Race to the Top Grant Application Overview November 3, 2009

1 Race to the Top (RTTT) fund  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides $4.3 billion for competitive grants called the Race to the Top Fund  Designed to reward and encourage implementation of significant education reforms across the four reform areas  Funds to be distributed in two phases: first phase due in December 2009 for funds to be awarded in early 2010; second phase due in Spring 2010 for awards in Fall 2010

2 Proposed eligibility requirements for RTTT  The State’s applications for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Stabilization Program must be approved by USDOE by Dec 31, 2009 in order to be eligible for Phase 1 of Race to the Top  No legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation

3 Four education reforms Develop rigorous college- and career-ready standards and assessments Establish Pre-K through college data systems to track and foster performance and improvement Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals Provide intensive support and interventions to the lowest performing schools

4 P20 Council Task forces have been formed for each reform area Standards and Assessments Jack Lunsford, Chair President & CEO WESTMARC Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems / Use Cathleen Barton, Chair US Education Manager Intel Corporation Great Teachers, Great Leaders Dave Howell, Chair Director of Government Relations Wells Fargo Chair, Education Committee Arizona Chamber of Commerce Supporting Struggling Schools Marc Osborn, Chair R&R Partners Chair, Education Committee Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce P-20 Coordinating Council Dr. Carol Peck, Chair, CEO Rodel Foundation

5 Baseline diagnostic Strength and gap analysis (vs RTTT) Reform plan definition Summary vision and plans Proposal writing and syndication Step II: (Oct – Nov) Step II: (Oct – Nov) Step III: (Nov – Dec) Step III: (Nov – Dec) Step I: (Sept – Oct) Step I: (Sept – Oct) Stakeholder engagement Program management Nov. 3 High level plan for the work of the P-20 task forces

6 Draft requirements specific to the Standards and Assessments assurance area Participation in a consortium of states to develop common standards that are internationally benchmarked and build toward college- and career-readiness Participation in a consortium of states to develop common assessments that are high- quality and aligned with the consortium's standards Plan to support transition across the state to these standards and assessments, potentially including... Aligning assessments to high school exit criteria and college entrance requirements Developing curricular frameworks and materials, formative and interim assessments, or professional development materials Other strategies to translate the standards and information from assessments into classroom practice

7 Draft requirements specific to the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems assurance area Implementation of all 12 data elements specified by the America Competes Act A high-quality plan to ensure key stakeholders get access to and use state data Key stakeholders include parents, students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, policymakers, and others Plan to increase educators' use of data-based tools to drive instruction These "instructional improvement systems" include instructional planning, formative or interim assessments, rapid-time reporting, interventions, and other actions Plan to support researchers with data from longitudinal and instructional improvement systems so they can evaluate what works

8 Draft requirements specific to the Great Teachers, Great Leaders assurance area Documentation of extent to which AZ provides alternative pathways for aspiring teachers High-quality plan to differentiate effectiveness of teachers and principals based on performance Includes use of data on student growth and using information on teacher and principal effectiveness when making decisions regarding compensation, promotion, tenure, etc. High-quality plan to ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals Increase number of effective teachers at high-poverty schools and hard-to-staff subjects High-quality plan to report the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs Link student achievement to teachers and principals, and to the programs where each of those teachers and principals was prepared for credentialing High-quality plan to use rapid-time student data to: Guide, continuously measure and improve support to teachers and principals, e.g., via professional development 1. Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State and the secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds

9 Draft requirements specific to the Supporting Struggling Schools assurance area The degree of intervention authority Arizona has at the "persistently lowest-performing schools" 1 and LEAs The extent to which Arizona has a favorable stance toward charter schools, specifically with respect to... An absence of restrictions on the number of or enrollment at charter schools A performance-based framework to authorize, reauthorize and close charter schools, and specific evidence that non-performing charter schools are closed Evidence that charter schools receive equitable funding Access to facilities that is equal to that of traditional public schools A specific plan to identify at least five school turnaround opportunities per year Turnaround options include reconstitution, conversion to charter, closure and, as a last resort, hiring a new principal and providing intensive support 1. Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State and the secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds

10 Comprehensive Approach to the Four Reform Areas A comprehensive approach is critical and an emphasis on STEM a competitive advantage Standards and Assessments Great Teachers and Leaders Supporting Struggling Schools Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Emphasis on STEM Comprehensive and coherent policies and practices designed to: Increase student achievement Reduce the achievement gap across student subgroups Increase the rate at which students graduate prepared for college and careers Competitive priority given to emphasis on plans to: Offer a rigorous course of study in STEM subjects Cooperate with STEM-capable community partners to prepare and assist teachers Prepare more students for advanced studies and careers in STEM disciplines Address the needs of underrepresented groups and women and girls

11 The task forces are considering important reform questions Key questions we would like your input on What actions can be taken by the Arizona Department of Education, colleges of education, local districts, or schools to: Help teachers become experts in the content areas they teach? Ensure the data is used to improve classroom instruction? Inspire teachers to transfer to low performing schools? Provide relevant, on the job experiences for persons training to be teachers? What are your ideas for education reform in the State of Arizona? What key barriers will present themselves during this process?

12 Questions or comments? For further information: Deb Duvall P-20 Council Race to the Top website

Appendix

14 Draft charter for Standards and Assessments task force Significant progress on standards development, alignment and implementation as part of Common Core Number of open questions on assessments – need to fulfill criteria such as working with consortia, college- and career-readiness, etc. Opportunity to drive achievement with new approaches (e.g., formative assessments, linkage to professional development, etc.) What have we done and what are we planning in the area of common standards? What path is appropriate to develop common assessments and meet criteria related to college- and career-readiness? How can we differentiate ourselves as we work with other states (e.g., speed to adoption/ rollout, systems in place to track efficacy, etc.)? What are other innovative strategies for translating standards and assessment information into classroom practice? What are the interdependencies with other assurance areas/ initiatives? Key questions to answer Ingoing beliefs on current state

15 Draft charter for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems task force Data warehouse is secure and scalable, and provides quite a bit of analytical power to a handful of super users who have been trained and who have access Stated desire to integrate technology solutions and provide a seamless, intuitive user experience State data generally does not reach the classroom level, where it can be used to drive academic achievement How close are we to implementing all data elements? To what extent do we need to continue working on "closed" elements? How can we best provide access to the data warehouse for each of our key stakeholder groups? How should we prioritize trade-offs in development/ roll-out to maximize the use/ impact of our data systems? What training/ support programs are needed to accelerate the use of data to drive academic outcomes? What are the key interdependencies with other assurance areas? Key questions to answer Ingoing beliefs on current state

16 There is an interest in exploring more alternate paths to certification Most Arizona LEAs don't currently track individual teacher or principal performance connected to student achievement The Performance Based Compensation task force has limited ability to enforce its recommendations A number of smaller but interesting initiatives are starting to address the issues faced in this assurance area Draft charter for Great Teachers, Great Leaders task force What alternate routes to certification have been created? What gaps are there to best practices and how can Arizona close them? What efforts has Arizona made to meaningfully differentiate the performance of its educators? What more can the state do? –What are the evaluative criteria used in Arizona performance-based compensation plans? How can these plans be enhanced? How can Arizona funnel more of its best teachers to high-poverty and low-performing schools? How have data been used to assess educator training programs? How have data informed professional development programs? What are the key interdependencies with other assurance areas? Key questions to answer Ingoing beliefs on current state

17 Draft charter for Supporting Struggling Schools task force There are no policy barriers to prevent interventions at struggling schools State interventions at present limited to the Federal government's "transformation" model Arizona is among the top states in terms of authorizing and closing charter schools, but there are open questions related to funding and facilities support Key questions to answer Ingoing beliefs on current state What if any policy barriers limit interventions at low-performing schools? What is the state doing to foster and enhance charter schools? –How is data being used to hold charter schools accountable? What has been the state's intervention model? –How can the state ensure that schools receive tailored intervention strategies that are repeatable? –What are the gaps to deal with low-performing schools? And what reform plans will we develop to deal with those gaps? What are the key interdependencies with other assurance areas?