Which Obama-era education initiatives aimed to close the Black-white achievement gap?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Obama administration deployed a mix of targeted racial equity initiatives and broader K–12 reform programs intended to narrow the Black–white achievement gap, most notably the 2012 White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans and agency-level efforts such as the Equity and Excellence Commission, Race to the Top-era competitive grants, School Improvement Grants, and the Investing in Innovation (i3) fund [1] [2] [3]. Supporters hailed new, race-focused federal attention and resources; critics argued the administration relied heavily on accountability, competitive grants, and market-oriented reforms that often failed to address underlying socioeconomic drivers of the gap [4] [5].
1. White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans — a direct, cross‑agency effort
In July 2012 President Obama signed an executive order creating the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans to coordinate federal actions, identify evidence‑based practices, and build partnerships to improve outcomes for African American students across early childhood, K–12 and postsecondary education [6] [7] [1]. The Initiative explicitly targeted barriers cited in the order — unequal access to effective teachers and principals, disproportionate discipline and special‑education referrals, and gaps in college‑preparatory coursework — and set up an interagency working group and an executive director housed in the Department of Education to pursue those goals [6] [7].
2. Commissions and diagnostics — Equity and Excellence Commission
Short of Congress reauthorizing ESEA, the administration created the Equity and Excellence Commission in 2011 to study disparities in meaningful educational opportunity and recommend federal policy responses aimed at closing achievement gaps; the Commission produced findings intended to inform federal policy and grant priorities [2]. This diagnostic posture signaled a federal willingness to examine structural causes, while simultaneously framing solutions largely through federal education policy levers rather than broader anti‑poverty reforms [2].
3. Competitive grants and school turnaround — Race to the Top, SIGs, i3, and “fixing” low‑performing schools
The Obama record emphasized large, competitive grants as primary levers: Race to the Top encouraged state reform plans while School Improvement Grants (SIG) funded aggressive turnarounds for the lowest‑performing schools and the administration reported dedicating over $4 billion to transform such schools [3]. The Investing in Innovation (i3) fund invested in research‑based programs designed to improve achievement for high‑need students and close gaps in outcomes [2]. Proponents argued these programs directed resources and innovation toward students left behind; skeptics said competitive grants advantage districts that already have capacity and that school turnarounds and high‑stakes accountability can narrow curriculum without addressing poverty or segregation [2] [5].
4. Integration and targeted diversity incentives — limited federal push
Civil‑rights and desegregation advocates sought stronger federal action on school integration as a mechanism to close the racial achievement gap; the Department of Education under Obama added modest diversity priorities to some smaller grants and made magnet‑style integration eligible for SIG, but declined to use Race to the Top to incentivize integration, leaving many advocates disappointed that large federal initiatives did not systematically prioritize desegregation [8]. The Magnet School Assistance Program remained the primary federal vehicle for integration but its limited funding constrained national impact [8].
5. Reception, critique, and the politics of policy choice
The Initiative and related efforts won praise from civil‑society groups and leaders who saw direct attention to African American student outcomes as long overdue [9] [4]. Critics from education scholars and progressive analysts charged that Obama’s mix of accountability, competitive grants, and school‑level interventions closely resembled prior federal reform approaches and insufficiently grappled with social and economic determinants of the achievement gap, warning that such policies “take no account” of family and community conditions driving disparities [5]. The administration’s explicit choice to prioritize evidence‑based practices and grant‑driven incentives reflected an implicit agenda favoring federal leverage over broader redistributive or anti‑segregation remedies [2] [5].