������Ƶ

Much has been said about the Department of Education’s recent announcement of the winning states in the first round of Race to the Top grants. Only two of the 16 finalists states – Delaware and Tennessee – were selected to win the competitive grant aimed at encouraging innovation at the state level. These states received the most points from the panel of reviewers out of the 500 possible – 455 for Delaware and 444 for Tennessee. The resulting has centered on the two states’ abilities to garner widespread stakeholder support – particularly from teachers unions – for their Race to the Top plans. But a closer look suggests that the for each state were tipped by more than just stakeholder support.

Indeed, both Delaware and Tennessee got high marks under the “broad stakeholder support” subcategory – 9.8 of the possible 10 points. But so did Kentucky (awarded 9.6 points) and Ohio (awarded the complete 10 points). Delaware and Tennessee also did well in securing commitment from local education agencies (LEAs), as did Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and North Carolina (all earned 9.8 point or more).[1]

If that’s the case, then how did Delaware and Tennessee stand out from the pack?

Initially, it looks like the answer lies in the standards and assessments section. Delaware got nearly every point possible in each subcategory in this section that focuses on the development of common academic standards and rigorous assessments. Tennessee did nearly as well with a one exception – support for the transition to the new standards and assessments. But, most states did well in this section. Seven additional states were awarded the vast majority of points available in three or more subcategories under the standards and assessments section.

Delaware and Tennessee also scored well in the section of a application relating to state data systems used for improving instruction, receiving 93 percent or more of the possible points. Most states didn’t do nearly as well in this section, giving Delaware and Tennessee somewhat of an advantage.

In reality, it looks like the “great teachers and leaders” section really made the difference. This section awarded states points based on their plans to improve the training, distribution, and quality of teachers and the supports provided for them. But this is not because Delaware and Tennessee did exceptionally in the category; it’s because most other states did much worse. Six states were awarded 75 percent or fewer of the possible points in four or more subcategories in this section. An additional three states received such low scores in three or more subcategories. In fact, only five of the 16 finalist states performed somewhat solidly in this category. Of those, only Delaware and Louisiana got 86 percent or more of the total 138 possible points.

Several states also did poorly on the 30 point section concerning whether a state has demonstrated improvements in student outcomes, including Tennessee. Ten of the 16 finalist states received 18 points or fewer of the possible 25 in this section, floundering in one of the largest single subcategories.

In summary, it looks like stakeholder support was only one variable among many that clinched the victory for Delaware and Tennessee. Other states’ relatively low scores under the data systems and “great teachers and leaders” sections allowed the winning states to stand out. This suggests that if some of the other states had strengthened their either of these sections, even holding union support constant or decreasing it slightly, they might have been able to bolster their scores enough to change the outcome.

So, the Race to the Top game may not be just about stakeholder support, but about the whole package. This time around, Tennessee and Delaware had the best whole package, thanks to some of the other states’ lack luster showings. Who will stand out next round? Will the losing states strengthen their teacher and leaders plans or sacrifice rigor for greater stakeholder support? Given the relative size of potential points in each section (10 points for support versus 138 for teacher plans), Ed Money Watch would suggest the former strategy.

A spreadsheet containing breakdowns for each state’s score can be downloaded .