1 Race to the Top, Phase 2 Webinars: May 4, 6, and 10, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

1 Agenda item 4: Work modalities of the revised ISDR system to support the implementation of Hyogo Framework- Elements to be reviewed in groups- & prepare.
Race to the Top Fund Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements (Note: Information contained in this slide is based on draft guidance posted.
Career and College Readiness Kentucky Core Academic Standards Characteristics of Highly Effective Teaching and Learning Assessment Literacy MODULE 1.
Assessment Literacy Kentucky Core Academic Standards Characteristics of Highly Effective Teaching and Learning Career and College Readiness MODULE 1.
Targeted Assistance & Schoolwide Programs NCLB Technical Assistance Audio April 18, :30 PM April 19, :30 AM Alaska Department of Education.
The Readiness Centers Initiative Early Education and Care Board Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 2010.
Core Pre-K Standards Review & Comment
RHODE ISLANDS RACE TO THE TOP ROUND TWO RI Science and Technology Advisory Council May 6, 2010.
Gaining Senior Leadership Support for Continuity of Operations
Management Plans: A Roadmap to Successful Implementation
A Roadmap to Successful Implementation Management Plans.
Race to the Top Years 2 to 4 Finish line webinars July
Carmel Martin Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development - Friday, July 10, U.S. Department of Education ARRA, Race to.
Directions for this Template  Use the Slide Master to make universal changes to the presentation, including inserting your organization’s logo –“View”
Title I, Part A Targeted Assistance 101 Field Services Unit Office of School Improvement.
NJDOE TALENT DIVISION OVERVIEW prepared for: New Jersey Association of School Administrators April 30,
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents
FRANKLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL COMMITTEE MAY 27, 2014 Massachusetts Kindergarten Entry Assessment (MKEA)
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. LOCAL.
Race to the Top Discussion Points to determine LUSD’s interest in participating in the State program January 7, 2010.
Quality Enhancements in After- School and Out-of-School Time (ASOST-Q) Competitive Grant (FC 530) Grant Information Webinars May 23 rd and 30 th, 2014.
MARYLAND’S REFORM PLAN RACE TO THE TOP. This presentation is a product of the Maryland State Department of Education 03/03/10 American Recovery and Reinvestment.
1 Strengthening Teaching and Learning: Educational Leadership and Professional Standards SABES Directors’ Institute July 2011.
Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014.
Priority School (SIG) TA Session Cohort IV
Shelda Hale, Title III, ELL and Immigrant Education Kentucky Department of Education.
1 Presentation to USED Review Panel August 10, 2010 North Carolina Race to the Top Proposal R e d a c t e d.
1 Massachusetts’ Race To The Top Plan Paul Reville, Secretary of Education Mitchell D. Chester, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Carol.
Analysis and Next Steps. Summary Nevada’s final score of ranks 24 out of the 36 states that applied Among the ten grant recipients,
MSBO 2009 CONFERENCESEPTEMBER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Sally Vaughn Deputy Superintendent, Ph.D. Michigan Department of Education.
Florida’s Race to the Top R e d a c t e d. 2 Florida’s Courage to Reform School and district grades A – F Differentiated Accountability High School Grades.
1 EEC Board Policy and Research Committee October 2, 2013 State Advisory Council (SAC) Sustainability for Early Childhood Systems Building.
EEC Board Policy and Research Committee Meeting April 7, 2014 Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant (RTT-ELC)
SAVING AND CREATING JOBS AND REFORMING EDUCATION U.S. Department of Education June 12, 2009.
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Standards (OCIS) The Albany Marriott Albany, New York September 15, 2010.
Strategic Planning Board Update February 27, 2012 Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only.
Leveraging Race to the Top to Maximize the Use of Data To Ensure College & Career Readiness Aimee R. Guidera Achieve ADP September 10, 2009.
“An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap” Report of the Superintendent Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D. March 4, 2010.
A collaborative venture among state agencies, the Governor’s Office, and state and local organizations.
Race to the Top (RTTT) Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements 1.
Georgia Association of School Personnel Administrators May 30,
Mathematics and Science Education U.S. Department of Education.
Educator Evaluation Spring Convening Connecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners May 28-29, 2014 Marlborough, Massachusetts.
HEE Hui For Excellence in Education June 6, 2012
U.S. Department of Education Reform Agenda Overview April 2010.
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program California Postsecondary Education Commission California Mathematics & Science Partnership 2011 Spring.
Title I 2010 Spring Admin. Meeting Spring Title I Administrative Meeting Maryland State Department of Education April 13-14, 2010 Presented by: Maria E.
State Board of Education Meeting Race to the Top Update August 1, RTTT3 Overview Allocation of Funds (State and District) State-Level Activities.
MARYLAND’S REFORM PLAN RACE TO THE TOP.  Maryland’s initiatives are about reform, not simply the money.  Reform efforts will continue with or without.
RACE TO THE TOP. What is Race to the Top Funds? It is the largest education initiative in President Obama’s economic stimulus package It will provide.
2013 MASS Executive Institute. More Than a Decade of Progress: Grade 10 MCAS % proficient or higher 2.
2 Louisiana Believes Objective: The Department is providing districts increased support in preparation for the school year. As districts plan for.
Title I, IDEA Part B and IDEA Part C September 2, 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Use of Funds Guidance 1.
Race to the Top Application State Board of Education Meeting January 6, 2010 January 6, 2010.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Presented by: Barbara A. Deane–Williams, Superintendent Christopher Marino, Teacher Leader Susan Streicher, Principal Strengthening Teacher & Leader Effectiveness.
Catalyzing Reform Presenting Team Bret Schundler Commissioner Andy Smarick Deputy Commissioner Willa Spicer Assistant Commissioner Rochelle Hendricks Assistant.
FLEXIBILITY and the DENVER PLAN Objectives for today: Understand DPS’ future direction related to academic supports. Understand DPS’ approach to.
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Race to the Top Update November 17, 2009.
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act April ESEA in Ohio In 2012, our state applied for and received a waiver from provisions of No Child Left Behind.
1 Introduction Overview This annotated PowerPoint is designed to help communicate about your instructional priorities. Note: The facts and data here are.
How can ARRA Funds Be Wisely Applied? How Researchers Can Help Lou Cicchinelli, Ph.D. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning Fourth Annual IES.
Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Letters of Support Webinar
Massachusetts’ Race To The Top Plan Paul Reville, Secretary of Education Mitchell D. Chester, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT
RACE TO THE TOP: An Overview
Draft Proposal Summary
NC Mathematics and Science Partnership Program
Presentation transcript:

1 Race to the Top, Phase 2 Webinars: May 4, 6, and 10, 2010

2 In this presentation 1.Lessons learned from Phase 1 2.Timeline for Phase 2 3.Stakeholder engagement 4.MOU details and deadlines 5.Why participate? How does the money work? 6.Section-by-section proposals and changes from Phase 1 7.Next steps and questions

3 Lessons Learned from Phase 1 MA scored well in many areas: progress in reform areas and in improving student outcomes statewide capacity & impact using data to improve instruction school turnaround plans making education funding a priority Opportunities for substantial point gains: sign-on and support from LEAs implementing common core standards fully implementing a state longitudinal data system teacher and leader strategy

4 Timeline for Phase 2 March 29: TN and DE win Phase 1 grants March 30: Began planning for Phase 2; reopened MOU process April & May: Engage stakeholders in planning for revised proposal May 24: MOUs due June 1: Applications due to USED

5 Stakeholder Engagement Numerous meetings with key state associations Distributed survey statewide to identify priorities for revisions External teams formed for assurance areas to assist with revisions Scheduled three webinars in May for superintendents, union leaders, and school committee members Regional district “ambassadors” selected

6 MOU Updates All MOUs submitted for Phase 1 will be counted for Phase 2 unless districts choose to opt out and notify us in writing. Districts that did not submit complete MOUs in Phase 1 have until May 24 to complete them for Phase 2. Only MOUs with signatures from the superintendent, school committee chair, and local union leader will be counted. Districts can also change their choices on the two optional MOU elements, but again, you must notify us in writing by May 24. Optional elements: Teaching and learning system College and career readiness

7 Why participate? Work worth doing Prepare students for success after high school Become more deliberate and skilled at using data effectively Provide more useful feedback to teachers and principals Increase access to the best teachers for struggling students Increase the sense of urgency and the resources available for reforming low performing schools Opportunity to shape reforms RTTT requirements are likely to be reflected in other federal grants (already in School Turnaround Grants) Many state policy proposals are on the agenda even w/o RTTT Opportunity to influence their shape and to access additional resources to support implementation costs

8 Why participate? Additional funding for implementation Participating districts will receive roughly 15% of their usual Title I allocation in each of the 4 years of the grant More in a minute Early access to new state systems PreK to 12 Teaching and Learning System Expansion of Educator Data Warehouse access to all teachers Models for teacher and principal evaluation

9 How does the money work? The state will apply for $250 million $125 million will go directly to participating districts through the Title I formula Participating districts can expect to receive roughly 15% of their usual Title I allocation in each of the 4 years of the grant The other $125 million goes to the state Build systems that benefit all districts Provide incentives for districts to participate in grant activities (e.g., sharing the cost of starting an Early College High School) RTTT money can only be spent on activities specified in the state’s application

10 Plans for improvement: Section by section (A) State Success Factors (B) Standards and Assessments (C) Using Data to Improve Instruction (D) Great Teachers and Leaders (E) School Turnaround (F) General

11 Includes: Executive Summary State implementation plan LEA participation and stakeholder support details (A)State Success Factors

12 Increase LEA participation Illustrate plans to sustain work post-RTTT Strengthen focus on outcomes over process Clarify plans to support LEAs and to ensure dissemination and implementation of best practices Cut $37 million from the budget A – Changes from Phase 1

13 Includes: Plan to adopt Common Core Standards and participate in Common Assessment Consortium Massachusetts Teaching and Learning System Plan to turn MassCore into default HS curriculum and align public college entry requirements STEM-focused Early College High Schools Pre-AP teacher training & curriculum development (B) Standards and Assessments

14 Highlight plan to adopt Common Core Standards if they are at least as strong as our current standards Illustrate our leadership role in the multi-state assessment consortium Refine teaching and learning system Strengthen focus on college and career readiness and streamline range of activities B – Changes from Phase 1

15 (C) Using Data to Improve Instruction Includes: Development of state longitudinal data system Improvements to Education Data Warehouse Technology needs to support the MA Teaching and Learning System in Section B Expansion of educator training and supports in data use

16 C – Changes from Phase 1 Rewrite descriptions of existing state longitudinal data systems to clarify what is currently in place Provide mock-ups of new reports for teachers, principals, district-level administrators, and state agencies (including DHE & EEC) Reduce overall scope of new technology builds

17 (D) Great Teachers and Leaders Includes: Development and implementation of a teacher and administrator evaluation system based in measures of effectiveness Efforts to ensure equitable distribution of teachers and principals, including incentives, loan forgiveness, partnerships with UTeach, etc. Improvements to teacher and principal prep programs Improved support for teachers and principals through targeted PD opportunities

18 D – Changes from Phase 1 Articulate comprehensive theory of action for an aligned performance-based system across the career continuum; clarify and specify the intended outcomes of the proposal. Accelerate regulatory change with respect to teacher and principal evaluation tied to core elements specified in MOU Shift evaluation pilot funding to implementation; continue emphasis on principal/teacher training Focus equitable distribution on narrower set of initiatives to attract and retain effective teachers and principals in high need fields and schools; increase incentives and specify their reach. Clarify how retention and student performance data will be used Refine PD approaches and provide clearer links to evaluation and relicensure.

19 (E) School Turnaround Includes: Identification of persistently lowest-achieving schools Specialized corps of turnaround teacher and leader teams to support these schools Development of partners to: Build district capacity to support low performing schools (social/emotional supports, expanded school day/year, effective use of data) Strengthen key district systems (HR, governance, family engagement) Launch the restart model at Level 4 and 5 schools

20 E – Changes from Phase 1 Include approved regulations for the new ed reform law Describe the characteristics of the 35 Level 4 schools and the supports now in place for their transformation Highlight and expand services for English language learners and their families Highlight and expand services for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities Reframe wraparound zone, dropout prevention, and alternative education strategies as part of a larger statewide strategy of the governor’s Cabinet on Child and Youth Services

21 (F) General Includes: Illustrates how MA has made education funding a priority, even through fiscal downturn Laws relating to charter school caps, accountability, funding and facilities Details on other innovative schools

22 F – Changes from Phase 1 Clarify new charter law and “smart cap” Add details about Innovation Schools Explain the funding mechanism for charter schools more clearly to address concerns about variation in funding

23 Next Steps For ESE: Bolster commitment from LEAs and stakeholders Continue to work with external stakeholders to vet and refine revisions Reapply for Phase 2 For districts: If not currently participating: submit your signed MOU If currently participating: as needed, notify ESE of any changes in your MOU All MOUs are due by May 24

24 Questions? Today: Submit questions using the Chat feature If you have questions later: Website: