Talk:Race to the Top

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 9 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JJones1014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Table Format?

I think the results of Race to the Top lend themselves perfectly to a table format for presenting a lot of information concisely. We could list the 50 states + DC on the left column, and then include relevant information in subsequent columns (round 1 win vs round 2 win vs loss vs did not submit application, scores, rankings, $$$ received, etc.).

I might not be able to put this together for a while but if someone else feels this is a good idea, go for it! Greenth (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah - I finally made the table. The "evaluation of program" section still needs work and the whole article should have its tense and scope adjusted to update from focus on the real-time application process to bigger picture, post-mortem recap.Greenth (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section on effects is just a poorly sourced list of criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.152.11 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a well-sourced list of criticisms. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Diane Ravitch are irrefutably WP:RS.

If you know of well-sourced evaluations that find positive results in well-designed scientific studies, you can contribute by adding them. --Nbauman (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraud implicit in the very name

This isn't in the Criticism section but it would be easy to back what critical and informed readers already know, viz that being educated is no defense against the race to the bottom effect or a weak one at best. Lycurgus (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Two frauds actually, but one for which there are supposed be sources for which I just placed the tag. Don't know what the results are but the expectation is that it will be failure. In any case the actual results are required to be gathered, should in fact be in the given sources, and it's egregious just to say that they exist without saying what they are when it's easy enough to do. Possible it's just a time thing though, see this hasn't gotten a lot of activity over the years. Lycurgus (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Problematic content focus

Contains an inadequate amount of contextual background and the policy's rationale. Lacks a sufficient infobox. Contains uncited claims in the lead that were not discussed again. Article is unclear on how this policy was implemented (presidential directive? D of Ed rulemaking?). Excessively focuses on the Trump admistration's recent actions without even clarifying how they are related to this policy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)