The Expanding Federal Role in Teacher Workforce Policy

Abstract

This article examines the recent expansion of the federal role into teacher workforce policy, primarily as embodied by the Race to the Top Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Such recent federal teacher workforce policy reflects an important expansion of the federal role into a policy domain that deserves more attention. The financial incentives and governance arrangements structuring federal-state relationships under these policies have proven effective at facilitating the enactment of state-level reforms. However, these policies ultimately pay too little attention to fundamental governance questions that must be addressed for efficacious teacher workforce development.

Teacher evaluation and local control in the US: an investigation into the degree of local control afforded to districts in defining evaluation procedures for teachers in non-tested subjects and grades

“…However, states also responded in very different ways, particularly as this relates to the state role in teacher evaluation. For example, Superfine, Gottlieb, and Smylie (2012) argued that New York and Rhode Island – both RTTT states – serve as contrasting case studies in terms of the level of local control afforded to districts in the creating of teacher evaluation systems. Those states intent on preserving local control may do so, to some degree, in the face of a greater federal presence; those states with historically strong roles may grow in reach in such an environment.…”

Examining the relationship of teacher perception of accountability and assessment policies on teacher turnover during NCLB

“…While multiple definitions of teacher professionalization and professionalism exist and include a variety of factors such as teacher training and education, teacher pay, and teacher collegiality, this study limits the definition of teacher professionalization to autonomy over the technical core of their primary work in curriculum and instruction. The reason for this limitation is that NCLB focused on teachers' practices in curriculum and instruction as the primary lever for achieving the desired policy outcomes (Superfine, 2005;Superfine, Gottlieb, & Smylie, 2012). NCLB placed an emphasis on standardized test scores in mathematics and reading as the primary measure of school quality, and this emphasis led to a narrowing of curriculum to focus on these subjects, frequently at the expense of time spent on non-tested subjects such as science, social studies, and elective courses (Calwelti, 2006;Hursh, 2007;Jacob, 2005;Koretz, 2008;Nichols & Berliner, 2007;Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2008).…”

“…Following NCLB, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 (ARRA), which included the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant program, allowed states to compete for funding to further promote the development of accountability metrics through formalized educator evaluation and data systems. The federal accountability era focused on teachers as a leverage point for educational reform, using federal-level sanctions with NCLB and financial incentives with RTTT to control state-level reforms (Superfine, Gottlieb, & Smylie, 2012). Some provisions of this policy era included the "highly qualified teacher" mandate which shifted teacher qualifications, and the connection of basic skills testing tied to sanctions and funding, which translated into mandatory state standards directing the curriculum.…”

Opting out: Parents creating contested spaces to challenge standardized tests

“…Much research has looked at the ways in which NCLB reshaped relationships between district, state, and federal agencies (Brown et al, 2011;Debray & McGuinn, 2009;Malen, 2003;McDonnell, 2009;Superfine, Gottlieb, & Smylie, 2012;Wong, 2008). Flexibility of policy allows for many changes at once.…”