Later today, we'll find out which states have been selected as winners in the first round of the Race to the Top. The Department's announcement will answer three burning questions: How many? Why???Which?
The number of states chosen is important for two reasons. First and most importantly, it will send a signal about how tough the administration is willing to be. The fewer states selected, the higher the bar. If very few states win, expect more reforms at the state level between now and the second filing deadline and expect improved applications. If lots of states win, the administration will have compromised the program's influence.
The second reason the number of winners is important relates to money. If many states win, there will be less money available in round two. This could potentially depress the number of states willing to apply, meaning fewer state-level reforms. If few win, more money will be available, more states will (re)apply, and hopefully states will compete hard to win--meaning more state-level policy improvements and strong proposals.
My hope: 1 winnerGood news: 2 - 3 winners
Significant reason for concern: 4 - 6 winners
Lost opportunity: 7 or more winners
The second question is why states are selected. There are four factors. The first and most valuable is the reform substance of proposals: How bold are the plans? Second is the gap between promises and execution. Will the Department reward states with merely big promises or will they only make awards to states with promises and the necessary policies in place to carry them out?
Third is "stakeholder support." Which will be rewarded: a bold plan with limited stakeholder support or a meek plan with lots of stakeholder support? Fourth is past accomplishments. Will states be rewarded for improving achievement in recent years or will awards only go to states with big plans for the future? [quote]
Best-case scenario: Winning states have bold plans and the policy architecture already in place to carry them out. The feds dismiss state promises to merely "discuss" or "study" issues or improve policies at some point in the future. The feds decide that it's far better to reward a bold plan with limited stakeholder support than a weak proposal that captured broad support by appeasing the state's reform-hostile establishment organizations. The feds acknowledge states' recent gains but don't allow them to substitute for big future plans.Worst case scenario: Awards are made to states with worthy aspirations but obstructionist policies and contracts. The feds reward states with plans for blue-ribbon committees and study groups instead of laws on the books. Stakeholder support trumps big reforms. Past accomplishments trump future plans.
The final issue, of course, is which states will win. If I were in charge, only Florida would receive an award in this first round. Should the Department select more than one--and I suspect it will--Louisiana deserves to be among the winners.??Concerns mount, however, once the Department gets to three and above, because all other applications had important shortcomings.
Here's my rank ordering of the states. If Secretary Duncan picks only FL and LA, he'll get big praise from me. The further into the "Good, needs improvement" category he digs, the more concerned I'll be. If any of the "Not deserving" states are selected, the RTT opportunity was lost.
- Florida: Deserving
- Louisiana: Nearly Deserving
- Rhode Island: Good, needs improvement
- Delaware: Good, needs improvement
- Tennessee: Good, needs improvement
- Colorado: Good, needs improvement
- DC: Good, needs improvement
Not Deserving:??Ohio,??New York,??North Carolina,??Illinois,??South Carolina, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Georgia,??Kentucky
--Andy Smarick