Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has  left plenty of money on the table for the second round of Race to the Top, with the selection of only Delaware and Tennessee as first-round winners. But California  will have to elbow its way past  a slew of states promoting more far-reaching reforms to get a penny of the untouched $3.5 billion. Without a major rewrite of its proposal and vigorous support from skeptical teachers unions, California’s chances at the moment look slim.

California ranked 27th out of the 40 states in the first round rankings released on Monday. Based a 500-point scale, California rated a measly score of 337 – way behind Delaware’s top 455 and Tennessee’s 444. Just to move up to the top 15 states and edge out New York, which also will be  competing for  upwards of a $500 million share, would require an additional 73 points – and a leap of expectations. It would require  stronger commitments to evaluate teachers more effectively and use data systems more powerfully – two of the Obama administration’s priorities.

Five judges read California’s Race to the Top plan and scored it independently. On Monday, Duncan released the individual scores though not the names of the individual judges, as well as their extensive comments on each element of California’s proposal. They provide not only a critique of what California might do to compete but also insights into how the unnamed outsiders view education here.  They weren’t dismissive; in fact, they generally liked the concepts of the state’s plan. But they thought it was vague on details and they weren’t convinced the state could deliver what it promised.

There were  variations of over more than 100 points between the highest and lowest scoring judge; the latter, with 273 points, simply disliked a lot. But not one judge scored California above 400.

As could be predicted,  California scored well with its state standards and state exams that are aligned to them  and its welcoming charter school law. But it was dinged hard on its incomplete statewide data system, its inability to persuade more school districts and a lot more unions to join Race to the Top effort,  its lack of clarity in promoting and evaluating teachers and principals effectively and its failure to show how its vision for reform would actually work.

As for some of what two judges had to say (download PDF):

Judge 4, with the lowest score, 273: Even this judge praised the plan’s overall  strategies to “support new ways of doing business:  encouraging local flexibility and innovation, strengthening local-state partnerships, developing and implementing metric based accountability systems, and increasing parent choice and empowerment.” But, the judge said, “The link between the reform agenda’s goals and actions is not strong.” Fewer than half of school districts and only a quarter of unions signed on.

“Especially troubling at this point in the proposal is the lack of teacher union ownership of the RTTT initiative, which will create a major barrier to California’s plans regarding personnel evaluation and decisions. The proposal lists teacher unions as important to the improvement of performance, but does not give evidence for how they brought into evaluation and decision processes that will impact many of their members.”

Overall assssment: “Throughout the proposal California loses points for lack of implementation plans and details. Specific details are impossible in a proposal of such immense magnitude, but California could
have struck a better balance between concept and action, strategy and tactics.”

Judge 3, with the highest score, 387: The state’s proposal is comprehensive, coherently addresses all of the criteria, and has sufficiently broad support to have statewide impact. The state has previously demonstrated its commitment to the reform agenda articulated in the notice, and presents a high-quality plan that is focused on improving student achievement and outcomes. The most troubling features of the plan are the low level of teachers union support for the ambitious reform agenda, and the risk that the $700 million of funds requested by the state for the LEAs (local districts) is deployed as supplementary operating funding and not used explicitly to advance the Race to the Top reforms.”

On turning around low-achieving schools: “The state demonstrates a commitment to trying to turnaround low achieving schools and a strong methodology for identifying these schools.”

On its overall approach: “The concept of “a new local-state relationship” may result in inefficient implementation of the program and may represent an attempt by the state to garner support for the application – especially given the amount and percentage of grant funds being allocated to the LEAs in the proposal – without garnering commitment to its components.”

*****

There was a lot of chatter on the Internet following the announcement of the winners that Duncan had put his thumb on the scale to choose states with two moderate Republican leaders, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle. But that idle speculation discounts the scoring system and the judges’ thoroughness. A review of the California judges’ comments shows they took their jobs seriously, and Duncan apparently did, too.