Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Race to the Top Update November 17, 2009

2 Overview 1.Summary of final RTTT guidance 2.Update on stakeholder engagement 3.Conceptual framework and cornerstone initiatives

3 USED released final RTTT guidance on November 12 1.Phase I application deadline is January 19, 2010; Phase I awards to be announced in April 2.Budget guidance for Massachusetts is $150m to $250m 3.Most program elements remain the same, but guidance is clarified and expanded

4 Major changes to the program 1.New “State Success Factors” criterion Evaluates the coherence of the state’s education reform agenda and its capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans 2.Data systems Added emphasis on local tools and professional development 3.Teachers & leaders Added emphasis on high quality evaluation systems, distribution of effective teachers, teacher & principal preparation, and effective professional development 4.School turnaround Charters moved to the general section; consistency in turnaround requirements across federal grant programs 5.Other changes New invitational priority on early education; changed requirements for timing of adoption of common standards and assessments; added criterion for enabling innovative, autonomous schools other than charters; added criterion on equitable funding

5 How applications will be evaluated Selection criteriaWeight State success factors25% Standards and assessments14% Data systems to support instruction9% Great teachers and leaders28% Turning around the lowest achieving schools10% General11% STEM competitive priority3% Overall, 52% of points are for accomplishments and 48% are for plans.

6 Stakeholder engagement is crucial 1.More than 10% of points are for the strength and breadth of commitment of districts Requires MOUs with each participating district detailing terms, conditions, and scope of work Signed by superintendents, union leaders, school committee members, and the state 2.Additional points for commitment of other stakeholders Legislators, state education associations, business and community leaders, parent associations, nonprofits, foundations, etc.

7 We continue to work with stakeholders around the state on developing the proposal 1.Districts Surveys for all districts Meetings with Urban Superintendents Network, including superintendents, union leaders, and school committee members Regional district forums in December 2.Broader education community Professional associations, unions, students, parents, etc. 3.Funders and business 4.Public at large Survey for public Public comment on proposal outline

8 Logic model to identify RTTT investments Clear, compelling GOALS for the MA public education system Ambitious OUTCOMES that MA ESE will hold itself accountable for achieving Targeted set of RTTT INITIATIVES that MA seeks to fund to achieve the outcomes Detailed set of RTTT PROJECTS that ESE and district teams will pursue as part of each initiative

9 “Achieve an international gold standard in public education…” Our planning effort is anchored in a vision of excellence and equity for all “…while accelerating the progress of those students furthest behind to attain this standard”

10 All students graduating career and college ready Every classroom using world-class standards, curriculum, and assessments Accelerated and personalized learning for all students, through next-generation instructional tools and teacher supports Exemplary teaching and leadership in all schools through an aligned human capital system Continuous learning and improvement at the state, district, and school level through information systems and capacity “Achieve an international gold standard in public education…” “…while accelerating the progress of those students furthest behind to attain the standard” By 2020, we aspire to create a P-20 education system with… Proven intervention models for identifying and transforming low performing schools Districts fully capable of transforming schools No Level 4 or Level 5 schools in the state

11 “Achieve an international gold standard in public education…” “…while accelerating the progress of those students furthest behind to attain this standard” We propose six RTTT initiatives to achieve these outcomes 1.Redesign and bolster high school to ensure all students are college/career ready upon graduation, with particular focus on low- performing high schools and efforts to integrate pre-K through HS 2.Design and scale proven K-12 instructional tools to accelerate student learning, with particular attention to world-class benchmark/formative assessments and curriculum support 3.Develop statewide definition of teacher effectiveness used in district evaluations and PD, in a performance-based tiered licensure system, and to evaluate educator preparation programs 4.Identify and scale teacher recruitment, preparation, and development approaches, with particular focus on attracting/retaining talented STEM teachers and increasing the effectiveness of SPED and ELL teaching state-wide 5.Develop a state pipeline of effective turnaround teacher and leader teams and encourage increased distribution of effective teams into lowest performing schools 6.Identify, assess and deploy turnaround partners and/or 3 rd party supports (e.g., wraparound services and ELO) with track records of success into lowest performing schools and hold them to performance- based contracts

12 Redesign and bolster high school to ensure all students are college/career ready Design and scale proven K-12 instructional tools to accelerate student learning Develop state-wide definition of teacher effectiveness Identify and scale teacher recruitment, preparation, and development approaches Develop a state pipeline of effective turnaround teacher and leader teams Identify, assess and deploy turnaround partners, intervention models and/or 3rd party supports Priority Standards & Assessments Data Systems Great Teachers/ Leaders School Turnaround STEM These initiatives each map to several assurances

13 Cornerstone Initiative: Proven instructional tools to accelerate student learning WHAT: Provide districts with tools, resources, and training to develop robust curricula based on common core standards HOW: Invest in an instructional management system, including summative, benchmark, and formative assessments; model curricula in key subjects; real-time data systems; and teacher PD/incentives –Give all districts access to curriculum development and management software, curriculum materials, and instructional resources –Partner with consortium of districts (and possibly other states) to develop and roll out benchmark and formative assessments based on common core standards and items generated by summative assessments –Develop model curricula mapped to standards in key subject areas (e.g., middle school mathematics and science) and make available to all districts –Build data systems to ensure real-time availability of data at the school and classroom level so that teachers can evaluate curricula and differentiate instruction –Provide training opportunities, incentives, and cutting-edge technologies to encourage teacher adoption and usage of key data

14 Cornerstone Initiative: Transform MA’s lowest performing schools WHAT: Build district capacity to take bold action to transform the lowest 5% of persistently underperforming MA schools (~40 schools in 2010) HOW: Identify lowest-performing schools with state’s redesigned accountability framework and work with districts to develop intervention strategies for each school: –Build an intra-district pipeline of turnaround teams (teachers and leaders) by scaling up existing models and evolving/developing new models (e.g., Boston Teacher Residency, Brookline induction) –Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders into persistently underperforming schools  Work with districts to pilot alternative compensation models for teaching in hard-to-staff schools –For a subset of schools, identify, select and scale proven “turnaround partners” and 3 rd party supports

15 Cornerstone Initiative: Statewide definition of effective teachers/principals WHAT: Develop research-based definitions of teacher/principal effectiveness (anchored in student performance) for use statewide in all aspects of human capital management HOW: District leadership (superintendents, unions, and school committees) work with ESE state leadership and national experts to define teacher and leader effectiveness via multiple measures, anchored in student performance –All districts required to collect/report on key effectiveness data (e.g., student growth, principal ratings, student/parent surveys) to receive RTTT funds –Smaller group of districts uses this shared definition to redesign evaluation and professional development systems –ESE uses this definition to refine statewide preparation, induction, licensure, and to create and roll out a state model evaluation system

16 Other possible projects related to teacher and principal effectiveness 1.Explore new models for effective talent management: a)Districts and ESE pilot differentiated roles, responsibilities, and career ladders b)Districts and ESE create reward programs for schools, teams or teachers based on improvement in student performance 2.Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders: a)Districts pilot approaches to compensation for teaching in hard-to-staff schools b)Districts and ESE design non-monetary incentives (e.g., working conditions, staffing) to attract and retain talent in hard-to-staff schools c)Districts and ESE build a pipeline of “turnaround teams” for chronically low performing schools 3.Attract and retain effective STEM teachers a)Identify and scale innovative models to recruit, prepare, and develop effective teachers, such as UTeach and TEACH! SouthCoast b)Create incentive programs for STEM career-changers, such as monetary stipends, coaching, and peer support