Race to the Top (R2T, RTTT or RTT) was a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education competitive grant created to spur and reward innovation and reforms in state and local district K–12 education. Funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, it was announced by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. States competing for the grants were awarded points for enacting certain educational policies, instituting performance-based evaluations for teachers and principals based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness (tied to targeted professional development and feedback), adopting common standards (though adoption of the Common Core state standards was not required), adopting policies that did not prohibit (or effectively prohibit) the expansion of high-quality charter schools, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building and using data systems.
Criteria for funding
State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the selection criteria were: Great teachers and leaders (138 total points) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points) Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points) State success factors (125 total points) Articulating state's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points) Standards and assessments (70 total points) Developing and adopting common standards (40 points) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points) Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points) General selection criteria (55 total points) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points) Making education funding a priority (10 points) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (50 total points) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points) Data systems to support instruction (47 total points) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points) Using data to improve instruction (18 points) Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the selection criteria above, applicants were assessed based on six priorities, including the prioritization of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education which is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500. Priority 1, absolute priority: comprehensive approach to education reform Priority 2, competitive preference priority: emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (This priority was worth 15 points, bringing the "selection criteria" total to 500 points) Priority 3, invitational priority: innovations for improving early learning outcomes Priority 4, invitational priority: expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems Priority 5, invitational priority: P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment Priority 6, invitational priority: school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning
The applications for Race to the Top were bolstered by local involvement: states were incentivized to get buy-in from school district superintendents and teacher unions; applications required signatures from the states' education chiefs, governors, and attorneys general in order to qualify.
Effects Several states changed their education policies to make their applications more competitive. For instance, Illinois increased the cap on the number of charter schools it allows from 60 to 120; Massachusetts passed legislation to "aggressively intervene in [its] lowest-performing schools", and West Virginia proposed, but did not establish, a performance-based salary system that would have included student achievement in its compensation calculations. In order to be eligible, states couldn't have laws prohibiting the use of measures of student achievement growth in teacher evaluations. Some states had banned the use of value-added modeling in evaluations, but changed their laws to be eligible.
Race to the Top is one contributing factor to 48 states that have adopted common standards for K-12. Adoption was accelerated by the August 1, 2010 deadline for adopting common standards, after which states would not receive points toward round 2 applications. In addition, the White House announced a $350 million federal grant funding the development of assessments aligned to the common standards. The Common Core State Standards, one set of standards adopted by states for Race to the Top, were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers with funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and others. Adoption of the Common Core State Standards, however, was not required by Race to the Top.
Timetable Phase 1 applications for funding were due on January 19, 2010. 40 states applied for funding, as did the District of Columbia. Phase 1 finalists were announced on March 4, 2010, and phase 1 winners were announced on March 29, 2010. The deadline for submitting Phase 2 applications was June 1; Phase 2 decisions were announced on August 24, 2010. Phase 3 applications were split into two parts. Part I was due November 22, 2011 and Part II was due December 16. Awards were announced on December 23. Winners of Phase 3 included: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Only Phase 2 finalists who did not earn money were eligible. Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge, jointly conducted by the Department of Education and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, applications were due October 20. On April 9, 2012, the Department of Education announced there would be a second round of the Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge. The five states that were close to winning in the first round (CO, IL, NM, OR, WI) would compete for $133 million. On May 22, 2012, the Department of Education proposed draft criteria for a district-level Race to the Top program. On December 19, 2013, six additional states (Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont) were awarded a total of $280 million from the 2013 Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) fund.
Awards States were eligible for different funding award brackets depending on their share of the federal population of children between the ages of 5–17. Phase 1 award bands ranged from $20–75 million up to the highest phase 1 award range of $350–$700 million. Only the four largest states, by population, (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) were eligible for this highest bracket. Over three rounds, 18 states plus the District of Columbia were awarded grants totaling $4.1 billion (not including RTTT-Early Learning Challenge grants). These awardees in aggregate serve approximately 22 million students making up approximately 45% of the all K-12 students in the United States.
+ Race to the Top results State Round 1 score (place) Round 1 result Round 2 score (place) Round 2 result Round 3 score Round 3 result Alabama 291.2 (37th) – 212.0 (36th) – – – Arizona 240.2 (40th) – 435.4 (12th) Finalist – Awarded $25 million Arkansas 394.4 (17th) – 389.2 (21st) – California 336.8 (27th) – 423.6 (16th) Finalist Colorado 409.6 (14th) Finalist 420.2 (17th) Finalist – Awarded $18 million Connecticut 344.6 (25th) – 379.0 (25th) – Delaware 454.6 (1st) Awarded $100 million – – District of Columbia 402.4 (16th) Finalist 450.0 (6th) Awarded $75 million Florida 431.4 (4th) Finalist 452.4 (4th) Awarded $700 million Georgia 433.6 (3rd) Finalist 446.4 (8th) Awarded $400 million Hawaii 364.6 (22nd) – 462.4 (3rd) Awarded $75 million Idaho 331.0 (28th) – Did not submit – Illinois 423.8 (5th) Finalist 426.6 (15th) Finalist – Awarded $43 million Indiana 355.6 (23rd) – Did not submit – Iowa 346.0 (24th) – 382.8 (22nd) – Kansas 329.6 (29th) – Did not submit – Kentucky 418.8 (9th) Finalist 412.4 (19th) Finalist – Awarded $17 million Louisiana 418.2 (11th) Finalist 434.0 (13th) Finalist – Awarded $17 million Maine Did not submit – 283.4 (33rd) – Maryland Did not submit – 450.0 (6th) Awarded $250 million Massachusetts 411.4 (13th) Finalist 471.0 (1st) Awarded $250 million Michigan 366.2 (21st) – 381.6 (23rd) – Minnesota 375.0 (20th) – Did not submit – Mississippi Did not submit – 263.4 (34th) – Missouri 301.4 (33rd) – 316.4 (30th) – Montana Did not submit – 238.4 (35th) – Nebraska 247.4 (39th) – 295.8 (31st) – Nevada Did not submit – 381.2 (24th) – New Hampshire 271.2 (38th) – 335.2 (29th) – New Jersey 387.0 (18th) – 437.8 (11th) Finalist – Awarded $38 million New Mexico 325.2 (30th) – 366.2 (28th) – New York 408.6 (15th) Finalist 464.8 (2nd) Awarded $700 million North Carolina 414.0 (12th) Finalist 441.6 (9th) Awarded $400 million Ohio 418.6 (10th) Finalist 440.8 (10th) Awarded $400 million Oklahoma 294.6 (34th) – 391.8 (20th) – Oregon 292.6 (35th) – Did not submit – Pennsylvania 420.0 (7th) Finalist 417.6 (18th) Finalist – Awarded $41 million Rhode Island 419.0 (8th) Finalist 451.2 (5th) Awarded $75 million South Carolina 423.2 (6th) Finalist 431.0 (14th) Finalist South Dakota 135.8 (41st) – Did not submit – Tennessee 444.2 (2nd) Awarded $500 million – – Utah 379.4 (19th) – 379.0 (25th) – Vermont – – Virginia 324.8 (31st) – Did not submit – Washington Did not submit – 290.6 (32nd) – West Virginia 292.4 (36th) – Did not submit – Wisconsin 341.2 (26th) – 368.4 (27th) – Wyoming 318.6 (32nd) – Did not submit –
Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont did not submit Race to the Top applications for either round.
After both rounds, the Department of Education released the complete scoring of each application, with the intention of making the scoring process more transparent and helping states revise their applications to be more competitive for the second round of competition.
Round 1 (a.k.a. Phase 1) winners were announced on March 29, 2010. Round 2 (a.k.a. Phase 2) Winners were announced on August 24, 2010. Round 3 (a.k.a. Phase 3) Winners were announced on December 23, 2011.
Results
As an parts of Race to the Top, the U.S. Department of Education puts out an Annual Performance Report (APR), cataloguing the grantees' progress in implementing reform plans and meeting goals for student outcomes.
APR's are created for each state to document the progress toward the annual and four-year targets set forth in the grantees' applications. Because the performance measures included in the applications are indicators of success in improving student outcomes, the APR is one way to hold states accountable for meeting targets in improving student outcomes. An APR also includes reports and updates on laws, statutes, regulations, and/or guidelines that impact reform plans, as well as progress in meeting the "absolute priority" and "competitive preference priority", which emphasize a comprehensive focus on reform and an emphasis on STEM education. The APR includes updates on progress in meeting the invitation priorities in the approved plans (innovations for improving early learning outcomes; expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems; P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment; and school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning).