Sixteenth place California came up six spots and 17.3 points short of getting a big piece of the $3.4 billion second round of Race to the Top. But its big improvement from the first-round application prompted U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to tell reporters Tuesday that he was “sad and disappointed” there wasn’t enough money in the pot for California – and for several other states with promising school reforms that ranked just out of the money.

Duncan, who also awarded $600 million in the first round to two states – Delaware and Tennessee – has asked Congress for an additional $1.35 billion for a third round next year.

Duncan announced 10 winners – nine states and the District of Columbia – out of the 19 finalists and 36 states that applied in the second round. Two of the states – Florida and second- ranked New York – each grabbed the maximum $700 million that California could have gotten. Other winners were Georgia, Hawaii,  first-time applicant Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and top-scoring Massachusetts, with 471 points. It, like California, boosted its chances by adopting common-core standards at the wire after great debate.  Call it an East Coast bias, but only one state was from west of the Mississippi.

California’s score in the second round rose 25 percent – 86 points on a scale of 500, from 337 to 423. But other states’ scores rose, too– an average of 30 points.

California’s second round application was markedly different from other states’ and its own initial application. Seven reform-oriented superintendents, not the Department of Education, led the effort to create with a more definitive, vigorous plan that met the goals pushed by the Obama administration. The seven unified districts – Los Angeles, Long Beach, Fresno, San Francisco, Sacramento City, Clovis, and Sanger – were eventually joined by nearly 300 districts, county offices of education and charter schools.

By signing on, they made commitments to change how teachers and principals are trained, assigned, evaluated and paid, how science and math with be taught, and how data and technology will be used.  The districts specifically pledged that within four years, teacher turnover rates in low-performing schools would be no greater than the average within the district.  They committed to create a new evaluation system for principals and teachers with at least 30 percent of it based on measures of student academic growth. They committed to base promotion and tenure decisions using that new system.

But most of the districts, including Los Angles, San Francisco and Long Beach unified districts, made those commitments without the consent of their teachers unions, which refused to sign on to the agreements. Districts would have to negotiate the terms with the unions; this uncertainty was a weakness in the state’s plan.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education will release the reviewers’ comments and scores for every state application, so it will be clear how California rated in each of the 30 criteria and stacked up against the winners. It’s likely that the state’s malfunctioning student data base and the lack of teachers union support hurt the state’s score.

The superintendents of California’s seven lead districts have said they have created a dynamic for change and would continue to work together, win or lose.

Over the weekend, in response to the Los Angeles Times’ plan to publish data tying teachers to student test scores, LAUSD officials and the teachers union finally agreed to negotiate new teacher performance reviews – a switch in the union’s position.   Deputy Superintendent John Deasy predicated an agreement could come soon.

Had they gotten this done months ago – and other districts followed the lead – the state’s application would have been stronger. And would be next time, too  – if there is a third round.