Education Reform

School reform at the federal level has been highly touted as the way to turn around failing schools and ensure a high-quality education for all students in the U.S. However, opponents of that reform are claiming that the process currently used to improve failing schools is actually having the opposite effect – discriminating against the very students it is claiming to help. Is school reform doing more harm than good? The answer depends on who you ask.

The Advent of School Reform

In 2010, President Obama championed school reform by revamping the School Improvement Grant program. The move increased the annual budget of the program from $125 million to $535 million. The administration also pumped a one-time amount of $3.5 billion in 2010 allocated directly to districts that were willing to undertake one of four jumpstart models toward serious education reform.

The four jumpstart models include:

• Turning a failing school over to a charter operator
• Instituting a new principal and learning strategy
• Replacing at least half the school’s administrative staff
• Closing the school completely

Schools labeled as improvement schools may receive up to $2 million in additional funding annually for up to three years. A number of districts have risen to the challenge, identifying schools most in need of reform and establishing plans to turn those schools around. Unfortunately, the results of those efforts have been mixed thus far.

This TEDTalk explains who the real experts in school reform are.

As No Child Left Behind (NCLB) deadlines approached in the early 2010s, many states recognized they would be unable to meet the law’s federal proficiency requirements within the original timeline. As a result, the Obama administration granted waivers to multiple states, allowing them to move away from the rigid requirements of NCLB. In exchange, these states committed to continuing academic improvement efforts, including updated accountability systems focused on student performance and school evaluation.

Why Waivers Were Necessary

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was a bipartisan federal law signed in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The law aimed to ensure all students reached proficiency in math and reading by 2014, with a focus on historically underserved groups, including low-income students, minority populations, students with disabilities, and English language learners.

However, many have complained that the federal system of accountability did not allow states sufficient flexibility in developing systems that worked for their kids, and that it encouraged teachers to simply “teach to the test.” Many states are already showing signs that they will be unable to meet the federal guidelines in a timely fashion, which has prompted the request for waivers in many states. At the time, President Obama described NCLB as “an admirable but flawed effort,” highlighting widespread concerns about its implementation.

These waivers gave states greater flexibility to design accountability systems tailored to their student populations. They also allowed states to continue receiving federal funding while implementing revised accountability

The Obama administration had plans to overhaul the nation's education system when they took office, but budget battles, health care, and other priorities took center stage. Now, it appears that education will quickly be moving to the forefront as the current year's test scores from around the country show that the large majority of schools in the United States are missing their mark and headed for failure. With the No Child Left Behind Act created by the Bush administration now headed to the chopping block, the quality of education in this country is set to get another look by Congress this spring.

What is the No Child Left Behind Act?

According to a report at the Washington Post, the No Child Left Behind Act was a signature educational initiative that originated with President George W. Bush in 2001. The goal of the legislation, which received bipartisan support at the time of signing, was to require schools to bring 100 percent of their students to proficiency in math and reading by the year 2014. Proficiency would be evaluated through annual exams given to students in third through eighth grade and one additional test during high school.

This 2001 video shows President Bush promoting his "No Child Left Behind" act.

Reforming the No Child Left Behind Act has been a focus of the Obama administration because the current president

Social promotion, the act of promoting children to the next grade even when their test scores don't support such a move, is a regular practice in many schools today. Educators that support social promotion point to data that suggests that students who are retained, or held back a grade, are more likely to develop behavioral problems and drop out of school before graduation. But is social promotion a viable alternative? There are many experts on both sides of the issue, making it difficult to ascertain the best way to handle students who are falling behind – or falling through the cracks.

Why Social Promotion?

Social promotion allows students to advance to the next school grade, even when their test scores and overall academic achievement don't prove a student's preparedness for the next academic year. According to a recent report in Education Week, social promotion was adopted as the way to deal with struggling students because many education experts believed social promotion favored the child's social and psychological well-being. They argued that holding students back from repeating a grade had a negative impact on their educational experience without providing many benefits.

How Social Promotion Can Hurt Students

On the other side of the coin, research also suggests that social promotion does little to advance a child's academic career. Opponents of the practice claim that social promotion merely hides the failures of the

Michelle Rhee has a conflicting legacy that she is leaving to the Washington D.C. public school system. On the one hand, Rhee has been touted for her efforts to revive a failing school system in the documentary film, "Waiting for Superman." On the other, Rhee has been portrayed as an abrasive personality that has set out to transform education without much research or anecdotal evidence to back up her efforts. Since Rhee has no plans to leave education (she is now launching a non-profit organization to transform education across the country) and her ideas appear to be on par with other innovative educators rising to the forefront, it is worth looking at her legacy more closely to see how it could change the face of education in the future.

In this video, FRONTLINE examines the legacy of Michelle Rhee, former Chancellor of Washington, D.C. public schools.

Rhee's Teaching History

Rhee came to Washington D.C. in 2007 to serve as chancellor under Mayor Adrian Fenty. Prior to this post, Rhee had spent time teaching at a school in the Baltimore City Public School District, Harlem Park. According to a report at the Washington Post, Rhee was in a team-teaching assignment at the school. During her tenure at Harlem Park, Rhee cited test results of her students that demonstrated her superb teaching ability. However, questions have been raised about these results by