The U.S. Department of Education has established final criteria for the Race to the Top grants. Race to the Top will reward states that have created the conditions for education reform and can implement comprehensive reforms. Grants will be given to states that have demonstrated success and those that have the best plans to accelerate reforms in the future, serving as models for other states and districts. States receiving grants will pass on at least 50 percent of funding to local school districts, especially high-needs districts.

Timing

Maryland State Superintendent of Schools Dr. Nancy Grasmick initially announced that Maryland would apply in Phase I of Race to the Top; applications were due in mid-January 2010. However, Dr. Grasmick decided to postpone Maryland's application to Phase II in June 2010, with awards announced in September 2010. The U.S. Department of Education identified two winners for the first round--Delaware and Tennessee. The applications, scores and reviewer comments for all of the Round I states are available online. Maryland has hired a national consultant, Education First, to help it prepare its application, and there is a steering committee and internal work groups. Reform groups are not represented among the decision makers. The first draft of the applications will be sent to stakeholders in early April. School districts and local unions will be asked to indicate their support based on this draft. It is not clear whether there is an opportunity for significant revisions, even though no one outside of MSDE and its consultant will have seen the draft.

Funding

$4 billion is available through a competitive grant process in two phases. Grants of $20 million to $700 million will be awarded to states based on their population of school-age children ages 5 through 17 and plans for reform. Based on its share of children, Maryland would be encouraged to submit a proposal with a budget of $150 million to $250 million. Maryland will apply for $250 million. USDE has now indicated that states cannot seek more than the amount for which they are potentially eligible.

Reform Priorities

Race to the Top awards are designed to advance reforms in four core areas:

• Adopting internationally-benchmarked standards and assessments;
• Recruiting, developing, retaining and rewarding “effective” teachers and principals;
• Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices;
• Turning around low-performing schools.

Eligibility Requirements

States must have:

• Approved applications for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase I and Phase II prior to being awarded a grant. Maryland’s Phase I application was approved in late May / early June. The Phase II application was recently released. Applications must outline the State’s ability to collect and report data on over 30 indicators. States must report data for all indicators for which they currently have information and outline a plan for collecting missing data by September 2011.
• No laws against linking student achievement data and teacher evaluation. Maryland does not have any such law. However. the Governor has proposed legislation that will require student evaluation be considered as part of a teacher's evaluation. There is an effort to water down this proposal, giving greater latitude to school districts, which already had the discretion to do this, but didn't exercise it. Delaware, which won a grant, has made student achievement count for 100 percent, and it will count for 50 percent in Tennesse, the other winner.

Throughout a state’s application, it must demonstrate a comprehensive approach to school reform addressing the four core reform areas addressed above. A state should demonstrate statewide support for reform from school districts and unions and that the state has the capacity to implement proposed plans.

Race to the Top applications will be judged by a panel of reviewers on a 500 point scale.

State Success Factors – 125 points

• Education reform agenda, commitment from school districts.
• Statewide capacity to implement, scale up and sustain proposed plans.
• Progress in raising achievement and closing achievement gaps since 2003.

The State plans to prepare a full draft of its application in early April. At that time, school districts--school boards, superintendents and heads of teacher unions--will be asked to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. The hope is that this process will maximize the extent of local commitment and buy-in. States that did not have strong support from unions and local school boards were hurt in Phase I. On other hand, boldness of ideas counts for a lot. Thus, the only way to get maximum points is have both strong ideas AND support from local districts and unions. Weak ideas with strong local support is not a winning combination.

Student achievement has increased on the state tests, but Maryland’s student achievement is low as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress. Significant achievement gaps remain and have widened based on the latest NAEP results. This is likely to count strongly against Maryland and requires even bolder actions.

Standards and Assessments – 70 points

• Developing and adopting common standards and assessments.

Maryland’s current standards and assessments are weak, based on the gap between student performance on state versus national tests. Maryland has signed on to a national effort to create common standards and assessments for all states. All but two states have agreed to do this, so it is unclear how Maryland can distinguish itself in this area, and it may be penalized for its history of lowering academic standards. The draft standards were released. The Maryland State Board of Education is likely to adopt these standards quickly. The question for Maryland, and for other states, is whether the standards will be backed up by assessments with rigorous passing levels. The only way to do that, and not have huge percentages of disadvantaged students fail, is to provide quality instruction and extra services to these students, which Maryland has failed to do, resulting in having to lower standards in practice. Perhaps a clear committment to provide these services would give Maryland some extra points.

Data Systems to Support Instruction – 47 points

• Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system that can access and use state data from multiple agencies and can be used to improve instruction.

Maryland lacks the ability to fully track student progress and use data to guide instruction. Maryland has not yet implemented all of the 12 required data system elements but has made recent progress. Other states that are further along will likely get more points. For example, Tennessee and Delaware are already tracking student data and were the two Phase I winners. The Governor has proposed legislation to create a new agency to oversee this tracking effort. Unfortunately, it seems that even a strong plan is not good enough to overcome lack of implementation.

Great Teachers and Leaders – 138 points

• Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals
• Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance by measuring student growth and developing evaluation systems. A state’s definition of “effective” must include growth in student achievement.
• Ensuring an equitable distribution of teachers and principals.
• Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs.
• Providing effective support to teacher and principals.

This is the section in which many states will most likely win or lose grants. Maryland has alternatives pathways for new teachers and principals, but few are taking advantage of them, and the State has erected unnecessary barriers to use of these pathways. This will hurt the State's chances.

The Governor has proposed legislation that will link student achievement and teacher evaluation. However, there is pressure to water down this idea. Tennessee and Delaware, the two Phase I winners, have student growth counting for 100 and 50 percent of evaluation, respectively.

As part of this section, the amount of time it takes for a teacher to get tenure is a factor. The Governor's legislation will extend the period to three years. However, 33 other states already have tenure periods of three years or longer. Also, the Maryland legislation seemingly creates a new right for non-tenured teachers to challenge a denial of tenure claiming they did not receive enough mentoring. This will place Maryland below other states.

Maryland has also received poor marks because it very difficult to remove ineffective tenured teachers. It is not clear how a redesigned evaluation will overcome the tremendous barriers to removal of ineffective teachers in Maryland. Some states are much further along in this process and will have a greater ability explaining exactly how their systems will work. Delaware, which won a Phase I grant, has directly linked student growth to all employment decisions. The Maryland State Board of Education can help remove ineffective teachers by denying licenses to teachers who are not performing satisfactorily, based on criteria and an evaluation process established by the Board.

Maryland has one of the nation’s largest teacher quality gaps between low- and high-poverty schools. Many of the State's most challenging schools suffer from major principal turnover. The Governor has proposed legislation that would provide stipends to teachers and principals working in challenging schools. However, the size of the stipends is not specified, and the stipends are dependent on getting the federal grant. Moreover, the Governor is proposing to water down his own idea, instead letting school districts developing their own plans, something they've already had the power to do but haven't. In contrast, the Delaware application includes specific stipend amounts. Other strong applications propose intensive professional development for staff, prior to and during their work with disadvantaged students. The application will need to provide strategies that are highly likely to overcome the historical inequities, and Maryland needs to make commitments to address these issues effectively regardless of whether it gets the grant. The State Board of Education has the power require school districts to provide incentives and use other strategies to recruit and retain talented staff to schools and classrooms with disadvantaged, minority or low-performing students. 

Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools – 50 points

• Identifying, intervening in and turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools and school districts.

Maryland has used a variety of approaches for trying to turn around low-performing schools. Most recently, some schools were zero-based, meaning all staff were required to re-apply for their positions (although it is not clear that this really happened). Most importantly, it is unclear whether the schools were able to attract better principals and staff, without incentives and supports. The quality of principals and teachers is key, and the application needs to explain what Maryland will do to ensure that low-performing schools have strong staff. Strong Phase I applications gave significant authority to principals over hiring and firing of staff.

Students in these schools need access to additional services, and Maryland has not ensured that state resources intended for disadvantaged students pay for these extra services. The application will need to demonstrate a clear commitment to change this pattern. Other states will have a much better track record at turning around failing schools and be able to show they can scale up these efforts.

General – 55 points

• Making education funding a priority.
• Ensuring successful conditions for high performing charter schools and other innovative schools.
• Demonstrating other significant reform conditions.

Maryland has protected K-12 education from significant cuts during the recession, largely because of requirements imposed by accepting federal stimulus money. However, the ongoing state budget crisis will create significant pressure to cut in K-12 funding. Maryland's charter school law is weak because only local school systems can grant charters, there is no capital funding available for charter school buildings and staff at charter schools must adhere to all of the local union rules. This is likely to remain unchanged and result in point deductions.