States' Applications, Scores and Comments Resources - Race to the Top Fund

Resources - Race to the Top Fund

RACE TO THE TOP FUND

	Purpose Funding Status Eligibility Laws, Regs, & Guidance Applicant Info Resources Awards FAQs Performance Contacts
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Home

States' Applications, Scores and Comments

As part of its commitment to transparency in governance, the Department is providing the public with the applications it received from states applying to the Race to the Top program and the reviewers' scores and comments. A minimal amount of personal information has been redacted from the applications. The videos of the State presentations will be posted here by April 9th.

• Summary chart of the Phase 1 scores for each State. PDF (M)

Alabama	Application PDF (20.8M) Appendix PDF (43.6K)	Score sheet PDF(43.6KB)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.79M)
Arizona	Application PDF (10.4M) Appendix PDF (4.72M)	Score sheet PDF(43.5K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.03M)
Arkansas	Application PDF (9.16M) Appendix PDF (37.3M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6KB)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(2.86M)
California	Application PDF (8.71M) Appendix PDF (32.6M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.48M)
Colorado	Application PDF (12.3M) Appendix PDF (71.8M)	Score sheet PDF(50.9K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(17.9M)
Connecticut	Application PDF (16.9M) Appendix PDF (34.5M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.4M)
Delaware	Application PDF (13.0M) Appendix PDF (42.4M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(16.2M)
District of Columbia	Application PDF (15.2M) Appendix PDF (73.2M)	Score sheet PDF(50.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(20.1M)
Florida	Application PDF (27.9M) Appendix PDF (64.5M)	Score sheet PDF(50.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(9.85M)
Georgia	Application PDF (25.6M) Appendix PDF (70.4M)	Score sheet PDF(50.9K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(18.2M)
Hawaii	Application PDF (10.8M) Appendix PDF (71.6M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.65M)
Idaho	Application PDF (19.2M) Appendix PDF (63.9M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.40M)
Illinois	Application PDF (18.2M) Appendix PDF (51.9M)	Score sheet PDF(50.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(15.7M)
Indiana	Application PDF (11.9M) Appendix PDF (38.3M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.16M)
Iowa	Application PDF (26.0M) Appendix PDF (78.5M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.62M)
Kansas	Application PDF (22.8M) Appendix PDF (11.0M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.69M)
Kentucky	Application PDF (18.0M) Appendix PDF (92.7M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(19.2M)
Louisiana	Application PDF (21.2M) Appendix PDF (72.8M)	Score sheet PDF(50.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(19.3M)
Massachusetts	Application PDF (17.2M) Appendix PDF (86.6M)	Score sheet PDF(50.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(17.6M)
Michigan	Application PDF (14.7M) Appendix PDF (80.7M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.64M)
Minnesota	Application PDF (18.9M) Appendix PDF (116M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.7M)
Missouri	Application PDF (19.6M) Appendix PDF (126M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(5.31M)
Nebraska	Application PDF (11.9M) Appendix PDF (27.0M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.48M)
New Hampshire	Application PDF (15.3M) Appendix PDF (92.9M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.20M)
New Jersey	Application PDF (16.8M) Appendix PDF (70.7M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.24M)
New Mexico	Application PDF (35.4M) Appendix PDF (171M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.50M)
New York	Application PDF (25.3M) Appendix PDF (34.1M)	Score sheet PDF(50.9K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(17.2M)
North Carolina	Application PDF (31.1M) Appendix PDF (52.4M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(18.5M)
Ohio	Application PDF (28.7M) Appendix PDF (83.7M)	Score sheet PDF(50.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(13.6M)
Oklahoma	Application PDF (37.4M) Appendix PDF (165M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.26M)
Oregon	Application PDF (14.8M) Appendix PDF (45.7M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(5.53M)
Pennsylvania	Application PDF (23.2M) Appendix PDF (33.3M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(16.0M)
Rhode Island	Application PDF (20.2M) Appendix PDF (55.1M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(21.0M)
South Carolina	Application PDF (12.9M) Appendix PDF (111M)	Score sheet PDF(50.8K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(16.8M)
South Dakota	Application PDF (14.7M) Appendix PDF (28.9M)	Score sheet PDF(43.4K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.56M)
Tennessee	Application PDF (22.8M) Appendix PDF (76.7M)	Score sheet PDF(50.5K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(19.5M)
Utah	Application PDF (18.5M) Appendix PDF (28.0M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.78M)
Virginia	Application PDF (25.8M) Appendix PDF (60.4M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.22M)
West Virginia	Application PDF (14.6M) Appendix PDF (49.5M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(3.22M)
Wisconsin	Application PDF (26.1M) Appendix PDF (25.1M)	Score sheet PDF(43.7K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.26M)
Wyoming	Application PDF (18.1M) Appendix PDF (55.2M)	Score sheet PDF(43.6K)	Reviewers' comments and scores PDF(4.05M)

Under Pressure � The Quick and the Ed

Under Pressure � The Quick and the Ed

Under Pressure

by Erin Dillon

Over at Flypaper, Andy Smarick wonders whether today’s RttT results will put pressure on losing states to water down their applications. Smarick observes that the two winning states, Delaware and Tennessee, had both good applications and broad buy-in from districts and unions. As Smarick notes, losing states with bold proposals could wonder: “Which is better: a bold plan with no buy-in or a watered-down plan with buy-in?”
But doesn’t this also put pressure on the stakeholders, particularly districts and unions? With states are facing such large budget shortfalls, who wants to be the group standing between a strong RttT application and millions

Schools Matter: And the Winners Are . . . The Test Scores

Schools Matter: And the Winners Are . . . The Test Scores

And the Winners Are . . . The Test Scores

by Jim Horn

With the first round of bribes being announced today in Duncan's Race to the Trough, it is now apparent that destroying the teaching profession is even more important to the Business Roundtable than containing, segregating, and psychologically neutering the poor in penal pedagogy charter schools. And so it is today that Duncan's classic behavior mod bribery system recognizes Tennessee and Delaware, where the good unions have become partners with the corporations to create a system of teacher evaluation, advancement, and remuneration that will be based on test scores. And the message to the bad union recalcitrance in DC? The ultimate non-reward of being placed 16th out of 16 finalists.

There is another advantage, too, of putting all the bucks on rewarding state plans to develop pay per score

Why Delaware and Tennessee Won Race to the Top - Politics K-12 - Education Week

Why Delaware and Tennessee Won Race to the Top - Politics K-12 - Education Week

Why Delaware and Tennessee Won Race to the Top

by Michele McNeil

In two words: stakeholder support.
Both states had strong plans and significant buy-in from local school districts and teachers' unions. Other reasons the two states won, according to the Education Department:
Delaware
• Unanimous participation, broad collaboration: 100% of the state's districts and teachers signed on; 100% of the state's students will benefit; stakeholders include governor, state education department, local districts (LEAs), unions, business community
• New state law on teacher/principal effectiveness: no educators can be rated as "effective" unless their students demonstrate satisfactory levels of growth; teachers rated as "ineffective" for two to three years can be removed from the classroom, even if they have tenure
• Financial incentives help to more equitably distribute effective talent: teacher and principals can earn transfer

Thompson: Turnarounds as Snake Oil This Week In Education

This Week In Education

Thompson: Turnarounds as Snake Oil

by john thompson

The Brookings Institute's Tom Loveless argues that "much of the rhetoric on turnarounds is pie in the sky." His study "suggests that people who say we know how to make failing schools into successful schools but merely lack the will to do so are selling snake oil ... Examples of large scale, system-wide turnarounds are nonexistent."
Loveless reports that "the statistics are eye-popping and, in a way depressing. School achievement appears astonishingly persistent. Nearly two thirds of low-performing schools in 1989 are still low performers two decades later." Although about 1/3rd of the schools he studied showed improvement, the chances of one of those low-performing schools becoming a high-performing school are "less than one out of seventy."
So what's the lesson from Loveless' findings? A little more caution -- but not inaction, either.
Nothing in Loveless' study needs to reflect badly upon serious turnaround specialists such as those at Mass Insight. In fact, Loveless echoes their findings when he identifies "the

The Educated Reporter: An Introduction Complete With Easter Eggs

The Educated Reporter: An Introduction Complete With Easter Eggs

An Introduction Complete With Easter Eggs

The Educated Reporter herself is a bit busy on a time-consuming project this week that will surely make the rest of us all the more educated. In the meantime, I will occupy the TER chair for the week. Who am I? I am an educated (at times, miseducated, perhaps) reporter from the smaller world of Baton Rouge, the state capital of the great independent state of Louisiana. I cover schools in this medium-sized city and have been doing so for the past nine years. I will be gathering into my virtual net various flotsam and jetsam drawn from my own work and from the greater education world at large. Enjoy.

First up, I had the good fortune last week to interview the lively, talkative and entertaining six-year-old Sunna Jones about her upcoming trip to the White House's annual Easter Egg Roll being held April 5, the day after Easter. It was a short feature with a picture. Here it is if you're interested: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/89313547.html?showAll=y&c=y. Not being a D.C. native, I had never heard of this event until Sunna's mother, Erin, called