Reformers are wondering why Colorado lost out on Race to the Top money, especially after it enacted a particularly strong teacher evaluation bill just before the application deadline. It turns out that the state apparently didn’t have time to include the text of the legislation, Senate Bill 191, in either their application or in their appendices, relying instead on an earlier (less-powerful) executive order along with a description of the bill. Two reviewers dinged the state pretty hard for this exclusion. One wrote:
During the state team meeting, the applicant verified that its new law, S.B. 191 which was passed prior to submission of this application, requires all LEAs to comply with using evaluation methods that include 50% based on student growth and compliance with a yet-to-be-written definition of educator effectiveness. The team was convincing in describing a strong state-wide mandate for LEA support of this component of its RTT plan. A copy of the bill was not included in the application so the contents of the new law were not available to examine. While the team presentation on this topic was encouraging, Tier 1 comments about aspects of the [Memorandum of Understanding] still are a concern.
Another wrote:
The information shared during the presentation about the enactment of SB 191 in May 2010 establishes a basis for teacher and principal evaluation standards and is intended to define performance targets for effectiveness and growth. By definition this legislation induces [Colorado Education Association] and [American Federation of Teachers] support and establishes a framework for LEA adoption. This reviewer believes that this legislation creates a climate that will result in greater commitment for the State’s reform agenda.
The big difference between a plan, an executive order, and actual legislation is that you don’t need buy-in from legislation. Unless it’s repealed, it’s going to happen because it has to happen. A plan could fall through, and an executive order implies less buy-in than a law and relies on the current governor being around to enforce it. Both of these two reviewers raised their grades for Colorado as the result of SB 191 explanation at the in-person presentation, but it’s clear from these comments that the exclusion of the legislation may have had a large impact on Colorado’s chances. If these two reviewers had matched the average of the other three reviewers on the panel in only the State Success Factors categories*, the places where buy-in really mattered, that would have been enough to put Colorado within .37, on a 500-point scale, of winning $175 million.
*In another bizarre twist, these same two reviewers were the only two who gave the state 0 out of 15 in the STEM category. Fixing that, combined with what I pointed out above, would have been more than enough to put Colorado over the top. Corrected: The STEM piece was all or nothing based on the majority of reviewers, and since 3/5 reviewers gave Colorado 15 points, that was enough to give them full credit.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/11/2012 | U.S. News & World Report highlights ideas from "Moving On Up: How Tuition Tax Breaks Increasingly Favor the Upper-Middle Class." 
5/11/2012 | In Diverse, Steve Burd comments on the Obama administration's plans to address student debt. 
5/11/2012 | Kevin Carey talks to Salon about the government's role in rising student debt.
{ 6 comments }
Very useful info. Thanks so much, very useful indeed…
There are so many states that are making progress that didnt get the money, and some that are making zero progress who got the money. It is the Feds doing to the States what the States do to the People: move the target….
Also, think of what we’ve learned since June about the illusory nature of D.C.’s and NYC’s claims to have increased student performance. and their padding of grad rates. Had reviewed been allowed an 8 minute google, then Colorado and NJ could have had their spots.
Fair point, and I thought of NJ’s mistake when reading about this too. It’s just, in such a public forum and with so much money on the line, there should be a middle step in the review where small mistakes can be corrected. There’s a sense of fair-play that’s violated if people lose on typos.
It’s a lot like New Jersey. They both made a clerical error that probably cost them an award. While I take your point, I think it’s safer for reviewers to only be allowed to go on what’s in front of them.
I understand this is how high-stakes grants work, but isn’t legislation a matter of public record? Couldn’t the reviewers simply google’d the legislation if knowing the text of it was key? I just did, it took eight seconds.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }