The selection of DE and TN answers the questions I posed this morning--not necessarily in the ways I wanted, but we got answers nonetheless.
First, both state had good plans. Not great plans but certainly good. And the Department deserves credit for selecting only two states. Secretary Duncan was tougher in choosing winners than in choosing finalists, and I give him credit for that.
But what "tougher" means turns out to be much more interesting than I expected.
The story here is just how important?????stakeholder support??? turned out to be. Florida, Louisiana, and Rhode Island had very good plans, but their unions didn't buy in, especially in RI and FL. ??So those states lost.
Two other finalists, North Carolina and Kentucky, had weak plans but high stakeholder support. They lost too.
Tennessee and Delaware distinguished themselves with good plans and nearly unanimous union and LEA support. They won.
So both a strong, reform-oriented proposal and broad stakeholder support are necessary conditions. ??But neither on its own is sufficient.
This formula, however sensible on its face, puts other states in a very difficult position. First, Florida, Louisiana, and Rhode Island now have to wonder, ???What reforms do we give up in order to get our stakeholders to support the plan? Do we lighten up on teacher evaluations? Do we give up performance pay? Do we take it easier on failing schools.???
Second, and related, in other states, unions and districts may conclude that they have a veto over their states' proposals. If a state adds an element with which they disagree, these organizations can simply say, ???Unless you change that provision, we won't sign on and you won't win.???
The implications of this for round two are terribly fascinating and not altogether encouraging. Assuming that few if any states are somehow able to convince their stakeholders to sign on to a very bold plan, the question becomes. "Which is better: a bold plan with no buy-in or a watered-down plan with buy-in?'
--Andy Smarick