Advertisement

From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top: The US Response to Global Competition

  • Gay WilgusEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

US educational reform initiatives of the past few decades have been ultimately motivated by a desire to ameliorate the United States’ ability to successfully compete in the changing global economy. Addressing the achievement gaps associated with ethnic and racial inequality has been deemed key in this project. Efforts in this regard have focused on (1) identifying a set of achievement standards suitable for all students, grades PreK-12 in every nook and cranny of United States, (2) designing assessment tools that are “perfectly fit” for measuring students’ attainment of these standards, and (3) deriving curriculum that will increase students’ abilities to perform well on the test, that is, curriculum for “teaching to the test.” Primary control over designing this set of common standards, assessment tools, and curriculum has been put in the hands of organizations and individuals with questionable qualifications for doing this work, whose primary interests are business-oriented, not education and student-oriented. In consequence, these initiatives demonstrate wholesale neglect of variables that merit priority in any endeavor to improve student achievement. These include considerations of students’ socio-emotional well-being, as well as other out-of-school elements, e.g., children’s physical health, food and housing security, and linguistic and immigration issues. Educational reform initiatives ultimately intended to improve student achievement need—first and foremost—to direct primary focus to these issues if they intend to cultivate the academically proficient, imaginative, idea-generating, but also emotionally competent individuals a nation requires to successfully participate in the global economy.

References

  1. Abernathy, S. (2007). No Child Left Behind and the public schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. D. (2011). Personality psychology and economics (Working Paper No. 16822). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  3. Apple, M. (2007). Whose markets, whose knowledge? In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 195–213). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ashdown, D. M., & Bernard, M. (2012). Can explicit instruction in social and emotional learning skills benefit the social-emotional development, well-being, and academic achievement of young children? Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Au, W. (2009). Obama, where art thou? Hoping for change in U.S. education policy. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, D., & Letendre, G. (2007). National versus Nation: The race to be the first in the world. In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 253–266). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bejoian, L. D., & Reid, K. (2005). A disability studies perspective on the bush education agenda: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellamy, J. F. (2016). The opt out revolt: Democracy and education. Monthly Review, 1–7. archive.monthlyreview.org.  https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-067-10-2016-03_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blum, R. W., McNeely, C. A., & Rinehart, P. M. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Adolescent Health and Development.Google Scholar
  10. Bracey, G. (1993). The Third Bracey Report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 104–112.Google Scholar
  11. Bracey, G. (1999). The propaganda of “A Nation at Risk”. education disinformation and reporting agency.Google Scholar
  12. Center on Education Policy. (2007). Educational architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB? Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Childs, J., & Russell, J. L. (2017). Improving low-achieving schools: Building state capacity to support school improvement through Race to the Top. Urban Education, 52(2), 236–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., McCab, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.Google Scholar
  15. Condron, D. J. (2011). Egalitarianism and educational excellence: Compatible goals for affluent societies? Educational Researcher, 40(2), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooper, D., Hersh, A., & O’Leary, A. (2012). The competition that really matters comparing U.S., Chinese, and Indian investments in the next generation workforce. Washington, DC, Center for American Progress: The Center for the Next Generation.Google Scholar
  17. Council of the Great City Schools. (2015). School improvement grants: Progress report from America’s Great City Schools. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Cremins, L. (1989). Popular education and its discontents. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Daro, P. (2011). Formative principles of the Common Core Standards: Strategic education research partnership. Retrieved from http://serpmedia.org/darotalks/.
  20. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: An introduction to the mini-series.School Psychology Review, 31, 293–297.Google Scholar
  21. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gais, T., & Fossett, J. (2005). Federalism and the executive branch. In J. D. Aberbach & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), The executive branch (pp. 486–524). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gewertz, C. (2013). Standards worrying teachers: Unpreparedness: Common Core survey. Education Week, 32(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  25. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gross, R., & Gross, B. (1985). The school debate. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  27. Guhn, M., Gadermann, A. M., Almas, A., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Hertzman, C. (2016). Associations of teacher-rated social, emotional, and cognitive development in kindergarten to self-reported well-being, peer relations, and academic test scores in middle childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 35, 76–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanna, R. (2014). Seeing beyond Silos: How state education agencies spend federal education dollars and why. Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, W. (2004). Are we still a nation at risk two decades later?. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  30. Haynes, M. (2009). State strategies for turning around low-performing schools and districts (National Association of State Boards of Education Report). Retrieved from The Wallace Foundation website http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/State-Strategies-for-Turning-Around-Low-Performing-Schools.pdf.
  31. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2013). Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition (Working Paper No. 19656). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  32. Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). No child left behind. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  33. Hess, F., & Petrilli, M. (2009). No Child Left Behind: A primer. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Hess, F., & Weiss, J. (2015). What did Race to the Top accomplish? Education Next, 15, 50–56.Google Scholar
  35. Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Pitman.Google Scholar
  36. Hourigan, R. (2011). Race to the Top: Implications for professional development in arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112, 60–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2011.546679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of Obama’s Race to the Top. Education Next, 15(4), 58–66.Google Scholar
  39. Howell, W. G., & Magazinnik, A. (2017). Presidential prescriptions for state policy: Obama’s Race to the Top initiative. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(3), 502–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hurlburt, S., Carlson Le Floch, K., Bowles Therriault, S., Cole, S., & Wei, T. E. (2011). Baseline analyses of SIG applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded schools (Report No. NCEE 2011-4019). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  41. Joseph, G. G., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive, evidence-based social-emotional curricula for young children: An analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(2), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein, A. (2016). ESSA paves way for deeper access to wealth of K-12 Data. Education Week, 35(30), 15, 18.Google Scholar
  43. Kolbe, T., & Rice, J. K. (2012). And they’re off: Tracking federal Race to the Top investments from the starting gate. Educational Policy, 26, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kozol, J. (1985). Illiterate America. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  45. Lippman, L. H., Ryberg, R., Terzian, M., Moore, K. A., Humble, J., & McIntosh, H. (2014). Positive and protective factors in adolescent well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp. 2823–2866). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  47. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  48. Massell, D., & Perrault, P. (2014). Alignment: Its role in standards-based reform and prospects for the Common Core. Theory into Practice, 53, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press Kansas.Google Scholar
  50. Mencken, K. (2009). Policy failures: No Child Left Behind and English language learners. In A. Hatch (Ed.), Critical pedagogy and teacher education in the neoliberal era: Small openings (Explorations of Educational Purpose Book 6) Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore, K. A., Lippman, L. H., & Ryberg, R. (2015). Improving outcome measures other than achievement. AERA (Open), 1(2), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415579676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Noguera, P. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Neill, P. T. (2004). No Child Left Behind compliance manual. Fairfield, CT: Brownstone.Google Scholar
  57. Overview Information: Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, 74 Fed. Reg. 59836 (2009). 59836 Federal Register/74 (221)/Wednesday, November 18, 2009/Notices.Google Scholar
  58. Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects of pre-school education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 49–88.Google Scholar
  59. Porter, A. C., McMaken, J., Hwang, H., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116.Google Scholar
  60. Pulliam, J., & Van Patten, J. (1991). History of education in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Ravitch, D. (2001). Left back. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  62. Reville, P. S. (2007). A mountain beyond mounts. In S. Redding & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook on statewide systems of support (pp. 15–20). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.Google Scholar
  63. Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (2003). Teachers, schools and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  64. Sadovnik, A. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology of Education: A critical reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Samuels, C. A. (2016). ESSA spotlights strategy to reach diverse learners. Education Week, 35(2), 1, 24.Google Scholar
  66. Schneider, M. (2015). Common Core dilemma—Who owns our schools? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2015). The field of prosocial behavior: An introduction and overview. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.32.
  68. Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, C. (2006). National assessment of Title I: Interim Report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  69. Tanner, D. (2013). Race to the Top and leave the children behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies., 45(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taubman, P. (2017). Death by numbers: A response to Backder, Sarigianides and Stillwaggon. Educational Theory, 67(1), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. “The Every Student Succeeds Act: Explained”. (2015, December 8). Education Week. Updated January 4, 2016.Google Scholar
  72. Turnbull, B. J., & Anderson, L. M. (2012). Government that works for schools and children. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  73. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Race to the top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.
  74. Wallace, T. L., & Chhuon, V. (2014). Proximal processes in urban classrooms engagement and disaffection in urban youth of color. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 937–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: Promising professional development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilgus, G. (Ed.). (2013). Knowledge, pedagogy and postmulticulturalism: Shifting the locus of learning in urban teacher education. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationThe City College of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations