“An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap” Report of the Superintendent Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D. March 4, 2010

History of the Legislation Origins are in the Readiness Project – over 9 months of meetings and discussions regarding the future of public education in Massachusetts Report released from this project in June 2008 – “Ready for 21 st Century Success – The New Promise of Public Education” Focused on the achievement gap

History of the Legislation July 2008 – Executive Office of Education is formally established & drafting of legislation for “Readiness Schools” was initiated Focus was on “creating opportunities for innovation across the state & allowing intervention strategies to be implemented where they were needed most”

History of Legislation January 2009 – Governor proposes language in FY10 budget to provide a targeted, charter school “smart cap lift” July 2009 – Governor files two separate bills “An Act Relative to Charter Schools in Underperforming Districts” and “An Act Establishing Readiness Schools” Fall 2009 – Joint Committee on Education combined the two bills into one

History of Legislation November 17, 2009 – Senate passes its version of the bill January 6, 2010 – House passes its version of the bill January 14, 2010 – Conference Committee Report is enacted January 18, 2010 – Governor Patrick signs into law “An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap”

Focus of Legislation Innovation Schools Intervention Strategies Charter School “Smart Cap Lift” Miscellaneous Regional schools’ transportation “Race to the Top” Reporting Education Finance Report Others

Innovation Schools May be established as a new school or as a conversion of existing school Must be authorized by local school committee & operate according to an “innovation plan” Articulates areas of increased autonomy & flexibility Curriculum Budget School schedule & calendar Staffing policies & procedures, including waivers from or modifications to contracts or collective bargaining agreements Professional development

Intervention Strategies Provides that Level 4 (underperforming)& 5 (chronically underperforming)schools drawn from lowest performing 20% of schools in Commonwealth Limits the number of Level 4 & 5 schools that can be designated at any point to 4% of all schools in Commonwealth (72 total) Provides new rules, tools and supports through collaboratively developed turnaround plans for Level 4 & 5 schools

Intervention Strategies (cont.) Local superintendents primarily responsible for developing turnaround plans for Level 4 schools, with approval by the Commissioner Commissioner is primarily responsible for developing turnaround plans in Level 5 schools

Intervention Strategies (cont.) Superintendent/Commissioner must create a stakeholder group to make recommendations on the content of the turnaround plan Turnaround plan must include: Support for social service & health needs of students & families Workforce development services for students & families Steps to address achievement gaps for ELL, special education and low-income students Financial plan

Intervention Strategies (cont.) Turnaround plan must also include measurable, annual goals: Attendance, dismissal rates and exclusion rates Student safety and discipline Student promotion, graduation and dropout rates Student achievement on the MCAS Reduction of achievement gaps among different groups of students Student acquisition and master of 21st Century skills Parent and family engagement

Charter School “Smart Cap Lift” Phased increased of the state’s net school spending cap from 9% to 18% for the 10% of lowest performing districts Removes the statewide cap of 4% as a percentage of the general student population in total charter school population Requires all current & prospective charter school applicants to develop student recruitment and retention plans

Charter School “Smart Cap Lift” (cont.) Increases the reimbursement to school districts from 100/60/40 model to 100/25/25/25/25/25 Emphasizes accountability and transparency in the authorization and renewal process

Federal School Turnaround Grants February 2010 – USED posted regulations for competitive grants to states to intervene in lowest performing schools Massachusetts will be awarded $76 million over 3 years to provide competitive grants to local school districts for Level 4 schools Districts may apply for $500,000 or more per year, up to 3 years, on behalf of Level 4 Schools

Federal School Turnaround Grants Districts applying for School Turnaround Grants are required to choose one of four prescribed intervention models: Restart Model: closes a school run by the district and reopens it under the control of a charter management or educational management organization School Closure: requires the closing of a school and assigning students to other high achieving schools in the district or to a charter school Turnaround Model: requires replacing at least 50% of the staff and the principal

Federal School Turnaround Grants Transformation Model: must include strategies in 4 key areas: Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness Comprehensive instructional reform strategies Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools Providing operating flexibility and sustained support Note: Principals who are in place prior to the initiation of the transformation model must be replaced

Worcester’s Current Status Two Level 4 schools announced today: Chandler Elementary and Union Hill Elementary Schools currently in restructuring and/or corrective action will likely be deemed Level 3 schools, also requiring instructional improvements

Next Steps Appoint a Stakeholder Team to begin the school redesign process (specific timelines) Work with the EAW to address filling teacher vacancies at Level 4 schools Appoint new principals at Level 4 schools Finalize school redesign model for submission to Commissioner Apply for School Turnaround Grants to support redesign efforts at Level 4 schools

Next Steps Continue focusing on the Worcester Improvement Strategy to address student achievement across the district

The principals, teachers and communities of Chandler Elementary and Union Hill Elementary have worked extremely hard to provide high quality educational opportunities for all the students enrolled in their schools. This is system issue. There is no single contributing factor that led to the schools’ Level 4 designation. I want to personally thank the principals, teachers, central office support, parents and community for their level of support and commitment to addressing the educational needs of students in Worcester. Melinda J. Boone