In their Race to the Top applications, some states have downplayed the lack of union support for their reforms. You have read deep into the applications to get the real numbers.

Not California. In his May 28 cover letter to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan accompanying the state’s second-round application (download pdf), Gov. Schwarzenegger wears union opposition as a badge of honor.

He wrote  that the California Teachers Association “actively worked  to prevent union support” for the state’s effort. Then he added,  “I urge you not to penalize states like California that have submitted a detailed plan meeting all the goals of Race to the Top but have not gotten unanimous support of teachers unions. To do this would not only put at grave risk the ultimate goals embodied in Race to the Top, but it would send a message to some unions that their obstructionist tactics can work.”

Duncan may indeed be sympathetic with Schwarzenegger; in encouraging seven lead districts to propose innovative ideas, California is arguing that it needs a beachhead to launch statewide reforms. And, after all, Duncan personally called the governor to ask that the state reapply.

But in order not to penalize California for its paltry union participation – 43 locals, mostly from charter schools, with one union from a big district, Fresno Unified – judges would have to ignore a key category in the detailed point system that Duncan has constructed. And Duncan would have to overlook those states like Colorado that overhauled tenure and collective bargaining laws to score more points this round.

By the end of Tuesday, 35 states and the District of Columbia had submitted applications for the remaining $3.4 billion  that Duncan can hand out. That’s five fewer states than in the first round, but it also excludes Delaware and Tennessee, which won that round. Several states, including Minnesota and Indiana, sat out the second round, while states that didn’t apply the first time – Maryland, Maine, Nevada, Washington – did apply this time.

Perhaps taking a page from Goldman Sachs’ bailout, Schwarzenegger also made the point in his letter that California is simply too big to ignore. “As our application says, many will enter the race, but it cannot be won without California, where one in 10 public school students in the United States receive their education.”

Presumptuousness aside, California’s application, though limited to 100 school districts and 200 charter schools, encompassing 1.7 million of California’s 6 million students, is more compelling this time. Even without union support, those districts that signed the memorandum of understanding have committed to create a stronger evaluation system of teachers and principals that will use multiple factors, including student test scores. They will  use the evaluations as a basis for advancement, tenure and, for ineffective teachers, eventual dismissal ­ as is permitted under current law. (Using evaluations for performance-based pay would start with a handful of schools in willing districts.)

Districts will more equitably distribute effective teaches in low-performing schools and improve principal preparation programs. The plan for STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education is more fully developed (application, page 180). And the state is pledging to create a system of common interim assessments.

Schwarzenegger says the state will never see the opportunity to implement teacher evaluations and other aspects of the plan “if the scoring penalizes the lack of union signatures.”

Undoubtedly the money – up to $700 million, though probably significantly less – would make the changes possible and, in some cases, palatable. But some of the work, on distributing and evaluating teachers and in broading STEM education, can and should be done, regardless of winning. Credit those districts willing to try.

By John Fensterwald on June 2nd, 2010