Additional Analysis of Race to the Top Contest Shows Other States Made Progress that Wisconsin Did Not

By MacIver Institute -

While Wisconsin saw only minor improvements in Phase II of its Race to the Top (RTTT) application, other states showed that major gains were possible in a short amount of time.

After the first round of judging, Wisconsin placed 26th out of 41 applicants – a low score, but ahead of states like Arizona, California, and Oklahoma, and comparable to Hawaii, who came in twenty points ahead but still failed to qualify as a Finalist. Just six months later, the Badger State had dropped to 27th in a smaller field of 36 candidates – and was left in the dust by all of the aforementioned states when it came to improving their national standing.

All four states put Wisconsin in their rearview mirrors in Phase II with drastic improvements. Arizona, California, and Hawaii made the cut for the finals as their scores rose between 79 and 174 points. Oklahoma, despite a 97 point increase, finished one spot away from qualifying. Over this same period, Wisconsin’s application only improved by 27 points, which left the state languished in the bottom 25% of all applicants.

Score Comparison
Difference b/t Phase I and II
Category Max Points WI AZ CA HI OK
(A)(1) Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEA’s participation in it 65 1.6 18.6 13.6 0 2
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 0.8 12.6 9.6 -0.4 1.2
(A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and

sustain proposed plans

 30 0 16.6 5.6 3.8 3.8
C. Data Systems to Support Instruction 47 6.8 9.6 13.4 11 -0.6
D. Great Teachers and Leaders 138 15.4 64 7.4 46.2 33.4
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 0.6 30.4 8.6 11.4 13.4
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions 22 4.8 13.4 6.6 6.8 6.8
(D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 7 11.4 1.4 23.6 9.4
(D)(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 14 3.2 5.8 1.2 2 5.8
(D)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 4.2 11.2 1.2 5.4 6
(F)(2)Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools

and other innovative schools

 40 -0.2 4.6 6.8 14.6 17.2
0 0 0 0 0
Total: 500 27.2 174.8 79 93 97.2

This table showcases the strides made in the categories that Wisconsin had the weakest scores. Nearly all of the states faced similar challenges going into Phase II, but these competitors were able to blow Wisconsin away in fields like accommodating and influencing the hiring/placement of great teachers and administrators as well as securing statewide buy-in to reform. While these states made strides that moved them up the ranks, Wisconsin’s relative inability to reform kept the state from joining them.

Score Comparison
State Results – Phase I
Category Max Points WI AZ CA HI OK
(A)(1) Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEA’s participation in it 65 49.8 32.2 35.2 61 43.4
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 34 22.6 22.8 43.2 30.2
(A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and

sustain proposed plans

 30 23.4 7.4 19.4 25.4 20.4
C. Data Systems to Support Instruction 47 31.2 25.4 17.4 32.6 31.8
D. Great Teachers and Leaders 138 66.8 42.4 100.4 75.6 73
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 24.4 19 38.2 43.2 34.4
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions 22 7.4 8.8 15.4 19.2 15.4
(D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 11.4 5.6 19 0 9.4
(D)(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal

preparation programs

 14 3.8 3.8 12 9.6 5.2
(D)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 8.4 4.6 13.2 13 9.4
(F)(2)Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools

and other innovative schools

 40 29.2 30.8 29.4 18.8 14.8
Total: 500 341.2 240.2 336.8 364.6 294.6

Score Comparison
State Results – Phase II
Category Max Points WI AZ CA HI OK
(A)(1) Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEA’s participation in it 65 51.4 50.8 48.8 61 45.4
(ii) Securing LEA commitment 45 34.8 35.2 32.4 42.8 31.4
(A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up,

and sustain proposed plans

 30 23.4 24 25 29.2 24.2
C. Data Systems to Support Instruction 47 38 35 30.8 43.6 31.2
D. Great Teachers and Leaders 138 82.2 106.4 107.8 121.8 106.4
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 25 49.4 46.8 54.6 47.8
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions 22 12.2 22.2 22 26 22.2
(D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 18.4 17 20.4 23.6 18.8
(D)(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 14 7 9.6 13.2 11.6 11
(D)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 12.6 15.8 14.4 18.4 15.4
(F)(2)Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools

and other innovative schools

 40 29 35.4 36.2 33.4 32
Total: 500 368.4 415 415.8 457.6 391.8

The results of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Oklahoma prove that states with mediocre or even horrible results in Phase I of RTTT could become Finalists in Phase II. Despite lots of conjecture and puffery, Wisconsin simply did not do enough to keep up with these success stories. In the end, a weak history of reform struck again, and an application stuffed with hollow change failed to hold weight against other states whose commitments were solid.