EdVANTAGE Blog

Here is a chart that shows how New York’s “Race to the Top” application compares to those of higher scoring states on each of the criteria used to rate the proposal.

When the federal government announced the first round winners in its $4.35 billion systemic education reform initiative, only two states (Delaware and Tennessee) were awarded funding.  New York placed 15th out of 16 finalists.

In the aftermath of failure, hunting scapegoats became a popular preoccupation.  Blame fell on the Legislature for failing to raise the state’s charter school cap, the State Education Department for proposing to use federal aid to purchase expensive office furniture, and teacher unions for resisting the use of student performance data in professional evaluations.

But careful review of how New York’s application compared to higher ranked states yields a more complex picture of the reality the state must address as it assembles an application for round two – due in Washington by June 1.

Understanding the chart: The chart compares New York’s scores on each criterion with those of the two winning states and the average score for the other 12 higher ranked states.

Where New York has bars extending to the right of the “zero” line, that indicates New York did better on that criterion than one or more of the higher ranked states.  Where the bars point left, New York did worse.

For example, New York scored 8 points worse than Delaware (blue bar) on securing school district support for its application, but 5 points better than Tennessee (red bar) on improving student outcomes.  Where no bar appears, that indicates New York had the same score as a higher ranked state.

The row headings on the left side also show how many points New York earned out of those possible for each item.

The chart can be used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks as New York State proceeds to develop an application to compete for a share of the remaining funding in the second round.

Strengths: New York’s strongest areas compared to higher ranked states were in “Improving student outcomes” and “Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals.”  The latter area draws on State Education Commissioner David Steiner’s expertise and experience as Dean of the Hunter College School of Education.

Like the other high ranking states, New York scored well on standards and assessments, receiving 29 out of 30 available points.

Weaknesses: New York’s weakest areas compared to the higher ranked states were in “Securing LEA (school district) commitment” for the application, “Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system,” and “Using evaluations to inform key decisions” about teachers and principals.

For all the focus on the charter school cap, New York’s score for ensuring successful conditions for charter schools and other innovative schools trailed Delaware by only four points,Tennessee by three, and the average for the other 12 higher ranked states by four.

In contrast, New York was 14 points behind the two winning states in implementing a data system to track students through school, into college, and beyond.

Opportunities:  Generally, opportunities to gain points by building on existing strengths are limited — because we are already close to the maximum points in those areas.  For example, we already have 20 out of 21 possible points for teacher/leader pathways.

Adding points in weak areas may not be possible in all cases.  New York received only 10 out of 24 possible points for implementing a longitudinal data system based on a simple checklist of required elements.  Here New York may face a “Catch-22″ situation:  we would use RTTT funds to build a better data system, but may lose because we do not already have one.

The state can try to gain points in the use of performance evaluations in personnel decisions, but whether it can do so is uncertain.

In the first round application, SED outlined an artful approach, tailored to the realities of New York as a strong collective bargaining state. It would require all districts to use four standard rating levels in evaluations, giving more weight to student outcomes, and use RTTT funds to provide incentives for districts and unions to implement new teacher effectiveness measures.

But the evaluation components were still the most common points of contention in local debates over whether to endorse the state plan, and that plan still came up short in the opinion of federal reviewers.

While the charter school element has been over-emphasized in the media as a factor in the state’s falling short in round one, it is one area with a large pool of points left to be picked up – 13 out of 40. But raising the charter school score could cost district support and thereby lose other points for the state.

Risks: Threatened state budget cuts to School Aid and to SED’s testing operations could hurt the state’s scores for making education funding a priority and for standards and assessments.

Demonstrating local support for the state plan – from superintendents, school boards, and teacher unions – is both an opportunity and a risk.

Although 94 percent of districts submitted memorandums of understanding supporting the state application, only 66 percent of the MOUs were turned into Washington. Some were excluded because they did not promise to implement every element of the state plan. Clearer guidance from SED would have boosted that yield.  But achieving the same level of support for round two, from districts or unions, will be a challenge.

• The Department’s handling of the first round MOU process produced justified frustration among local leaders.
• The financial prospects for school districts have become clearer  since round one application was submitted — on the day Governor Paterson released his proposed state budget recommending a record reduction in School Aid.  There are more questions about how all schools could accommodate new requirements that would arise in implementing  a state RTTT plan.
• Also, the federal government’s demands for charter school expansion are better understood than during the first MOU exercise: to gain maximum points the state might need to more than double the number of charter schools permitted to operate. This would impose a recurring cost upon some districts far beyond any financial reward they could gain through RTTT.

In conferring with Council leaders on how to assess the state’s latest RTTT efforts, three priorities emerged:  they want more details on the state’s application sooner, they want more lead-time to consider the application before the MOU deadline (tentatively May 21), and they want a sense they have had input into the plan.

Yet with Washington’s insistence on sticking with a June 1 state application deadline, these desires are both reasonable and irreconcilable:  taking more time to seek and incorporate field input could delay completion of the application and compress the time available to local leaders to consider the MOU request.

The financial challenges facing the state are unprecedented in recent memory.  Race to the Top funding offers the best and only foreseeable hope for modernizing the infrastructure of state education policy – standards, assessments, curricula, data systems, and teaching and leadership structures. Ensuring that the application the state submits warrants support from local school leaders will be a demanding exercise over the coming weeks.