Asked about the impact of the French Revolution, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai is supposed to have responded, “It is too soon to tell.”

It’s definitely too soon to tell if Race to the Top has succeeded. The ink is barely dry on the government’s grant agreements. There are no outcomes to be measured against objectives and expectations. There is certainly nothing that suggests that the RTTT approach should be abandoned ahead of receiving any outcomes.

The adoption of the Common Core Standards by 41 states augurs well for the program. So does the fact that the components of the RTTT palette of reforms—including common core standards, teacher performance standards, and more school choice--are proven producers of improved student outcomes.

There are other elements of the RTTT recipe that should be included in any update of No Child Left Behind. Competition is one of them. There is no prospect, in these times of tight federal budgets, of getting a level of funding that would enable giving all eligible states the critical mass of support they would need to implement meaningful reforms. So if we’re forced to pick among applicants for RTTT support, why wouldn’t we choose the best of those put forward?

Another part of any updating of No Child Left Behind should be the commitment to reward and incentivize programs and projects that are headed in the right direction, and “disincentivize” those that are not. This has been one of RTTT’s signal contributions to how the federal government funds education. Supporting approaches to education that don’t move children to and through college not only wastes public money, but is a disservice to students who need and deserve better.

In fact, whatever replaces No Child Left Behind should be focused, from pre-school on, to guiding students to earn a college degree or other post-secondary credential. Schools should be incentivized to offer, teachers incentivized to prepare for, and students incentivized to take courses that will prepare them to succeed in college. In an economy and society that needs all the college-educated workers and citizens it can get, nothing we do should send the signal that a high school diploma is the end-point of a student’s education. I think Congress erred when it dropped the College Access and Completion Innovation Fund from SAFRA last year. This is a challenging political climate, but reintroducing the Fund would at least stimulate debate about the importance of college completion and innovation around how we can achieve it.

The implementation of Race to the Top (RTT) is proving to be a fascinating test case for broad-based school reform. AIR has been involved in planning work for RTT – both in states receiving awards and those not awarded – and is now helping provide post-award support to the 12 winning states. My colleagues and I are learning some important lessons about the power and limitations of competitively awarded large-scale funding. There is no doubt that the RTT states are trying hard to put in place the reforms they envisioned, starting with a focus on new strategies for evaluating their teachers coupled with a continuing commitment to turning around their persistently lowest-performing schools. However, another key component of RTT, the alignment of curriculum and assessment, seems to be lagging as states deliberate on how to implement the newly developed common core state standards and as they begin work under the auspices of the two new assessment consortia.

It is clear that, despite the best of intentions and the availability of unprecedented funding for this initiative, the work in many of the RTT states is being hampered by other factors. State budget cuts have made it hard to fill positions in state education agencies, and school districts are reconsidering whether the additional funding they may receive is worth the commitment of so much extra time and effort. Leadership changes at the state and district levels are bringing in new political perspectives often at odds with the previous philosophy about RTT, particularly around mandated curricula and student tracking. And of course, there is the constant pressure – on everyone involved in RTT at every level – to show results, usually well before anyone should reasonably expect there to be any results.

I am optimistic that competition can enable a few states, and a larger number of districts, to make substantial progress in promoting better teaching and higher standards of learning. However, too many states and districts will be left out from the start, and even among the winners there will be some that, over time, will not have the capacity, the political will, or the attention span to successfully implement the full range of their planned reforms.

I am also not convinced that state-level competitions can work at scale as the driving model for promoting reform. Too many states will choose not to compete, will not stay the course, or do not have the authority with their districts to assure buy-in or compliance (as we have already seen with the RTT runners-up states.) And by limiting funding to participating states, we cut off support for some of the most innovative districts that are making great strides in vision and practice.

There is a place for competition in the next version of ESEA, but it cannot be the only, or even the primary model, by which states receive support to address the critical challenges they all face. However, the states, districts, and high-need schools that need the most help are those least likely to competitively come out on top. A better strategy is to build on the strong federally-funded R&D system that is critical to the successful implementation of the ESEA legislation. This system, which includes the regional education laboratories, should be expanded to conduct even more aggressive research, development, demonstration, and technical assistance. By building this system, we can deploy the most effective strategies equitably throughout the country.

It’s easy to get excited about big programs. But programs don’t teach kids, people do.

This is no longer a “race to the top”, it’s a “race to the taught”—a marathon of an effort to make school better for kids. To answer the question, "Does it work?" we have to answer the question, “How has it helped children learn?”

If results are positive, and directly attributable to the program, we can stike up the band, pop the corks, and let the confetti rain down across the land. But whether it works will depend, not on any aspect of the program (which is all we can evaluate right now) but on how it effects those who teach and those who are taught.

If Race to the Top helps more kids than Brown, than Title I, than NCLB, then maybe it will deserve the accolades that have already been heaped upon it. But until we know how it affects the teaching kids receive and the learning they achieve, there's no way to know.

At least four broad criticisms of RTTT have surfaced in this discussion, with corresponding implications for reauthorization of ESEA:

1. The federal government should not use competitions to selectively award funds to states and school districts. Funds should be distributed by formula to all.

2. The federal government should not require any specific reforms or remedies. States and school districts should be able to used federal funds for any purpose they choose.

3. The federal government should require particular remedies, but not the remedies that were required by RTTT because the remedies of RTTT don’t work.

4. These were the right remedies, but they have not been adequately executed by the U.S. Department of Education, by states, or both. Essentially, the feds needed to be more demanding.

A few personal observations:

· Numbers 2 and 3 above are philosophically at odds. Both can’t be right, but they could both be wrong.

· The federal government has been awarding funds through competitive processes for decades and there have been few philosophical objections.

· The federal government has been directing funding for specific purposes for decades and there have been few philosophical objections.

· While #2 may not seem plausible to many at first, it becomes much more plausible if one adds the following phrase at the end, “and should instead be held accountable for academic results.”

In fact, Secretary Duncan has said many times that he believes that the federal government is often too prescriptive and that it should be loose on means but tight on ends. Would there be any argument that RTTT did not fit that description?

Three huge problems with RTTT as a model for ESEA reauthorization:

#1. The administration's attempt to marshall the research evidence was an embarrassing failure (http://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews-obama-administrations-six-research-summaries)

#2. The RTTT approach, particularly the promotion of policies that use student test scores to evaluate teachers, intensifies some of the most destructive elements of NCLB: incentives to narrow curriculum and teach the test.

#3. The ESEA's main reason for being has long been equity. A competition with winners and losers will disadvantage some students at the expense of others -- a pretty decent definition for "inequity."

Race to the Top was rigged to provide supplemental stimulus funds to states that were willing to play ball with the Administration's goals for a nationwide education love-in. An interesting theory out of the gate, the Race seriously lost momentum when guidelines regarding teacher accountability and charter schools were diluted to the point of inconsequence before applications for Phase 1 were even due.

What innovation has come as a result? Are there a greater number of school choice options for parents in winning states beyond the organic growth of charters? No. Will teachers in winning states be treated as professionals beyond the hiring process when unions must back proposals, and in some cases are drawing up the evaluation process? Not likely.

The outcome of the Race to the Top exercise is yet to be determined, but the smart money would be on little movement. For the Administration to base their (still bloated) funding formulas or ESEA reauthorization on a repeat performance before the curtain has even been drawn on Act 1 would be naive at best. So far, they can only boast a $4.35 billion price tag on the adoption of common standards.

One winning state (Rhode Island) might even be on the brink of turning back the clock on its promised reforms in order to repay the special interest allies of its newly elected governor. What will happen to their money?

Too many questions remain. Rewarding promises without offering a clear consequence for failure to fulfill them would just be another race to nowhere.

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education has indicated that the Race to the Top program would include a rural focus and be targeted toward districts, not states. Taken together, these are constructive and positive changes.

As we wait to review the Administration’s FY2012 budget proposal, we are encouraged by the new focus on rural schools in the Race to the Top program. The renewed commitment to students who live and learn in rural and frontier areas of the country is a great step forward. NEA is also encouraged by the plan to change RTTT from a state grant program to one that is awarded to school districts. The real drivers of change in schools are educators, administrators, parents and communities working together at the local level – district by district, school by school.

We commend the Administration's further refinement of Race to the Top, as long as it’s grounded in local collaboration, best practices that boost student learning, more flexibility for turnaround models without minimizing the need for results, and the assurance to maintain – not reduce – basic funding for children in poverty.

The federal government needs to honor America’s commitment to provide all children with a level playing field in education, and we call for a budget that increases resources for students who need consistent and targeted support. Investing in public education will ensure that our students can compete in the 21st century high skills economy – and “out-innovate, out-build and out-compete” the world.

Race to the Top is a terrible precedent for federal funding.

For one reason, it replaces the principle of equity (funding the students with the greatest needs) with the spurious notion of a "race," with winners and losers. We want a generation of winners, not a few states that reap the rewards of federal funding because they hire slick grant writers.

Actually those states that "won" Race to the Top won a pig in a poke. Many districts will spend more to implement its mandates than the federal dollars they receive. Worse, nothing in the Race to the Top is based on evidence, research, or practice. Closing schools is not a school improvement strategy. Merit pay sounds good in theory but never works in practice. Charter schools do not produce better results than regular public schools. The NAACP and five other civil rights groups criticized RTTT for emphasizing a competition rather than equity (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/civil-rights-groups-skewer-oba.html).

Race to the Top has unleashed a mean-spirited attack on teachers across the nation, blaming teachers as the cause of low test scores. Many of the nation's most eminent testing experts have objected to the misuse of test scores, but the Obama administration doesn't listen. (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278)

In response to Race to the Top, our nation's best teachers--led by teachers with National Board Certification--are organizing a March on Washington this July to protest the current test-obsessed policies and mandates emanating from Washington (http://saveourschoolsmarch.org/)

RTTT has prompted a wave of school closings and promoted a drive towards privatization that threatens the future of public education.

The Common Core standards might or might not be a good thing, but we will never know until they have been tried and validated somewhere.

Interesting that none of the top-performing nations in the world are using privatization and de-professionalization as means of improving their schools.

Race to the Top gets an F for demoralizing teachers and advancing privatization.

President Obama and Secretary Duncan are smart people.

Yet, how in the world can they say, as President Obama did in the State of the Union address, that Race to the Top is the "most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation"?

Mind you, irrespective of concerns about its implementation, I was, and remain, a fan of Race to the Top.

But there is no meaningful basis for the President's assertion.

It is true that states have passed laws, and states, districts, and other stake holders have adopted supportive policies. And, in my view, many of these steps are worthy and promising.

But passing laws and adopting policies, especially inspired by the lure of dollars that will soon be used up and no longer available, can hardly be judged "the most successful school initiative in years."

Will these laws and policies actually be implemented as intended? Or will they more generally fall by the wayside? How can we possibly know now?

Will they be implemented well? Will they stick when the money is gone? Will they make any difference in student achievement?

And what of the states that changed law and policy and got no money?

I can't speak for many states. But we pass all kinds of good laws in Texas. What actually gets implemented usually bears only a slight and partial reflection of state action. Surely we're not alone in this.

The real test for Race to the Top will come several years from now when we can tell something real about the program's "stickiness," that is, the degree to which it actually changes practice in the schools, and its effectiveness in improving student achievement.

I know we can have robust debates about the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind. But one thing we know ten years after its bipartisan enactment: suburban schools and schools with heterogeneous student populations continue to be pinched and pressed not to sweep disadvantaged kids under the rug.

May Race to the Top have comparable, or even greater, pinch and impact a decade from now. When, and if, it does, that would be the time for the President to make his assertion.

Race to the Top is a terrible guide for the reauthorization of ESEA. Whether states will stick with this program is certainly in doubt, but the deeper point is that Congress should flatly reject RTTT.

Let’s consider some key components of RTTT:

1. Make even more decisions (about teachers and principals) based on scores on limited, narrow, largely multiple-choice tests. This is what NCLB required, and since then the rate of progress has slowed or stalled on the independent National Assessment of Educational Progress for most student groups in both subjects and grade levels. SAT and ACT scores also have been stagnant. If anything, RTTT ratchets up the pressure to narrow curriculum and teach to the tests.

2. More tests. Duncan claims the solution to inadequate tests will be the new multi-state consortia exams. But those will remain largely multiple-choice. Having a few performance tasks is not sufficient, even if they are good ones, which they may not be. The consortia efforts will lead to even more centrally-controlled testing. The system will be misused for high stakes and maintain a stifling effect on teaching. At a minimum, we are stuck with the current poor tests and rapidly escalating numbers of low-quality “interim” and “benchmark” tests for the next few years. Duncan should have pressed for far less testing.

3. Judge teachers on student test scores. Tests do not equal “merit.” The research finds such schemes are rare outside of sales, frequently backfire and undermine broader objectives, and lack evidence they will improve schools. There is too little value in the test scores, and the statistical techniques have been repeatedly found to be too flawed for high stakes decisions.

4. Require “turnarounds.” Even if it is true that all the schools mandated to be “turned around” do in fact need major changes, the mandated options from the Department are not generally backed by research, though some components within some models are. Congress has offered bi-partisan rejection of this scheme. The Forum on Educational Accountability offers a positive vision of how the federal government can help improve schools in need.

5. Promote privatization. There are excellent charters, awful charters, and on average they are slightly less good than public schools. The initial selling point for charters was innovation and (a reasonable basis for having some charters), but few can reasonably be termed “innovative.” Duncan says he only wants excellent charters, but RTTT lacks tools to ensure that which has not been true will become true.

6. Subject needy communities to the vagaries of competition. As major civil rights groups have pointed out, the goal should not be to create many losers – the actual consequence of RTTT - but to build systems of high-quality schools. For the reasons stated above, RTTT is not doing that.

Some things that are not key components of RTTT but should be:

Supporting desegregation/integration, though there is good evidence this led to major educational gains before the nation turned toward the re-segregation the Civil Rights Project has documented.

Addressing poverty. Indeed, the entire history of the current wave of school “reform” is largely based on the illusion that schools alone can solve poverty and that schools reduced to test prep produce high-quality education for children living in poverty. It remains true that zip codes predict test scores and poverty is the primary obstacle to attaining a good education. Improving schools is a societal imperative, but RTTT will not produce genuine improvement.

The Obama-Duncan approach, following that of Bush, is to blame schools for larger social ills, then focus on “fixes” that are at best unproven and at worst further damage education. Their proposals and mandates are not backed by evidence they will work. Despite this, many powerful voices continue to push for these failed efforts.

Will Congress take a close look and rethink the mandates for testing and punishment, provide meaningful support to needy schools and end (and not intensify) harmful federal meddling? That will depend in significant part on whether the sizeable majority of people who recognize NCLB does not work speak up and let their members of Congress know that continuing down the NCLB-RTTT path is simply not acceptable. And for positive alternatives, see the recommendations of FairTest, the Forum on Educational Accountability, and related groups.

Leaving aside the efficacy of USDE-endorsed approaches – and I’ll be the first to admit that some, like value-added assessment, are well worth doing – what concerns me is the continued “Rise To The Top” of control over our schools.

Schools were initially set up as local affairs, and one of the drivers of community engagement and support is the public’s ability to influence what happens within the school walls. Over a span of decades, we have gradually seen control over schools rise from the local to the state level; now, since No Child Left Behind, we are rapidly seeing control rise from the state to the federal level. As a result, the public has little if any sway over their local schools. While principals and others encourage community support, the reality is that they are held to account for specific outcomes (such as test scores) that have been mandated in the state capitol or in Washington DC, and as a result are not able to address issues (such as producing workplace-ready graduates) their local partners care about. Because of this, community action now occurs almost entirely at the margins, at a time when we need it as a central driver of change.

If the federal and state education departments want to drive real improvement in our schools, and exponentially boost community engagement at the same time, they will focus less on mandating actions and objectives, and more on building a supportive platform for local leadership that provides needed information (including transparent and disaggregated local performance data), helps communities set objectives and processes themselves, and provides the infrastructure that allows those at the community level to find information on what works (including research, case studies, and networking opportunities). That’s when you’ll see a real race to the top, driven from the grassroots and not mandated from outside the community.