LANSING – Michigan was a long way out of the top 16 in its application for federal “Race to the Top” grant funds, and the dispute between the Michigan Education Association and Department of Education over the document and the plan behind it appears to have been a primary reason for that poor showing.

While the review from the U.S. Department of Education showed Michigan did get nicked for lack of local buy-in after a rift between the state department and teacher union resulted in local unions being urged not to sign on to the plan, the state also lost points on its efforts to convert its plans into student achievement improvements.

Comments Tuesday showed some of that rift remains.

“It looks like a lot of the reasons this application failed to get so many points …is lack of stakeholder support, namely the MEA,” said Peter Spadafore with the Michigan Association of School Boards. “We need to have unions support the application.”

On the positive side, Spadafore said, the reviewers agreed with the state’s goals for school improvement. “They used the term ‘perfect’ and ‘clearly aligned’ in terms of our goals but go back to we missed the buy in,” he said.

MEA officials said the union was willing to discuss backing the next application. But spokesperson Doug Pratt said the union had to be included in discussions.

“In Delaware and Tennessee the concerns of thousands of professional educators were taken into account,” Pratt said, naming the two states that won federal money. “We continue to stand ready to put Michigan in the best possible position to compete for these funds while ensuring the reforms that we make, make sense in the classroom.”

The Michigan plan did not include elements, like early childhood development and smaller class sizes, the unions considers essential to educational improvement. “We know from research these things work,” he said.

Pratt said there had not been many discussions between the department and the union since the application was submitted, mostly because both sides were waiting for the feedback.

“Obviously the U.S. Department of Education valued collaboration and that was frankly missing this time from our application,” Pratt said.

The union had faulted the department for not making the final version of the application public before submitting it and the department had said it needed the MOUs and plans from local districts to complete the application.

Education spokesperson Martin Ackley said the department will again be inviting all parties to the table to discuss needed changes. But exactly what changes the next application will see are not yet clear. “We haven’t started shoveling into it yet,” he said.

And Mr. Ackley said it might not just be changes to the application. “There might be some additional statutory changes necessary,” he said. “More apparently needs to be done to align Michigan with the way education reform is moving nationally.”

Under the first awards announced Monday, Delaware will see $100 million and Tennessee will receive $500 million under the federal program designed to spur education reform. There is $4.35 billion total available for the program.

“We received many strong proposals from states all across America, but two applications stood out above all others: Delaware and Tennessee,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said on announcing the grants. “Both states have statewide buy-in for comprehensive plans to reform their schools. They have written new laws to support their policies. And they have demonstrated the courage, capacity, and commitment to turn their ideas into practices that can improve outcomes for students.”

Michigan received an average 366.2 points from the five reviewers out of the possible 500. Duncan had selected finalists from those states with at least 400 points.

Delaware received 423.4 points average in its initial review and 439.6 points in its finalist review. Tennessee received 428.4 points and 429.2 points respectively.

Michigan received only 25.4 points average out of 45 points for securing local commitment and only 8.2 of 15 points for translating that local participation into statewide impact.

In part, the state lost points for not including copies of the memorandum of understanding signed by local school districts. “It is thus impossible to judge the strength or credibility of the state’s MOU with its (local education agencies), and impossible to award any points to the applicant on this part of the criterion,” one reviewer said.

That reviewer also cited the state for having only 8 percent of local unions sign the MOU. “Teacher union buy-in is extremely important to the effective implementation of several of the RTTT goals, especially the implementation of new standards, curriculum, and assessments and the development of new teacher evaluation procedures, upon which will be based (according to the state plan) decisions on teacher retention, promotion and dismissal,” the reviewer said.

But another reviewer gave the state credit for having the American Federation of Teachers Michigan sign on to the plan.

The state also lost some points, earning 6.4 of 10 points, for stakeholder support. The MEA, the state’s largest teacher union, was not the only significant void in letters of support. “It is notable that no community, parent or student organizations or advocacy groups are included among the letters provided; this is concerning, since students and parents are the ultimate ‘end users’ of the state’s education system,” on reviewer said.

“Michigan has unusually strong and large state university schools of education and one weakness of this proposal is their silence or minimal role,” said another reviewer.

But the state also fell behind other states in explaining exactly how all the changes it would make would improve results in the classroom.

The state did see buy-in from 89 percent of districts and ISDs representing 94 percent of at-risk students, showing its plan would target those most in need.

“However, the applicant provides no information in the narrative or appendices about state goals and targets for increasing student achievement, decreasing achievement gaps, increasing graduation rates and increasing college enrollment,” one reviewer said. “This makes it impossible to judge whether the applicant’s goals are ambitious yet achievable, or how the goals would differ without the receipt of RTTT funds.”

The state lost points, as well, for how it deals with teachers within its reforms. Reviewers found both the alternative pathways to certification and the review of current teachers insufficient.

The state lost the larger percentage of points, earning 12.4 of 21, for its alternative certification programs. In addition to not actually having one in place currently, some docked the state for creating new programs that will all operate through state universities while others questioned what supports the students in the programs would receive. The measure also was to include alternative certifications for principals, which some found the state did not include.

The state has a “sound” plan for tying future teacher pay and tenure to student performance, but lost points for not mandating its use. “(D)istricts are only ‘requested’ to use evaluation results in making these decisions, leaving doubt about whether the specified targets are actually achievable,” reviewers said, adding that the lack of local union buy-in further erodes the credibility of the improvement estimates based on the plan.

“MI has readily agreed to annual evaluations, although unionized teachers may well challenge their use for ineffective teacher dismissals,” another reviewer said.

Reviewers also questioned whether the state could actually accomplish its proposal to implement teacher reviews based on student achievement. The plan calls for districts to sub