Fifteen states and the District of Columbia made the cutoff for Race to the Top, the Department of Education announced today. As predicted by education reporters and observers who compared states’ applications, California wasn’t among them.

The finalists, which will argue their case this month in Washington, included the expected front-runners: Florida, Tennessee, Colorado, the District of Columia, Massachusetts and Louisiana, plus Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,  New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell didn’t make an outright commitment to reapply for the second round, when several billion of the $4.35 billion competition should still be on the table.  But he indicated that the state might, after reviewing the unnamed judges’ critique of the state’s application. The state will get that seven-page document next month. Second-round applications will be due June 1.

“We developed a very thoughtful application that outlines how we can make systemic changes to California’s public education system that will improve outcomes for all our children, ” he said.

Another observer expressed disappointment of a different sort. Former Bush administration adviser Andrew Smarick, writing on the Fordham Institute’s web site, said including so many states as finalists contradicted Secretary Arne Duncan’s commitment to a high bar for reform: “The US Department of Education had the opportunity today to send a clear signal–that the Race to the Top is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that very good wouldn’t be good enough, that only the biggest and boldest plans would merit consideration. Instead, the administration accepted 15 states and Washington, DC–nearly 1/3 of all applicants–as finalists.

“The list includes Kentucky, a state with no charter law and New York, which brashly rejected reform legislation–including a critical cap lift provision–in advance of the deadline. It includes Colorado, which backed off of important reforms related to teachers, and Ohio, whose proposal was weak in a number of areas.”