1. U.S. D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION D ECEMBER, 2009 A MERICAN R ECOVERY AND R EINVESTMENT A CT STRATEGIC PLANNING

2. ►Where we are:  Between 2007 and 2009, NAEP 4 th grade math scores were flat—with only a slight improvement in 8th grade.  27 percent of our students drop out before earning a diploma.  Only 40 percent of our adults earn a two-year or four-year degree. M OVING A MERICA ’ S E DUCATION S YSTEM F ORWARD 2

3. ►Where we need to go: Improve student achievement Narrow achievement gaps Increase graduation and college enrollment rates M OVING A MERICA ’ S E DUCATION S YSTEM F ORWARD P RESIDENT O BAMA ’ S G OAL America will have the highest proportion of college graduates of any country by 2020 3

4. C OLLEGE AND C AREER A TTAINMENT C OLLEGE C OLLEGE AND AND C AREER C AREER A TTAINMENT C RADLE - TO -C AREER E DUCATION P LAN L ITERACY BY 3 RD G RADE I NCREASE A CCESS &A FFORDABILITY H IGHER E DUCATION K-12 E ARLY L EARNING 4

5. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY K EY E LEMENTS OF S UCCESSFUL K-12 R EFORM C OMMUNITY T EACHERS AND L EADERS A LIGNED I NSTRUCTION S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT 5

6. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY ARRA R EFORM P RIORITY : S TANDARDS & A SSESSMENTS A LIGNED I NSTRUCTION S TANDARDS AND A SSESSMENTS 6

7. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY ARRA R EFORM P RIORITY : E FFECTIVE T EACHING AND L EADING T EACHERS AND L EADERS E XCELLENT T EACHING AND L EADERSHIP 7

8. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY ARRA R EFORM P RIORITY : D ATA S YSTEMS D ATA S YSTEMS 8

9. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY C OMMUNITY T EACHERS AND L EADERS A LIGNED I NSTRUCTION S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT ARRA R EFORM P RIORITY : T URNING A ROUND S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS 9

10. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY K EY E LEMENTS & R EFORM P RIORITIES FOR K-12 S TRATEGIC P LANNING C OMMUNITY T EACHERS AND L EADERS A LIGNED I NSTRUCTION S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S TANDARDS AND A SSESSMENTS E XCELLENT TEACHING & L EADERSHIP S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS D ATA S YSTEMS 10

11. ►Leadership U NPRECEDENTED O PPORTUNITIES ►A Thoughtful Agenda ►Substantial Funding ►Legislative Support ►Committed Partners 11

12. S TATUS OF ARRA F UNDING 12

13. 13 ARRA F UNDING B UILT ON F OUR R EFORMS

14. R EMAINING ARRA G RANTS 14

15. ARRA: T IMELINES Phase I “Scale-up” and “validation” applications Phase II “Development” full application TQP Teacher Quality Partnerships SLDS State Longitudinal Data Systems SFSF State Fiscal Stabilization Fund RTT Race to the Top SIG School Improvement Grants i3 Investing in Innovation TIF Teacher Incentive Fund Fall 2009Winter 2009-2010Spring 2010Summer 2010 15

16. S TATE F ISCAL S TABILIZATION F UND (SFSF) P HASE II O VERVIEW 16

17. ►Purpose: Create transparency regarding status of state implementation of actions around the four reform priorities Stabilize state and local education budgets Enable states and other stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses in education systems and determine where concentrated reform effort is warranted ►Amount & Type: $11.5 Billion in Formula to States ►Status: Applications due January 11th, 2010 S TATE F ISCAL S TABILIZATION F UND P HASE T WO 17

18. ►Transparency Public reporting against the four reform assurances to which governors agreed in Phase I applications Reporting via a public Web site www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization Access to information for state and local stakeholders P URPOSE OF SFSF P HASE II A PPLICATION 18

19. ►Two-step review process to evaluate state applications: Verify sufficient completion Evaluate the application against the Approval Criteria ►Guidance and webinars will be forthcoming ►For further information on SFSF Phase II, please see www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilizationwww.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization ►E-mail:State.Fiscal.Fund@ed.govState.Fiscal.Fund@ed.gov ►Phone:202-260-2274 A DDITIONAL I NFORMATION 19

20. S CHOOL I MPROVEMENT G RANTS (SIG) O VERVIEW 20

21. ►Purpose: Dramatically transform school culture and increase outcomes in “Persistently Lowest-achieving Schools,” including secondary schools, through robust and comprehensive reforms. ►Amount & Type: $3.546 Billion in Formula to States who make sub- grants to school districts ►Status: Applications due February 8th, 2010 S CHOOL I MPROVEMENT G RANTS 21

22. Eligible Schools: ►Tier I schools Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (lowest-achieving 5%, 5 lowest-achieving, or “dropout factories”) ►Tier II schools Secondary schools eligible for, but not receiving, Title I (lowest-achieving 5%, 5 lowest-achieving, or “dropout factories”) ►Tier III Schools Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not Tier I schools. P ERSISTENTLY L OWEST -A CHIEVING S CHOOLS 22

23. 1.Identify the persistently-achieving lowest-achieving schools in the state 2.Establish criteria to evaluate the overall quality of LEA applications and LEA capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventions. Turnaround Transformation Closure Restart 3.Establish criteria to assess LEA commitment to implement and sustain the interventions. SEA A CTIONS 23

24. M ODELS OF I NTERVENTIONS Turnaround Model ►Replace principal and rehire no more than 50% of the staff; adopt new governance ►New or revised instructional program ►Interventions that take into account the recruitment, placement and development of staff ►Schedules that increase time for students and staff Turnaround Model ►Replace principal and rehire no more than 50% of the staff; adopt new governance ►New or revised instructional program ►Interventions that take into account the recruitment, placement and development of staff ►Schedules that increase time for students and staff Transformation Model ►Comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data ►Extend learning time and create community-oriented schools ►Provide operating flexibility and intensive support Transformation Model ►Comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data ►Extend learning time and create community-oriented schools ►Provide operating flexibility and intensive support Closure Model ►Close the school and enroll the students who attended the school in other, higher- performing schools in the LEA. Closure Model ►Close the school and enroll the students who attended the school in other, higher- performing schools in the LEA. Restart Model ►Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, charter management organization or educational management organization. ►Admit, within school’s grades, former students who wish to attend. Restart Model ►Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, charter management organization or educational management organization. ►Admit, within school’s grades, former students who wish to attend. 24

25. 25 Race to the Top

26. ►Purpose: To encourage and reward states implementing comprehensive reform across four key reform areas. ►Overarching Goals: Drive substantial gains in student achievement Improve high school graduation and college enrollment Narrow achievement gaps ►Amount & Type: $4.35 Billion Competitive Grant ►Status: Phase 1 applications due January 19, 2010. Phase 2 applications due June 1, 2010. R ACE TO THE T OP 26

27. E LIGIBILITY R EQUIREMENTS (a)The state’s applications for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program must be approved by the Department prior to the state being awarded a Race to the Top grant. (b)No legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the state level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation. 27

28. ►State Success Factors125 points ►Standards & Assessments70 points ►Data Systems to Support Instruction47 points ►Great Teachers & Leaders138 Points ►Turning Around Lowest-Achieving Schools50 points ►General Selection Criteria55 points S ELECTION C RITERIA 28

29. ►Race to the Top Response Team: Racetothetop@ed.gov ►Resources: Web site: www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop Updated “Frequently Asked Questions” Addressing many LEA-related issues M ORE I NFORMATION & T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE 29

30. 30 Making the Connections: Linking ARRA Grants & Reform Priorities Making the Connections: Linking ARRA Grants & Reform Priorities

31. S TANDARDS & A SSESSMENTS SFSF Phase TwoRace to the Top  Status of current state assessment systems  Quality of assessments for and inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students  High-school graduation rates, college enrollment, college course completion  Encourage the adoption of common standards and assessments  Support the transition to college and career ready standards and assessments 31

32. T EACHERS & L EADERS SFSF Phase TwoRace to the Top  Distribution of teachers  Teacher and principal evaluation  Build on high-quality evaluation systems  Use this evaluation data to inform key personnel decisions, allocation decisions, and professional development  Assess the quality of teacher and principal preparation programs; expand effective programs 32

33. D ATA S YSTEMS SFSF Phase TwoRace to the Top America COMPETES Act elements Student growth and individual teacher impact data Progress towards building out a full statewide longitudinal data system Build out a full statewide longitudinal data system Access and use this data to inform decisions Provide dynamic data at the local level to improve instruction 33

34. S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS SFSF Phase TwoRace to the Top  Identifying lowest-achieving schools  Use of school intervention models  Charter school availability and student achievement progress in charter schools  Plans to use four intervention models to turn around lowest- achieving schools 34

35. 35 S HARED M ODELS OF I NTERVENTIONS FOR S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS (SFSF, SIG, RTT) Turnaround Model ►Replace principal and rehire no more than 50% of the staff; adopt new governance ►New or revised instructional program ►Interventions that take into account the recruitment, placement and development of staff ►Schedules that increase time for students and staff Turnaround Model ►Replace principal and rehire no more than 50% of the staff; adopt new governance ►New or revised instructional program ►Interventions that take into account the recruitment, placement and development of staff ►Schedules that increase time for students and staff Transformation Model ►Comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data ►Extend learning time and create community-oriented schools ►Provide operating flexibility and intensive support Transformation Model ►Comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data ►Extend learning time and create community-oriented schools ►Provide operating flexibility and intensive support Closure Model ►Close the school and enroll the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA. Closure Model ►Close the school and enroll the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA. Restart Model ►Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, charter management organization or educational management organization. ►Admit, within school’s grades, former students who wish to attend. Restart Model ►Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, charter management organization or educational management organization. ►Admit, within school’s grades, former students who wish to attend.

36. T URNING A ROUND S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS District Level Planning State Level Planning SIG Funds Persistently Low-Achieving Schools Tier II Tier I Tier III SFSF & RTT Funds Other (Persistently-Low Achieving Secondary Schools not Title I eligible) TurnaroundRestartClosureTransformation 36

37. Other Teacher Effectiveness Initiatives  Reward teachers/leaders in high-need schools for increases in student achievement  Increase the number of instructors who teach hard-to-staff subjects in high-need schools  Encourage effective integration of technology with teacher training and curriculum development  Improve Teacher/Leader Preparation Programs & Provide Support T EACHER /L EADER E FFECTIVENESS — G RANT C ONNECTIONS Intervention Models Turnaround  New or revised instructional program  Recruitment, placement and development of staff Transformation  Comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data 37 SIG RTT TIF** TQP Ed Tech ** Based on Preliminary Program Description

38. 38 T EACHER AND L EADER E FFECTIVENESS Invest in state data systems that unite information about students, teachers, leaders and schools. SLDSSFSFRTT Develop state or local performance management tools, such as teacher and leader evaluation systems, that use multiple measures. RTTI3*TIF** Use performance information to inform instruction and improve teacher and leader effectiveness RTTi3TIFSIGTQP, etc. Designing aligned data systems to improve teacher and leader effectiveness. * Based on NPP** Based on Preliminary Program Description

39. Creation of a Statewide Longitudinal Data System * Includes elements of the America Competes Act D ATA S YSTEMS District Level STATE LEVEL SLDS SFSF RTT Develop Local Instructional Improvement Systems – help teachers improve instruction Develop Local Instructional Improvement Systems – help teachers improve instruction Use of Data from Statewide Longitudinal Data System Ed Tech TIF** I3* TQP SIG (Title I only) * Based on NPP** Based on Preliminary Program Description 39

40. 40 C OMMON C ORE S TANDARDS AND A SSESSMENTS Participate in Consortium Designing High-Quality Standards State Adopts Common Standards RTT Deadline: 8/2/10 States align data systems SFSF SLDS RTT Districts incorporate data in performance management systems RTT I3* TIF** RTT Assessment Competition State may choose to participate in the RTT assessment(s) competition. * Based on NPP** Based on Preliminary Program Description

41. R ACE TO THE T OP AND I 3: R EWARDING S UCCESSFUL P RACTICES Race to the Top State Success Factors: All State Reform Conditions criteria and criterion (A)(3) explicitly reward states for existing successes in improved student achievement and closed achievement gaps. States are encouraged to build on their existing assets and successes by learning from effective state and local practices and engaging stakeholders with critical knowledge and experience. Investing in Innovation (i3) Purpose: To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on:  Improving student achievement or student growth for high-need students  Promoting school readiness, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, and improving teacher and school leader effectiveness 41

42. 42 Q UESTIONS & A NSWERS

43. ARRA G RANT P LANNING 43

44. 44 S PENDING T IMELINES SFSF Phase Two 9/30/11 SIG 12/31/13, If a waiver granted Race to the Top within 4 years of the award ARRA Title I & IDEA Funds 9/30/11 TIF within 5 years of the award Fall 2011 Winter 2013 Fall 2014 2012 2010 2015 SLDS within 3 years of award

45. C OORDINATION School Improvement Grants $3.5 billion SFSF Phase Two $11.5 billion Ed Tech $650 million $250 million Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Teacher Incentive Fund $200 million Race to the Top $4.35 billion Teacher Quality Part. $100 million $650 million Investing in Innovation Teacher Incentive Fund $200 million 95% of ARRA Grants Explicitly Require SEA – LEA Coordination 95% of ARRA Grants Explicitly Require SEA – LEA Coordination 95% of ARRA Grants Explicitly Require SEA – LEA Coordination 95% of ARRA Grants Explicitly Require SEA – LEA Coordination 45

46. S YSTEM -W IDE C APACITY K EY E LEMENTS & R EFORM P RIORITIES FOR K-12 S TRATEGIC P LANNING C OMMUNITY T EACHERS AND L EADERS A LIGNED I NSTRUCTION S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S CHOOL E NVIRONMENT S TANDARDS AND A SSESSMENTS E XCELLENT TEACHING & L EADERSHIP S TRUGGLING S CHOOLS D ATA S YSTEMS 46

47. 1.What Is My State/District’s Overall Strategic Reform Plan? 2.Is It Structured Around: Instruction Community Teachers and Leaders School Environment System-wide Capacity 3.How Does It Focus on: Creating Common Standards & Assessments Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders Using Data Systems to Support Instruction Turning Around Struggling Schools 4.Does It Include Specific Agreements or Collaboration with the State/Districts? 5.What Are the Funding Sources? 6.How Do We Align Funding Sources? S TRATEGIC P LANNING Q UESTIONS FOR S TATES & D ISTRICTS 47

48. 48