Education reformers entered the national Race to the Top grant competition enthused and hopeful that California would be among the winners.
Alas, the state wasn’t among the finalists, and ranked 27th in the scoring among the 41 states that applied.
So now, reformers have swung the other direction, falling into discouragement and resignation – and questioning whether the state should even apply in the next round, with applications due in June.
Meanwhile, some of those who opposed the Race to the Top “four pillars” approach – high-quality standards and assessments, using data to improve instruction, measuring teacher and principal effectiveness and turning around the lowest-achieving schools – are gloating at California’s failure. Among those are the teachers union at one end of the spectrum and, at the other, libertarians who reject federal involvement in public education.
There is little reason to gloat. California and much of the rest of the country confront a crisis of public education, so it is only appropriate the federal government creates financial incentives for reform. Race to the Top proved those incentives, with the right priorities. Rather than give up, reformers need to learn from the outcome of the application process, which proved useful in exposing the state’s strengths and weaknesses.
On the plus side, California’s application had strong support from the higher-education community, parents, foundations, business organizations and researchers. It won praise from reviewers for that.
California also scored well for its long history in setting academic standards and aligning assessments to those standards. It scored well for having one of the most extensive systems in the nation for providing alternate pathways for teacher credentialing.
What was missing?
The state scored low on developing data systems to link student and teacher data to measure student academic improvement and teacher effectiveness. Reviewers also noted that the state does not currently collect data on developing, compensating, promoting, granting tenure to and removing educators.
California’s lag in these data areas is directly attributable to teacher union opposition. The California Teachers Association has long resisted attempts to tie teacher pay and ratings to student performance, arguing that such measurements are arbitrary and misleading. As a result, the CTA discouraged local union chapters from signing on. In preparing its application, the state in turn allowed schools and districts to sign an opt-out provision if elements would be in conflict with local collective bargaining agreements. This was noticed immediately by reviewers.
California can’t hitch its wagon entirely to Race to the Top. It needs to adequately finance public education and give local school districts more latitude in reaching high standards. Yet Race to the Top revealed much about California’s internal resistance to reform. Will we learn from that experience?