imageEmmett McGroarty, the executive director of the Preserve Innocence Initiative at the American Principles Project, wrote about Race to the Top at The Hill’s Congress blog.   I find it is a great follow up to the back and forth I had with Jason Glass, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s pick to head the Iowa Department of Education, about Race to the Top.

McGroarty wrote:

In the State of the Union, the President aptly describes Race to the Top as a “competition” among the states. As the President put it, his Administration said to the states, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.”

Competition is generally good. It gives the consumer a choice. They can choose the best product for their needs. In turn, the providers strive to make their product as good or better than the competition.

But the competition in Race to the Top is not in response to the consumer or user, rather it is in response to the policy dictates of the federal government. It is not a competition to see which states have produced the best product, rather it is a competition to determine which ones have best fallen in line with the policy preferences of the federal government. So when the President said that Race to the Top has “led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning,” he means that those states have signed on to the policies anointed by the federal government –not that they have determined those policies most responsive to parents and most in line with the best interests of students. That’s more like a monopoly than like true competition.

If fully implemented, Race to the Top will end the days when parents can effectively influence education policies by talking to the teacher or the principle or showing up at a school board meeting. Education policy-making will largely become the realm of the special interests that have the means to lobby or influence the federal government. Parents will have no part in those conversations and decisions.

This was demonstrated in Iowa’s clamoring for these funds last year.  If this was truly about innovation then there would have been a serious discussion among stakeholders about changes that can be made.  Instead it was about the what changes the Legislature had to make to the Iowa Code so that we were eligible for the money.

The true losers in all of this, as McGroarty points out, are the parents who should have the greatest stake in their child’s education.

You May Also Like

National Parent Coalition Sends Senate Questions for Betsy DeVos

A coalition of nearly 60 parent organizations, education experts and writers, and elected officials are concerned about Betsy Devos’ record and views.

College Leadership Group Disagrees with Obama’s Federal Teacher Prep Proposal

AACTE expressed disappointment in President Obama’s use of unilateral executive authority to implement federal priorities for teacher preparation.

Iowa House and Senate in Conflict Over School Start Date

A non-partisan conflict between the Iowa House of Representatives and Iowa Senate over the future of the school start date has made some strange allies.

Governor Chris Christie Says It Like It Is In Iowa Last Night

I had the pleasure of attending Governor Terry Branstad’s fundraiser at the Hy-Vee…