Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-777>. This provided statistics about the
effectiveness of RTT. it allowed for an understanding of how these systems were
impacting schools.
Strauss, Valerie. "Marylands teacher evaluation problem." Washington Post. N.p., 4 Feb. 2013.
Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2013/02/04/something-is-wrong-in-maryland/>. This gave a specific view in
one state. It showed how teachers were being evaluated and the problems it posed to
Maryland schools and the Maryland state government.