Race to the Top Strategy - Coursework Example

 Race to the Top Strategy The Race to the Top Strategy is president Obama’s program that was created to transform the education system in United States. Though the program has brought reforms in some states, critics argue that the strategy has not been successful and the number of states applying for the funds has reduced (Herbst). The strategy does not include community members in its objectives resulting to them having insufficient participation in the education system. Decisions concerning public schools are made at the state level and are based on the students’ test score. The previous administrations had programs that encouraged the participation of community members. In order to improve the educations system from the local level, the strategy should be modified to involve the community. What is the Race to the Top Strategy? In his time in office, President Obama has provided unparalleled support for the education system in America. The Race to the Top Strategy was enacted through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) formulated to sustain job creation, stimulate economic growth and invest in important sectors such as education. The ARRA acts as a foundation for education reforms by supporting strategies which lead to better results for students, long-term benefits for schools and increased effectiveness. The “Race to the Top” education program provides funds to K-12 public school systems to improve the education system in general (White). The ARRA allocated $91 billion to the program whose main objective was to act as incentive to encourage states to make positive developments in education (White). These developments include improving high school graduation rates, making significant student achievement and ensuring that students are well prepared for accomplishments in college and in their careers. The following criterion is followed when awarding funds to schools in all states: Formulating and employing high standards and quality assessments The administration encourages states to work together towards a system of conventional academic principles that prepares students towards a college education and careers (White). These are used to assess the students’ thinking skills and critical knowledge. Hiring and retaining good teachers and leaders in schools The program emphasizes on teacher assessment, retention and compensation to promote and reward efficiency (White). This means that public schools are being pressed to relate teacher compensation to student examination scores. Maintaining data systems that improve instruction and informed decisions The objective of the program is to make data easily accessible to all stakeholders. A data based approach to assessing the curriculum is effective and minimizes teacher and school district discretion in addition to local preferences and state differences (White). Demonstrating and maintaining education reforms The administration aims at advancing collaboration among all stakeholders in the education sector to close achievement gaps and improve students’ performance. The Race to the Top Strategy is in two phases. The first phase started in October 2009 and 10% of the funds were allocated to an initial group of states in 2010 (Colorado the Official State Web Portal). The second phase award proposal for 90% of the funds was in spring in the year 2010 (Colorado The Official State Web Portal). The implementation will take place over a four year period and is expected to improve the overall education system in America. Differences between the Race to the Top Strategy and previous strategies by past Presidents: Bill Clinton and Bush school reform strategy The main difference between Obama’s and Bush’s educational reforms lies in the strategies adopted by the two presidents. President Obama’s signature education strategy is Race to the Top that is based on allocation of funds using the test scores of students. On the other hand, the signature strategy by the Bush administration was the No Child Left Behind Act whose main objective was to improve educations in high schools, elementary schools and middle schools by improving accountability standards (On The Issues). The other observable difference is that the Race to the Top Strategy funds are based entirely on performance while the No Child Left Behind strategy set aside funds for students who were poor in sciences and mathematics (White). The Race to the Top Strategy focuses on national testing while the No Child Left Behind was centered on local testing which implied control of the education system from the local level. Bush emphasized on accountability and if poor performing schools showed no improvement, the funds would be withdrawn (On the Issues). The Race to the Top is more focused on how the students perform in the tests and the schools that were awarded in Phase I would not get a chance in phase II. Bush’s strategy considered the needs of majority of students as vouchers were awarded to poor families for private tuition. We can conclude that Bush was focused on the education of every student in both public and private schools while Obama’s administration is focused on the better performance and those who are willing to undergo improvement. Bill Clinton’s educational reforms were different from the Race to the Top Strategy in many ways. First he made reforms to ensure that education in America was world class (Nitta, 53). He started by establishing a fund advance system for eligible young children. The Race to the Top Strategy emphasizes more on college education as a gateway to ones career. However, Clinton’s strategy established apprenticeship programs for the young people who did not wish to pursue college education but wanted to get employed in different sectors in future. Clinton’s education reforms were based on accountability and investing in the education system as stated by Nitta (53). The Race to the Top Strategy mainly centers on better performance in the education and the use of funds as an incentive. The reforms made by Clinton were aimed at nurturing students’ skills so that they will be useful workers in future for the economic benefits for the country. These include the Goal 2000 Act and the School to Work Act of 1994 which were related to the workforce investment Act 1998 (Schlafly). The Race to the Top Strategy views education as a way to improve the future of students’ for their own benefit. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was a five year program whose main objective was to improve education by providing funds to schools with high numbers of children from low income backgrounds. This varies from Obama’s strategy where funds are provided to schools that perform. ESEA’s intention was to set the floor for minimum performance rather than the ceiling of educational merit. Inadequate inclusion of community members in the Race to the Top Strategy The program targets states although a rural focus would lead to better inclusion of community members (National Journal). From this it is clear that community members are not included in the program. In the past, schools were established as a local affair, and the community played an important role in their operations. The trend that can be observed over time shows that control over schools has risen from the local level towards the state level and it is fast rising to national level. As a result, the community has minimal inclusion in the affairs of the schools. The program is the only successful reform strategy for low-income neighborhoods but it does not give the community an opportunity to participate in matters involving decision making in the local schools. Reforms in the education sector should focus on what happens in the school environment than who is managing the school. The program does not take into consideration the fact that it the takes community members to make a good school. The program rewards states that implement the criteria for improvement in struggling schools including hiring staff, firing the heads and changing schools into a charter whereby community’s involvement is minimal (National Journal). The program’s strategies should be reviewed to include community members in the reform process. In the past, members of the community acted as board members in public schools and they were able to participate in education reforms. However, since the enactment of the No child left Behind Act things have change significantly leaving minimal or no chance for community members to be included. From this, community members are also not included in the Race to the Top Strategy and measures should be taken to correct this (National Journal). Inclusion for the community members is insufficient for democracy The inclusion for democracy is insufficient. Public schools should be governed democratically by an elected board by the teachers and parents. The democratic approach of operating public schools is the best way of ensuring that families can get the services which their children are entitled to. By investing public funds in charter schools that are managed by private boards indicates insufficient democracy (National Journal). Public schools must give every child the right to education. By breaking large high schools into smaller schools children with special needs are left behind since smaller schools are unable to provide required special services. Struggling schools are forced to close; a decision based solely on text scores which shows lack of democracy. For the program to achieve its main objective which is to improve the education system in America, the community should be included in schools’ operations and management. Works Cited Colorado The Official State Web Portal. “Colorado’s Headquaters for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” 20 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 May. 2011. Herbst, Moira. “Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ Education Fund Draws Fewer States.” 2 Jun. 2010. Web. 28 May. 2011. National Journal. “Race to the Top: Does it Work?” Atlantic Media publication. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 May. 2011. Nitta, Keith. The Politics of Structural Education Reform. Routlege. 53- 65. 2008. Print. On The Issues. “George W. Bush on Education.” 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 28 May. 2011. Schlafly, Phyllis. “Education Reform? The Devil's in the Details.” Eagle Forum, 12 Apr. 2000. Web. 28 May. 2011. White, Deborah. “Pros & Cons of the No Child Left Behind Act.” 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 28 May. 2011. White, Deborah. “Profile of Race to the Top, Obama's 2010 Education Grant Initiative.” 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 28 May. 2011. Read More