Not to belabor the point, but charter schools did not come out winners in the ‘Race to the Top.’ In fact, they were hardly a factor at all. They counted for next to nothing (a possible 40 out of 500 points could be awarded for “ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools“) and states without strong charter laws (Maryland, Hawaii) fared just as well as those with them (Florida, DC).

Advocates and the Department of Education say that 15 states raised caps and strengthened laws during the ‘Race’, thus causing the public - and policymakers - to think much of the hard work has been done.

Take a look at this list and decide for yourself whether such actions merit the rhetoric…

California: Eliminated their annual cap of 100 new schools per year, but have only ever approved between 70 and 90 charters a year. Their cap didn’t inhibit existing growth at all.

Connecticut: Eliminated enrollment restrictions only on high-performing charters, but left a cap on the number of schools allowed to operate and still limits enrollment in most schools.

Delaware: Simply allowed a moratorium on the creation of new charters to expire and did nothing to proactively help or promote charter schools. A new moratorium could be enacted at any time.

Illinois: Partial credit, as they increased the cap on charter schools statewide from 60 to 120. But they reserved 70 for Chicago alone and eliminated the option for replication of schools created after July ‘09. The tradeoff for easing the cap? Unionization rules and more restrictive teacher certification in some areas.

Indiana: Eliminated their cap. (But did not win any $$.).

Iowa: Eliminated their cap limit of 20 charters, but only nine exist now and the weak legislation which permits only local school boards to sponsor only conversions of existing schools doesn’t exactly forecast a bright future for charters in the Hawkeye State.

Louisiana: Removed its cap on charter schools, but the vast majority of charters are located in New Orleans and the Recovery District, which means they never counted against the cap in the first place.

Massachusetts: See if you can follow - Increased charter school cap from 9% to 18% (one percentage point annually) in the lowest performing 10% of school districts. But the cap increase is incremental over years, so while demand is high in urban areas now, growth will slow.

Michigan: Did not remove their cap on charters, but did make changes to replicate high-performing charters using charters that do not count against the cap and opened the doors to virtuals. (But they did not win any $$$.)

Mississippi: Enacted the worst law in the country even compared to their original law which lapsed in July ‘09. It, too, was the worst law in the country at the time. F for effort.

New Hampshire: Eliminated the cap on the number of state-approved charters but only for a few months.

New York: Bingo. New York did increase their statewide cap from 200 to 460, but raising the cap has been in sharp focus for two years and was not a new endeavor spurred by ‘Race to the Top’.

Rhode Island: Increased their cap by 15 schools and eliminated a rule stating only certain percentage of students could attend, but the state still limits school autonomy and rules restricting teacher freedom remain. Good progress, but the the real reason they’re in the money is their ability to use data to close failing schools.

Tennessee: Increased their cap, but did not change the restriction that charters may only open in larger urban districts with preference extended only to certain student populations.

Utah: Instead of basing charter enrollment on a percentage of statewide school enrollment, they will now base it on the amount of money lawmakers are able to appropriate. Oddly, the previous enrollment cap increased each year and in 2010 was almost 5,000 students higher than the actual amount of charter students.