What If Race to The Top Never Happened?

The Actual History

In 2009, as the United States grappled with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the newly inaugurated Obama administration pursued a multifaceted approach to economic recovery. Among the initiatives embedded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was an ambitious education reform program called Race to the Top (RTTT). Allocated $4.35 billion, RTTT represented one of the largest competitive federal education grants in U.S. history.

Unlike previous federal education funding models that distributed money based on formulas or need, Race to the Top introduced a competitive framework. States submitted applications outlining their education reform plans, and the Department of Education, under Secretary Arne Duncan, evaluated these plans based on specific criteria. These criteria included adopting rigorous standards and assessments, building data systems to measure student growth, recruiting and retaining effective teachers and principals, and turning around the lowest-performing schools.

The competition unfolded in three phases between 2009 and 2011. In Phase 1 (March 2010), only Delaware and Tennessee received funding. Phase 2 (August 2010) saw awards to ten states: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington D.C. The final Phase 3 (December 2011) granted smaller awards to seven states: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Race to the Top had profound effects on American education policy. To become competitive for these funds, many states adopted the Common Core State Standards, revamped teacher evaluation systems to incorporate student test scores, expanded charter schools, and implemented extensive data tracking systems. By 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the Common Core standards, though several would later withdraw.

The initiative sparked significant controversy. Supporters praised its role in catalyzing education reform and establishing higher standards across states. Critics argued that it over-emphasized standardized testing, undermined teacher autonomy, infringed on local educational control, and failed to address fundamental inequities in school funding.

By the mid-2010s, a backlash against elements of Race to the Top had emerged across the political spectrum. Conservative critics objected to what they saw as federal overreach in education policy, while progressive critics questioned the emphasis on test-based accountability and market-based reforms. The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which replaced No Child Left Behind, shifted some authority back to states, reflecting a partial retreat from the Race to the Top approach.

Nevertheless, Race to the Top's legacy endures in American education. It fundamentally altered state education policies, accelerated the standards-based reform movement, and reinforced a vision of education centered on measurable outcomes and accountability measures. For better or worse, it represents one of the most significant federal interventions in K-12 education of the early 21st century.

The Point of Divergence

What if Race to the Top never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the Obama administration chose not to include the competitive education grant program in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, taking American education policy in a markedly different direction.

Several plausible scenarios could have prevented Race to the Top's creation:

First, economic priorities might have shifted the allocated funds elsewhere. With the nation facing unemployment rates exceeding 8% in early 2009, the administration might have redirected the $4.35 billion toward more immediate job creation initiatives rather than long-term education reform. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, lacking the competitive grant mechanism, would have been forced to work within traditional federal education frameworks.

Alternatively, internal disagreements within the Democratic Party could have derailed the program. Education policy created significant tensions among Democrats, with teacher unions (traditionally strong Democratic supporters) skeptical of performance-based reforms, while "New Democrats" favored more accountability-focused approaches. In this alternate timeline, teacher unions and their congressional allies might have successfully lobbied against the competitive grant structure, arguing that the economic crisis necessitated equitable funding rather than competition.

A third possibility involves leadership differences. If Obama had selected a different Education Secretary than Arne Duncan—perhaps Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford professor who served on Obama's transition team and was considered for the position—the administration's education policy might have emphasized professional development and capacity-building over competitive incentives and test-based accountability.

Finally, political calculations might have played a role. Republican opposition to federal involvement in education was strong, and the Obama administration might have decided that education reform would consume too much political capital needed for healthcare reform and economic recovery. In this scenario, the administration would have maintained existing education funding channels while focusing its transformative energy elsewhere.

In our alternate timeline, we'll explore how these factors converged, leading the Obama administration to pursue a different approach to education reform—one that emphasized funding equity, professional development, and research-based interventions rather than competitive incentives tied to specific reform models.

Immediate Aftermath

Altered State Responses to the Economic Crisis

Without Race to the Top's competitive incentives, states faced different pressures in addressing education during the Great Recession. Many states would have still implemented significant budget cuts to education as tax revenues plummeted. However, the nature of these cuts and reform efforts would have followed different patterns:

Less Standardization Across States: Without the federal incentive to adopt Common Core standards, states would have continued on more varied educational paths. The movement toward common standards would have proceeded more slowly and with greater regional variation.
Budget-Driven Changes: Rather than implementing reforms to win federal competitions, states would have made changes primarily driven by budgetary constraints. This might have included consolidating school districts, increasing class sizes, and reducing non-essential programs—similar to actual recession responses, but without the counterbalancing pressure to simultaneously implement specific reforms.
Varied Recession Responses: Some states, particularly those with stronger economies or education-focused leadership, might have protected education funding more successfully. Others would have implemented deeper cuts without federal incentives to maintain innovation.

Different Trajectory for Common Core

The Common Core State Standards initiative had begun before Race to the Top, but RTTT dramatically accelerated its adoption. Without this federal incentive:

More Limited Adoption: Instead of the rapid adoption by 45 states, perhaps only 15-20 states (primarily those already aligned with the philosophy behind the standards) would have implemented Common Core by 2011.
More Gradual Implementation: Those states adopting Common Core would have implemented the standards more gradually, allowing more time for teacher training and curriculum development.
Less Political Resistance: Without the perception of federal coercion, Common Core might have avoided becoming a political lightning rod. The standards would have been evaluated more on educational merits rather than as symbols of federal overreach.

Alternative Federal Education Initiatives

In this alternate timeline, the Obama administration would not have abandoned education reform but redirected it through different channels:

Formula-Based Recovery Funding: Instead of competitive grants, the administration likely would have channeled additional education funding through existing formula grants like Title I, emphasizing the preservation of teaching jobs and educational stability during the recession.
Targeted Innovation Grants: Rather than a single large competition, the Department of Education might have created smaller, more focused innovation grants addressing specific challenges like early childhood education, STEM programs, or rural school support.
Research and Development Focus: Without Race to the Top, more federal resources might have been directed toward research-based innovations rather than system-wide policy changes, establishing pilot programs with rigorous evaluation components.

Impact on Charter Schools and School Choice

Race to the Top encouraged states to lift caps on charter schools. Without this incentive:

Regional Variation in Charter Growth: States already favorable to charter schools would have continued expansion, while others would have maintained stricter limitations. This would have resulted in even greater regional disparity in charter school presence.
Different Funding Landscape: Charter schools would have faced a more challenging funding environment without the federal emphasis on their expansion, potentially slowing growth even in favorable states.
Alternative Reform Models: Without federal incentives favoring charter expansion, some states might have explored different reform models for struggling schools, including community schools, magnet programs, or traditional public school improvement initiatives.

Teacher Evaluation Systems

One of Race to the Top's most significant impacts was the rapid adoption of teacher evaluation systems incorporating student growth measures:

Slower Reform of Evaluation: Without federal pressure, most states would have maintained traditional teacher evaluation systems longer, with changes coming more gradually and with greater teacher union input.
Less Emphasis on Test Scores: The movement to incorporate student test scores into teacher evaluations would have proceeded more cautiously and in fewer states.
More Professional Development Focus: Alternative approaches emphasizing teacher support and professional development rather than high-stakes evaluation might have gained more traction in this environment.

Long-term Impact

Educational Federalism: A Different Balance

Race to the Top significantly expanded federal influence in education policy. Without it, the federal-state-local relationship in education would have evolved differently through the 2010s and beyond:

Maintained State Autonomy: States would have retained greater independence in setting educational standards, assessment systems, and accountability measures. By 2025, we would see greater diversity in state education systems rather than the partial convergence that occurred after Race to the Top.
Different ESEA Reauthorization: The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced No Child Left Behind, was partly a reaction to perceived federal overreach in education. In our alternate timeline, the reauthorization might have maintained more elements of No Child Left Behind's framework while offering targeted flexibility rather than a broader devolution of authority to states.
Regional Consortia Instead of National Standards: Rather than a quasi-national approach through Common Core, regional consortia of states might have emerged to develop shared standards and assessments, creating 4-5 different educational regions in the U.S. with internal coherence but significant differences between regions.

Testing and Assessment Evolution

The standardized testing landscape would have followed a substantially different trajectory:

Diverse Assessment Approaches: Without the push for assessment systems aligned to Common Core, states would have developed or maintained a wider variety of assessment approaches. By the 2020s, we might see everything from traditional multiple-choice standardized tests to performance assessments, portfolio systems, and competency-based models across different states.
More Gradual Technology Integration: The rapid shift to computer-based testing that accompanied Common Core implementation would have proceeded more gradually, with greater state-by-state variation in technology adoption.
Testing Backlash Averted: The intense "opt-out" movement that peaked around 2015-2016 might never have gained such momentum without the rapid implementation of new assessments tied to Common Core. Testing would remain controversial, but without the perfect storm of new standards, new tests, and teacher evaluations tied to results, public resistance would have been more muted.

Teacher Workforce and Professionalization

The teaching profession would have experienced different pressures and developments:

Alternative Credential Pathways: Without Race to the Top's emphasis on alternative certification, traditional teacher preparation programs might have maintained a stronger position. The growth of programs like Teach for America would have continued but potentially at a slower pace.
Union Relationships: Teacher unions, which often felt targeted by Race to the Top's emphasis on evaluation reform, might have maintained more collaborative relationships with the Democratic Party. This could have affected political dynamics around education policy at both state and federal levels.
Different Emphasis in Professional Development: Rather than focusing heavily on implementing new standards and assessments, professional development might have emphasized a broader range of instructional strategies and student support approaches. By 2025, the teaching workforce might be less assessment-focused and more oriented toward diverse pedagogical approaches.

Technology and Data Systems in Education

Race to the Top significantly accelerated the development of state longitudinal data systems and educational technology implementation:

Uneven Data Infrastructure: Without Race to the Top's requirements for robust data systems, development would have been more uneven across states. Some would have built comprehensive systems independently, while others would lag significantly, creating greater disparities in data-based decision-making capabilities.
Privacy Concerns and Regulations: The rapid expansion of educational data collection under Race to the Top prompted privacy concerns and regulations. In our alternate timeline, these issues would have emerged more gradually, potentially allowing for more thoughtful policy development around student data privacy by 2025.
Different Ed-Tech Market Development: The educational technology market, which boomed partly in response to Common Core implementation and assessment needs, would have developed more heterogeneously. Rather than products aligned to common standards across many states, we might see more regionally-adapted tools and greater diversity in educational technology approaches.

Economic and Equity Implications

Perhaps most significantly, the economic and equity dimensions of education would have evolved differently:

Persistent Geographic Disparities: Without the partial standardization that Race to the Top encouraged, the quality of education would remain even more dependent on geography and local economics. By 2025, the differences between educational offerings in wealthy versus poor districts might be even more pronounced.
Alternative Investment Patterns: The billions spent implementing Common Core standards, new assessments, and data systems might instead have been directed toward more traditional educational inputs: smaller class sizes, improved facilities, expanded early childhood education, or increased teacher compensation in hard-to-staff schools and subjects.
Different Reform Priorities Under Subsequent Administrations: The Trump administration's education policy under Secretary Betsy DeVos focused heavily on school choice. In our alternate timeline, without the Common Core backlash to react against, the policy emphasis might have differed, perhaps focusing more on vocational education and workforce development rather than primarily on choice initiatives.

Public Perception of Education Reform

By 2025, the public and political discourse around education would reflect different experiences and priorities:

Less Nationalized Education Debates: Without Race to the Top and Common Core creating national controversies, education policy debates would remain more state-focused and less prominent in national political campaigns.
Different Reform Coalitions: The unusual coalitions that formed around opposing Common Core—uniting some progressive educators with conservative advocates of local control—would not have emerged in the same way. Education policy debates might have maintained more traditional political alignments.
Continued Experimentation: With more state autonomy and less federal direction, educational innovation would likely show greater variation by 2025. Some states might have moved toward competency-based systems, others might have doubled down on traditional approaches, and still others might have pioneered entirely different models.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Diane Ravitch, Educational Historian and former Assistant Secretary of Education, offers this perspective: "The absence of Race to the Top would have spared American education from a destructive detour. Without federal pressure to adopt unproven evaluation systems and hasty implementation of Common Core, states could have pursued more thoughtful, evidence-based reforms. Teacher morale might not have plummeted as it did when professionals suddenly found themselves evaluated by flawed algorithms based on student test scores. We might have instead focused on the real problems: poverty, segregation, and inadequate school funding. The Obama administration had the opportunity to address these fundamental issues but chose instead to accelerate market-based reforms and testing regimes that ultimately failed to deliver meaningful improvement."

Dr. Thomas Kane, Professor of Education and Economics at Harvard University, presents a contrasting view: "Without Race to the Top, American education would have missed a critical opportunity for modernization. Despite implementation challenges, the initiative drove states to develop more robust data systems, adopt higher standards, and take teacher effectiveness seriously. In an alternate timeline without these incentives, many states would have maintained the status quo—a patchwork of low standards, meaningless teacher evaluations, and limited accountability. The economic crisis would have led to education cuts without the counterbalancing pressure to improve. While Race to the Top wasn't perfect, it created a national conversation about educational excellence that might otherwise have been drowned out by economic concerns."

Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, pedagogical theorist and expert on culturally relevant pedagogy, provides this analysis: "Race to the Top represented a missed opportunity to address educational equity in profound ways. In an alternate timeline without it, we might have seen two divergent possibilities. Either education policy would have remained stuck in No Child Left Behind's test-and-punish approach, or—and this is my hope—we might have developed more culturally responsive, community-centered approaches to school improvement. The federal dollars that went to implementing common standards and assessments could have been invested in community schools, wrap-around services, and teacher preparation that explicitly addresses the needs of diverse learners. The absence of Race to the Top might have created space for more grassroots, culturally sustaining innovation rather than top-down standardization."