Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We estimate the effects of Race to the Top (RTTT) on teacher qualifications, work environments, and job attitudes. Drawing on the Schools and Staffing Survey and the National Teacher and Principal Survey, we create a nationally representative data set of public school teachers from 1988 to 2018. We adopt an event study difference-in-differences research design to estimate the dynamic effect of RTTT on several teacher outcomes. We find evidence that, following RTTT, teachers were more worried about job security relative to prereform years. We find smaller and less consistent evidence of a relationship between RTTT and decreased teacher certification levels and increased levels of cooperation with colleagues.

Keywords

Race to the Top teacher characteristics teacher qualifications teacher job attitudes educational policy teacher policy econometric analysis quasi-experimental analysis secondary data analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amrein-Beardsley

Pivovarova

Geiger

(2020,May 18). Value-added models: What the experts say. https://kappanonline.org/value-added-models-what-the-experts-say/

Anand

Dalmasso

Vessal

S. R.

Parameswar

Rajasekar

Dhal

(2023). The effect of job security, insecurity, and burnout on employee organizational commitment. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113843.

Baker

Larcker

D. F.

Wang

C. C. Y.

(2022). How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? Journal of Financial Economics, 144(2), 370–395.

Ballou

Springer

M. G.

(2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15574904

Barrett

Strunk

K. O.

Lincove

(2021). When tenure ends: The short-run effects of the elimination of Louisiana’s teacher employment protections on teacher exit and retirement. Education Economics, 29(6), 559–579.

Blazar

Heller

Kane

Polikoff

Staiger

Carrell

. . . Kurlaender

(2020). Curriculum reform in the Common Core era: Evaluating elementary math textbooks across six U.S. states. Jo-urnal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(4), 966–1019.

Bleiberg

(2021). Does the Common Core have a common effect? An exploration of effects on academically vulnerable students. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010727

Bloom-Weltman

King

(2019) Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) survey analysis: descriptive statistics. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020157.pdf

Brunner

Cowen

J. M.

Strunk

K. O.

Drake

(2019). Teacher labor market responses to statewide reform: Evidence from Michigan. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 403–425.

10.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

11.

Callaway

Sant’Anna

P. H. C.

(2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230.

12.

Coburn

C. E.

(2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.

13.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. Yale University Press.

14.

Crowe

(2011). Race to the Top and teacher preparation. Center for American Progress.

15.

Cullen

J. B.

Koedel

Parsons

(2021). The compositional effect of rigorous teacher evaluation on Workforce Quality. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 7–41.

16.

Darling-Hammond

Burns

Campbell

Goodwin

A. L.

Hammerness

Low

E.L.

. . . Zeichner

(2017). Empowered educators: Teaching quality around the world. Jossey-Bass.

17.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

Schwartz

(2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252–279.

18.

Dee

T. S.

Wyckoff

(2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from impact. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21818

19.

Desimone

L. M.

Stornaiuolo

Flores

Pak

Edgerton

Nichols

T. P.

Plummer

E. C.

Porter

(2019). Successes and challenges of the “new” college- and career-ready standards: Seven implementation trends. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 167–178.

20.

Donaldson

M. L.

Mavrogordato

(2018). Principals and teacher evaluation: The cognitive, relational, and organizational dimensions of working with low-performing teachers. Journal of Edu-cational Administration, 56(6), 586–601.

21.

Donaldson

M. L.

Papay

J. P.

(2015). Teacher evaluation for accountability and development. In Ladd

Geortz

(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 174–193). Routledge.

22.

Dragoset

Thomas

Herrmann

Deke

James-Burdumy

Graczewski

. . . Upton

(2016). Race to the Top: Implementation and relationship to student outcomes (NCEE 2017-4001). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

23.

Edgerton

A. K.

Desimone

L. M.

(2019). Mind the gaps: Differences in how teachers, principals, and districts experience college- and career-readiness policies. American Journal of Education, 125(4), 593–619. https://doi.org/10.1086/704099

24.

Elmore

R. F.

(2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.

25.

Elmore

R. F.

(2004). School reform from the Inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.

26.

Finnan

L. A.

Domenech

D. A.

(2014). Common Core and other state standards: Superintendents feel optimism, concern and lack. The School Sup-erintendents Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED553304.pdf

27.

Ford

T. G.

Van Sickle

M. E.

Clark

L. V.

Fazio-Brunson

Schween

D. C.

(2017). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586855

28.

Goldhaber

Lavery

Theobald

(2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293.

29.

Goodman-Bacon

(2021). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014

30.

Gottfried

M. A.

Stecher

B. M.

Hoover

Brown-Cross

(2011). Federal and state roles and capacity for improving schools. RAND.

31.

Grissom

J. A.

Nicholson-Crotty

Harrington

J. R.

(2014). Estimating the effects of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714533817

32.

Grossman

Loeb

(2016). Memo: Improving the teacher workforce. Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/12/09/memo-improving-the-teacher-workforce/

33.

Guenther

A. R.

(2021). “It should be helping me improve, not telling me I’m a bad teacher”: The influence of accountability-focused evaluations on teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 103511.

34.

Herman

Epstein

Leon

(2016). Supporting Common Core instruction with literacy design collaborative. AERA Open, 2(3), 233285841665578.

35.

Hodge

E. M.

Stosich

E. L.

(2022). Accountability, alignment, and coherence: How educators made sense of complex policy environments in the Common Core era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

36.

Howell

W. G.

Magazinnik

(2017). Presidential prescriptions for State policy: Obama’s Race to the Top initiative. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(3), 502–531.

37.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2009). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Harvard University Press.

38.

Kaufman

Opfer

Bongard

Pane

(2018). Changes in what teachers know and do in the Common Core era. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr2658

39.

Kolbe

Rice

J. K.

(2012). And they’re off: Tracking federal Race to the Top investments from the starting gate. Educational Policy, 26(1), 185–209.

40.

Kraft

M. A.

Brunner

E. J.

Dougherty

S. M.

Schwegman

D. J.

(2020). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 188, 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104212

41.

Kraft

M. A.

Gilmour

A. F.

(2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.

42.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Effectiveness and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500.

43.

Loeb

Miller

L. C.

Wyckoff

(2015). Performance screens for school improvement: The case of teacher tenure reform in New York City. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15584773

44.

Manna

(2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ Press.

45.

Manna

Ryan

L. L.

(2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s Race to the Top program in theory and Practice. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr021

46.

McGuinn

(2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811425911

47.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.

48.

Merrill

B. C.

(2021). Configuring a construct definition of teacher working conditions in the United States: A systematic narrative review of researcher concepts. Review of Educational Research, 91(2) 163–203.

49.

Murphy

A. F.

Haller

(2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the implementation of the literacy Common Core State Standards for English language learners and students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 510–527.

50.

Murphy

J. F.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.

51.

Nguyen

T. D.

Bettini

Redding

Gilmour

A. F.

(2022). Comparing turnover intentions and actual turnover in the public sector workforce: Evidence from public school teachers (EdWorkingPaper: 22-537). https://doi.org/10.26300/3aq0-pv52

52.

Nguyen

T. D.

Redding

Gilmour

A. F.

Bettini

(2023). No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Examining special educators’ outcomes. Remedial and Special Education.

53.

Pallas

A. M.

(2023). The rhetoric of teacher evaluation: New York City teachers’ responses to performance labels. Educational Policy, 37(3), 769–799.

54.

Peterson

Rothstein

(2010). Let’s do the numbers: Department of education’s “Race to the Top” program offers only a muddled path to the finish line (Briefing Paper No. 263). Economic Policy Institute.

55.

Polikoff

M. S.

(2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of education governance and the promise of Curriculum Reform. Harvard Education Press.

56.

Polikoff

M. S.

Desimone

L. M.

Porter

A. C.

Garet

M. S.

Stornaiuolo

Pak

Smith

T. M.

Song

Flores

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Nichols

T. P.

(2022). The enduring struggle of standards-based reform: Lessons from a national research center on college and career-ready standards. (EdWorkingPaper: 22-622). https://doi.org/10.26300/00ev-gk28

57.

Reback

Rockoff

Schwartz

(2014). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation and productivity in schools under No Child Left Behind. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6, 207–241.

58.

Redding

Nguyen

(2020a). Recent trends in the characteristics of new teachers, the schools in which they teach, and their turnover rates. Teachers College Record, 122(7), 1–36.

59.

Redding

Nguyen

(2020b). The relationship between school turnaround and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 493–519.

60.

Redding

Smith

T. M.

(2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125.

61.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Hunter

S. B.

(2021). Making do: Why do administrators retain low-performing teachers? Educational Researcher, 50(9), 673–676.

62.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Swain

W. A.

Springer

M. G.

(2020). Sorting through performance evaluations: The Influence of performance evaluation reform on teacher attrition and Mobility. American Educational Research Journal, 57(6), 2339–2377.

63.

Roth

(2017). Union reform and teacher turnover: Evidence from Wisconsin’s Act (Program on Education Policy and Governance, Working Paper No. PEPG 17-02). Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Taubman/PEPG/research/PEPG17_02.pdf

64.

Roth

Sant’Anna

P. H. C.

Bilinski

Poe

(2022). What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235, 2218–2244. https://jonathandroth.github.io/assets/files/DiD_Review_Paper.pdf

65.

Russell

J. L.

Meredith

Childs

Stein

M. K.

Prine

D. W.

(2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform an analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 92–112.

66.

Sartain

Steinberg

M. P.

(2016). Teachers’ labor market responses to performance evaluation reform: Experimental evidence from Chicago public schools. Journal of Human Resources, 51(3), 615–655.

67.

Saultz

(2018). What does one do to get fired around here? An analysis of teacher dismissals in Georgia. American Enterprise Institute.

68.

Sawchuk

(2015,September 3). Teacher evaluation: An issue overview. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teacher-evaluation-an-issue-overview/2015/09

69.

Solon

Haider

S. J.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2015). What are we weighting for? Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 301–316.

70.

Spillane

J. P.

(2004). Standard deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Harvard University Press.

71.

Steinberg

M. P.

Sartain

(2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s Excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00173

72.

Steinberg

M. P.

Sartain

(2021). What explains the race gap in teacher performance ratings? Evidence from Chicago public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720970204

73.

Stosich

E. L.

(2016). Building teacher and school capacity to teach to ambitious standards in high-poverty schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 43–53.

74.

Sun

Abraham

(2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199.

75.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2013). Race to the Top: States implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems despite challenges. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565843.pdf

76.

Weiss

(2013). Mismatches in Race to the Top limit educational improvement. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/race-to-the-top-goals/

77.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Chingos

M. M.

Lindquist

K. M.

(2014). Evaluating teachers with classroom observations: Lessons learned in four districts. Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/05/13-teacher-evaluation/evaluating-teachers-with-classroom-observations.pdf

78.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2021). Two-way fixed effects, the two-way Mundlak regression, and difference-in-differences estimators. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906345

79.

Wright

K. B.

Shields

S. M.

Black

Banerjee

Waxman

H. C.

(2018). Teacher perceptions of influence, autonomy, and satisfaction in the early Race to the Top era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 62. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3449

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.74 MB