In this policy brief, TNTP lauds Race to the Top for spurring more statewide reform last year in education “than in the previous two decades,” attributing its success to the clear priorities and guidance for applicant states, and the transparency established by making applications available for public review.
However, TNTP criticizes the ambiguity and subjectivity involved in the review process, and identifies several areas that must be improved should RttT be reauthorized for a third round:
- Lack of differentiation in some areas of scoring, such as in the “Great Teachers and Leaders” section, where 86 percent of second-round applicants received high points and no state received low points.
- General rating inflation, especially from Round 1 to 2.
- Deviation from the scoring guidance.
- Excessive influence of outlier ratings on final scores, most notably for state like Louisiana, which many commentators believed deserved an award.
- Inconsistent scoring from state to state. For example, Illinois enacted five pieces of education reform legislation and secured participation from districts representing 81 percent of students in the state. Ohio secured significantly less participation from districts representing only 62 percent of students in the state, and had not enacted legislation to the degree of Illinois. In this section Ohio outscored Illinois by six points.
TNTP suggests that these issues allowed for possibly less-deserving states to win at the expense of states truly committed to reform.
States were also not rewarded for their depth of commitment to education reform. States such as Colorado and Louisiana took significant steps to solidify reform policies through legislation, but their application scores do not reflect this commitment. Ohio and Hawaii, on the other hand, made no legislative commitments as part of their applications, yet still managed to secure awards.
TNTP recommends that if Race to the Top is repeated the Department of Education should establish a cross-application review process where applicant reviews are analyzed by other reviewers according to a consistent standard. This will reduce the subjectivity, inflation, and inconsistency that affected applicants adversely. Also, Secretary Duncan should make the final executive decision based on the peer scores and ensure that the contest’s outcomes match its reform priorities.
Read it here.
Resetting Race to the Top: Why the Future of Competition Depends on Improving the Scoring Process
The New Teacher Project (TNTP)
December 2010