I'm a sucker for charter schools, scatter plots, Google docs, and good Race to the Top??analysis, so this post by Nelson Smith over at NAPCS was right up my alley. If any of these things strike your fancy, you ought to check it out too.
The graphic shows that there is a relatively strong correlation between the Alliance's ranking of state charter laws and RTT scorers' evaluations of the charter sections of state applications.
But the relationship is far from perfect, and that's meaningful. Some states scored much better with the Alliance, others better with the feds. This raises important (and, in some cases, fixable) questions about the RTT scoring rubric and judges' scoring.
For example, Ohio scored highly with the feds despite its charter cap, for which it should have lost points. With a little technical assistance from ED, peer reviewers will be able to see through exaggerated state claims.
There's no reason that these two variables have to be perfectly related. The administration had the right to define for itself what a good charter environment looks like. However, the administration did align its criteria with the Alliance's in many instances, for example on caps and funding.
In those cases, if a state is rated quite differently by the two, something has gone amiss. ED's RTT team is a hard-working and detail-oriented lot. I hope they've looked into this and devised ways to help their peer reviewers in round two.
--Andy Smarick