What's in a Name?

Maybe this is me being too picky because as an English teacher I like my figurative language just a certain way. English teacher or not, I absolutely hate that the educational reform in our country right now is called Race to the Top. As an educator, I’m actually offended by the implications of this name. (I know it’s a huge shock to find out that I am offended by something, but bear with me). All metaphors break down eventually, but I feel like this one breaks down pretty quickly if you think about it for more than a minute or two. This makes me wonder if the powers-that-be did think about it for more than a minute or two, which makes this even more offensive to me.

Race to the Top is obviously comparing public education to some type of competitive race. In all races, there are winners and there are losers. Does this mean Race to the Top is admitting that there will be losers in America’s schools? And who will these losers be? And what exactly are they losing?

Any time a race is discussed, it’s important to talk about the stakes. What is the motivation to finish first? What is the motivation to try even when it’s difficult? With No Child Left Behind, the stakes were money. Federal and state funding were dependent on the students’ performance on tests. This was problematic for many reasons, but mostly because it moved the pressure off of the students and onto the teachers and administrators. Schools were told that their funding was based on their students’ performance on standardized tests. This meant that teachers had to get their test scores up…or else. Enter “teaching to the test.” Teachers figured out the best way to get their students to pass the test and they drilled that in their class rooms over and over. Instead of being taught to ask questions (which is evidence of higher level thinking), students are only asked to answer questions (evidence of lower level thinking), and to answer them correctly. If not, their school could lose a large part of their funding, which would hurt the students even more. This pressure actually had the opposite effect because since NCLB was put into place, “one-third of states lowered their academic proficiency standards in reading…to make it easier for schools to make adequate yearly progress,” (Gallagher). This means reading test scores have gone up, while reading comprehension has gone down, making NCLB counterproductive. Adequate yearly progress (AYP) determines the distribution of state funding, so in order to meet AYP schools lowered their standards. (This explains the students in my 11th grade English classes that were reading on a 2nd or 3rd grade reading level…they just couldn’t be left behind). Interesting concept considering one of the base tenets of NCLB was maintaining high standards for all students.

So what about the stakes now? Instead of overturning NCLB, Race to the Top has simply raised the stakes. Not only is funding dependent on the standardized test scores, teachers and administrators’ jobs are as well. If participating schools don’t raise their graduation rate to a certain point by a certain date, either all the administrators are replaced, or 50% of the school’s teachers are fired and replaced. This has moved even more accountability away from the students. In fact, if students really wanted to terrorize teachers (and waste tax-payer dollars) they could botch their test scores because teacher “effectiveness” is going to be based on this.

With stakes this high, teachers may be tempted or asked to make decisions in their own best interest. The best way to maintain a high graduation rate? Easy. Just lower the standards again. Suddenly, teachers who got into the classroom because of a passion for educating young people will be faced with the dilemma of pass this student or possibly get yourself or your administrators fired. Attendance and grades are the top two reasons why students drop out. Before the next educational reform comes through that will further bury critical thinking and inquisitiveness, attendance will probably no longer be a factor in student achievement, and what constitutes an F will be lowered to a farcical point. Suddenly the integrity of the job that I am passionate to the point of tears about is being completely destroyed by a broken system. Suddenly my students are worth so much more than I am allowed to give them. Suddenly my job is at stake for having standards that are too high. Race to the Top becomes a Rat Race to the Top (another problem with this name) where everyone is doing so much work to achieve so little. And many teachers have children, spouses, mortgages, car payments, college tuition bills, student loans, medical expenses (from our ever diminishing health insurance), etc to pay off. When they are faced with this moral dilemma of passing students instead of educating them, what route do you think they will take with so much resting on their financial shoulders? Teaching is quickly becoming a moral dilemma for so many good teachers who go into the field with the best, most reflective intentions.

Metaphors are such powerful tools of language because of the implications they carry. Comparing something as important as education to a race is in such bad taste. I’m not saying that competition is bad altogether; competition is a healthy motivator that offers incentive and encouragement for people. But, the higher the stakes, the more likely someone is to cheat or step on others to get to the finish line first. Fear is one of the most effective motivators of all time and Race to the Top will cause teachers to fear for their livelihoods which creates unhealthy, vilifying competition. It also seems unfair to have a race without a set starting line. NCLB has created such disparity between schools and systems that some students are 3 feet away from the finish line, and others are so far behind that they can’t even see the starting blocks. How fair is it to ask these students to compete with one another in an “academic” race?

I might not approve of the implications of the metaphor, but I will admit that it fits pretty well with the ideology of American Education Reform. Race to the Top implies that the most important element of education is at the finish line, the end versus the means. This unfortunately leaves a lot of the important parts of training for a race (or learning) out like falling or making mistakes; I like to call these things learning. The stakes are so high for teachers, that it’s possible for students to feel that pressure, and be afraid to think for themselves because of the possibility of making mistakes. The problem is, we learn the most from our mistakes.

Educational reform is a prime example of Thoreau’s “wooden gun” that looks like a gun, but it explodes as soon as one tries to fire it. Educational reform is moving in a direction that makes it virtually impossible for students to learn how to think and even more difficult for teachers to teach students how to challenge themselves. Race to the Top is a terrifying mixture of unrealistic expectations, high stakes and even higher accountability for teachers, and the potential for minimal expectations and accountability for students.

And where does the race end? At the “top?” If students get to the” top” without taking deliberate, scaffolded steps, how will they support themselves once they get there? This new education reform tells teachers to push their students to the top, get them there at all possible costs, but then what? If we get our students to the “top” by lowering our standards in high schools, what will happen to them when they get to college, trade schools, or in the workplace? Will they come tumbling down with nothing there to catch them?

But hey, at least they won the metaphorical race. But at what cost?


Gallagher, Kelly. Readicide. York: Stenhouse Publishers, 2009.