Race to the Top?

Public School Matters

1-17-10

Race to the Top?

This article comes under the heading "I WISH I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" Worth your time!


COMMENTARY
Over the Top
Six Tips for Winning 'Race to the Top' Money
By Yong Zhao
I have been reading through the voluminous
document published in the Nov. 18, 2009,
Federal Register , giving the final versions of
application guidelines, selection criteria, and
priorities for $4 billion in competitive grants under
the Race to the Top Fund, the largest education
grant program in U.S. history.
From news reports, op-ed pieces, and blog posts,
I can guess that many states are working hard
now to prepare their applications. My reading of
the criteria leads me to suggest that the following
are winning strategies and actions to include,
even though they may be inconsistent with
research findings or common sense.
1. Stop paying teachers and principals a salary.
Instead, pay them on a per-standardized-test-point basis each day. At the end of the school
day, simply give each student a standardized test. Then calculate what the teacher and
principal will be paid that day based on the growth of the student, that is, on how much the
student has improved over the previous day.
This is true accountability and is sure to keep teachers and principals on their toes. (It also
seems to be the true intention behind this requirement: “At the time the State submits its
application, the State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State
level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for
the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.”)
But to do it, you must not ask the question of whether this accountability will lead to better
teaching. You also will need to ignore the fact that “accountability” has driven many teachers
out of the schools, and to forget about attracting highly qualified talent to the teaching
profession.
2. Remove all “non-core” academic activities and courses and reduce all teaching to math and
reading. What the U.S. secretary of education wants is “increasing student achievement in (at
a minimum) reading/language arts and mathematics, as reported by the [National
Education Week: Over the Top Page 1 of 3
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/16/15zhao_ep.h29.html?tkn=NNLFNTbTNs... 12/13/2009
Assessment of Educational Progress] and the assessments required under the [Elementary
and Secondary Education Act]” and “decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in
reading/language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the assessments
required under the ESEA.” Actually, no need to teach students these subjects; just teaching
them how to pass the tests may be even more effective.
But to do so, you have to forget the reasons for education in the first place, ignore all
research findings about the negative consequences of high-stakes testing, and suppress any
desire to care about the students’ emotional well-being, to cultivate their creativity and
entrepreneurship, or to consider their interests and strengths.
3. Make sure every child takes courses in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics), the more the merrier. This is because, as the guidelines state, “Emphasis
on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)” is a “Competitive Preference
Priority,” worth 15 points, and you either get 15 points or nothing.
But this requires you to ignore research findings such as those from Lindsay Lowell and Hal
Salzman , showing that “over the past decade, U.S. colleges and universities graduated
roughly three times more scientists and engineers than were employed in the growing science
and engineering workforce,” and that “there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the
proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM
jobs.” You also must not think about what children will really need to be successful in the 21st
-century global economy, such as cross-cultural competencies, foreign languages, and digital
capabilities.
4. This suggestion is only for the states of Alaska and Texas, because the others have already
committed themselves to doing it: Develop and adopt “a common set of K-12 standards …
that are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward
college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation.” The other 48 states have
signed on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative spearheaded by the National
Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. So I guess the initiative
counts, even though it covers only two subjects.
Well, there may be a small problem: how to prove that the standards are internationally
benchmarked. Did the authors benchmark against national standards in Canada, our closest
neighbor, or Australia, a large federation of states like the United States? Of course not,
because these countries do not have national standards. Or perhaps they benchmarked
against China, since it is our perceived competitor. Probably not, because China has been
reforming its curriculum over the past two decades and loosening its national control on
curriculum. Or perhaps it is against the Program for International Student Assessment or the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—yet these are tests, not curriculum
standards.
To wholeheartedly embrace this suggestion, states have to overlook the damages national
standards can do to education, and not take into consideration the fact that having national
standards neither improves education for students nor narrows achievement gaps.
Education Week: Over the Top Page 2 of 3
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/16/15zhao_ep.h29.html?tkn=NNLFNTbTNs... 12/13/2009
5. Write in lots of money for testing companies and assessment consultants in the
application, because you will be rewarded for “developing and implementing common, highquality
assessments.” In the spirit of this recommendation, I would also suggest that you
promise to test the students more frequently, at least twice a day—once when they come to
school and once when they leave—because this will help you collect more data to meet the
data-systems requirement and hold teachers accountable.
Of course, what this means is that you cannot think about students’ individual differences, the
need for diverse talents, or the costs of standardized tests. You cannot think about who will
eventually benefit from the assessments either. And in no way should you worry about the
corruption that high-stakes standardized testing brings with it.
6. Oh, and while you’re at it, include a proposal to bar all children under the age of 18 from
entering museums, public libraries, and music events; lock up all musical instruments in
schools, and fire all music, art, and physical education teachers; close sports facilities;
disconnect all Internet connections; and cut down on lunch time, because the Race to the Top
initiative wants to lengthen the school year and school day, and all these are distracting kids
from studying for the tests. Of course, these actions will save money as well.
But that requires you to discard the notion that creativity, talent, and technology are
important for the future. You must also not think that a healthy society needs musicians,
artists, and athletes. Nor can you assume that a well-rounded human being is essential for a
democracy. Of course, you should also deny the fact that creativity, art, design, and music
play significant roles in the world of science and technology today.
But other than all that, your new federal funding should enable you to do great things.
Yong Zhao is a university distinguished professor of education at Michigan State University, in
East Lansing, where he is the founding director of the Center for Teaching and Technology. He
is the author of Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of
Globalization. His Web site is http://zhao.educ.msu.edu.
Vol. 29, Issue 15, Page 21
Education Week: Over the Top Page 3 of 3
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/16/15zhao_ep.h29.html?tkn=NNLFNTbTNs... 12/13/2009