Figure 2 illustrates the policy adoption activity of three groups of states: those that won in one of the three phases of competition; those that applied in at least one phase but never won; and those that never applied. In nearly every year between and , policy adoption rates in these groups were both low and essentially indistinguishable from one another. By , winning states had adopted, on average, 88 percent of the policies, compared to 68 percent among losing states, and 56 percent among states that never applied.
Regression analyses that account for previous policy adoptions and other state characteristics show that winning states were 37 percentage points more likely to have enacted a Race to the Top policy after the competitions than nonapplicant states. While losing states were also more likely than nonapplicants to have adopted such policies, the estimated effects for winning states are roughly twice as large. Anecdotal media reports, as well as interviews conducted by my research team, suggest that the process of applying to the competitions by itself generated some momentum behind policy reform.
Such momentum, along with the increased attention given to Race to the Top policies, may explain why those states that did not even apply to the competition nonetheless began to enact these policies at higher rates. Winning states were also more likely to have adopted one of the control policies, which is not altogether surprising, given the complementarities between Race to the Top policies and the chosen control policies.
Still, the estimated relationship between winning and the adoption of Race to the Top policies is more than twice as large as that between winning and the adoption of control policies. My results also suggest that both winning and losing states were especially likely to adopt policies about which they made clear commitments in their Race to the Top applications.
Though the effects are not always statistically significant, winning states appear 21 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy about which they made a promise than one about which they did not; put differently, they were 36 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy about which they made an explicit commitment than were nonapplying states, which, for obvious reasons, made no promises at all.
Losing states, meanwhile, were 31 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy on which they had made a promise than on a policy on which they had not.
Closer examination of winning, losing, and nonapplying states illuminates how Race to the Top influenced policymaking in all states, regardless of their status.
One winning state, Illinois, submitted applications in all three phases before finally winning. Its biggest policy accomplishments, however, happened well before it received any funds from ED. The rapid enactment of Race to the Top policies in Illinois reflected a concerted effort by the state government to strengthen its application in each competition. Before the state even submitted its Phase 1 application, Illinois enacted the Performance Evaluation Reform Act PERA , a law that significantly changed teacher and principal evaluation practices.
After losing in Phase 1, Illinois went on to adopt several other Race to the Top policies prior to submitting Phase 2 and Phase 3 applications. The competition served as a clear catalyst for education reform in the state. I think Race to the Top was our driving force to get us all honest and fair, and willing to negotiate at the table. As in Illinois, lawmakers in California adopted several significant education reforms in an effort to solidify their chances of winning an award.
While the state never did receive any funding, California did not revoke any of the policies it had enacted during its failed bids. What about the four states that never applied for Race to the Top funding? By jump-starting education policy reform in some states, the competition may have influenced policy deliberations in others.
Alaska provides a case in point. Still, in the years that followed, Alaska adopted a batch of policies that either perfectly or nearly perfectly aligned with Race to the Top priorities. I would like Alaska to lead in this, not bring up the rear with 20 percent of an evaluation focused on student improvement. Policymaker Perspectives.
To further assess the influence of Race to the Top on state policymaking, I consulted state legislators. Embedded in a nationally representative survey of state legislators conducted in the spring of was a question about the importance of Race to the Top for the education policy deliberations within their states. Winners were fully 36 percentage points more likely to say that Race to the Top had a massive or big impact than losers, who, in turn, were 12 percentage points more likely than legislators in states that never applied to say as much.
If these reports are to be believed, Race to the Top did not merely reward winning states for their independent policy achievements. Rather, the competitions meaningfully influenced education policymaking within their states.
Even legislators from nonapplying states recognized the relevance of Race to the Top for their education policymaking deliberations. Indeed, a majority of legislators from states that never applied nonetheless reported that the competitions had some influence over policymaking within their states.
From Policy to Practice. None of the preceding analyses speak to the translation of policy enactments into real-world outcomes. For all sorts of reasons, the possibility that Race to the Top influenced the production of education policy around the country does not mean that it changed goings-on within schools and districts.
Still, preliminary evidence suggests that Race to the Top can count more than just policy enactments on its list of accomplishments. Moreover, they did so in ways that reflected their experiences in the competition itself. Figure 3a tracks over a year period the average rigor of standards in states that eventually won Race to the Top, states that applied but never won, and states that never applied.
Throughout this period, eventual winners and losers looked better than nonapplicants. Before the competition, though, winners and loser looked indistinguishable from one another. Between and , the rigor of their state standards declined at nearly identical rates and to identical levels. In the aftermath of Race to the Top, however, winning states rebounded dramatically, reaching unprecedented heights within just two years. In addition, administrators in D.
According to the website for the U. Department of Education , Race to the Top is an essential element in education reform today. The website says that individual states showed their commitment to reform long before the first grant was ever awarded, by submitting comprehensive plans to bring about reform in their own schools.
In addition to the individual plans put forward by nearly every state, 48 states also worked together to produce standards that would ensure students graduating from high school would be properly prepared for college and careers.
The U. Department of Education website also explained that Race to the Top funding could eventually be expanded to a more local level. Individual districts that show an interest in education reform, and produce viable plans to produce those reforms, could also qualify for funding in the future. Additional funding has been requested for these local movements to ensure education reform continues at all levels.
While the current administration continues to champion the benefits of Race to the Top, not everyone agrees that the program is producing the desired effect. The Huffington Post reports that many students, parents and teachers are growing increasingly disenchanted with the program. Howell and his team conclude that the process of applying to the competitions by itself, plus the increased media attention given to Race to the Top policies, generated momentum behind policy reform.
Howell also found that winning states were more likely to raise their proficiency standards after Race to the Top was authorized, suggesting that its influence carried over into the implementation stage of education policymaking. Race to the Top did not accelerate previous trends in charter school enrollments. The growth in charter school enrollments in winning states, however, continued to climb at a higher rate than charter growth rates in other states.
Presidential inauguration. Top Stories. Public Safety UChicago leaders host safety webinar in response to recent incidents. UChicago Global U.
Core knowledge How the microbiome affects human health, explained.
0コメント