BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 5th Extraordinary Session
BILL NO: SBx5 1
AUTHOR: Steinberg
AMENDED: January 5, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: January 6,
2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen
Chavira
Lynn Lorber
NOTE: This bill has been amended to replace its contents.
Although this is the first time the bill is being heard in
its current form its contents are similar to those of SB 4
(Romero) which was heard by this Committee on December 17,
2009.
SUBJECT : Federal Race to the Top Funding
SUMMARY
This bill gives direction with regard to the state's
application for federal Race to the Top funding and does
all of the following.
Establishes a framework for the state's application
for federal Race to the Top funding and the related
memoranda of understanding (MOU) with local
educational agencies.
Defines "low-achieving schools" and "persistently
low-achieving schools" and sets forth intervention
strategies to be followed in conformity to the Race to
the Top regulations.
Establishes the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Math, and Career Technical Education Educator
(STEM-CTE) Credentialing Program for purposes of
providing alternative routes to the teacher
credential.
Extends authorization of state testing programs by
two years, requires state involvement in the national
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 2
academic content standards project and reestablishes a
Standards Commission in order to revise California
standards so that at least 85% will match the national
standards.
Authorizes the data in the California Educational
Information System, alone or in conjunction with any
other data system, to be used by local educational
agencies for evaluating teachers and administrators
and for making employment decisions, if those
decisions are in compliance with specified public
school employee collective bargaining law.
BACKGROUND
Federal law : Race to the Top (RTTT)
The federal Department of Education has issued an
invitation to the states to compete for approximately $4.35
Billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
one-time funding as Race to the Top grants, provided that
the individual states meet the following requirements:
Each state must be approved for State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund money, and have no legal barriers to linking student
achievement data to the evaluation of teachers and
principals.
In addition, each state must comprehensively address four
assurances or areas of priority in education including:
1) Adopting high quality standards and assessments to
prepare students for higher education or work.
2) Recruiting, developing, retaining and rewarding
effective teachers and principals.
3) Creating data systems to measure student success and
support instruction.
4) Turning around the lowest performing schools.
States that fail to meet any of the above criteria are
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 3
barred from competing for Race to the Top funds, but
competition for Race to the Top funding among those states
that meet the basic criteria will be determined by the
quality of the states' plans and that will be determined by
the degree to which the states address nineteen competitive
criteria. (See Appendix II attached). States receiving
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds are also required to
provide data in each of these four areas of reform and must
ensure the information is in place (or will shortly be in
place) so that parents, teachers, and policymakers know
where schools and students stand.
Each reform plan criterion has an associated performance
measure, for which states must set annual targets.
Finally, each state's application must include
certification from the state's attorney general that all
elements accurately reflect the state's legal framework;
and be signed by the Governor, the chief state schools
officer (Superintendent of Public Instruction in
California) and the president of the state board of
education. States that are awarded funds must meet annual
reporting requirements and progress measures, participate
in national and state-level program evaluations, and make
results publicly available.
Federal Law : School Improvement Grants (SIG)
On December 3, 2009, the U.S. Secretary of Education
announced the final requirements for $3.5 billion in Title
I School Improvement grants to be made available to states
for the purpose of turning around the nation's lowest
performing schools.
According to the US Department of Education, it has fully
aligned the school intervention models and related
definitions across the Race to the Top, the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Phase II, and the School Improvement
Grants programs to make it easier for States to develop and
implement consistent and coherent plans for turning around
their persistently lowest-achieving schools.
SIG grants are awarded by formula to States, which will
then make competitive grants to local educational agencies
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 4
(LEAs). Each State must give priority in awarding SIG funds
to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools and
outlines the following three tiers of priority:
Tier I: Any Title I school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that
is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
in the state or is a high school that has had a graduation
rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
Tier II: Any secondary school that is eligible for, but
does not receive, Title I funds that is among the
lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools in the
State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds; or is a high school that has had a graduation rate
that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
Tier III: Any Title I school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring; which could include schools with
low absolute performance but high growth rates over a
number years, or the bottom 6-10 percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
As they compete for the funds, school districts must
identify the schools they want to transform, and then
determine which of four models (turnaround, restart, school
closure, or transformation) is most appropriate. If a
school has begun implementation of one of these four models
or components of one of these models within the last two
years, it may apply to use SIG funds to continue to
implement the full model. An LEA with more than nine Tier
I and Tier II schools may not implement the transformation
model in more than 50 percent of these schools. In Tier III
schools, an LEA may implement any of these four models but
may also choose other school improvement strategies.
Applications for the grants are due by Feb. 8, 2010. Title
I School Improvement Grants are funded by $546.6 million in
the fiscal year 2009 appropriation and an additional $3
billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA).
Federal Law: Pupil Data
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 5
Current federal law, the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) limits the disclosure of records that
could lead to the identification of an individual student
to the entity that collected the data. FERPA governs
virtually all pupil data including health information,
discipline records, and academic data.
State Law:
Current law requires the governing board of each school
district to establish standards of expected pupil
achievement at each grade level in each area of study and
evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on
various criteria including how the employee's performance
reasonably relates to the progress of pupils towards the
established standards and, if applicable, progress toward
the state adopted academic content standards as measured by
state adopted criterion referenced assessments. Current
law requires an evaluation of each certificated employee at
least once each school year for probationary personnel, at
least every other year for personnel with permanent status,
and at least every five years for employees who have at
least 10 years of service with the school district.
On December 14, 2009, a call was jointly issued by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, the President of the
State Board of Education, and the Secretary of Education,
inviting county and district superintendents and charter
school administrators to participate in the state's
application for federal funding under the Race to the Top
initiative. Local education agencies that want to
participate in the state's RTTT application must submit, by
January 8, 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
reflects the local education agency's willingness to commit
to partnering with the State in implementing each of the
four reform areas. The MOU must be signed by the district
superintendent (or an equivalent authorized signatory), and
should be signed by the president of the local governing
board (or an equivalent authorized signatory) and the local
teachers union leader or an equivalent authorized signatory
if applicable.
Existing law authorizes the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (Commission) to approve institutions of
higher education, school districts, and county offices of
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 6
education to recommend to the Commission, the issuance of
credentials to persons who have successfully completed a
teacher education program (including an alternative
certification program) sponsored by the organization if the
program meets the standards approved by the Commission.
Existing law establishes, within the Commission, the
Committee on Accreditation (COA) and requires the COA to
make decisions about the accreditation of educator
preparation.
The Civil Code (California Information Practices Act)
currently prohibits a state agency from disclosing any
personal information in a manner that would allow the
identification of the individual to whom the information
pertains with specific exceptions such as nonprofit
educational institutions conducting scientific research
provided that the Committee for the Protection of Human
Subjects (CPHS), of the California Health and Human
Services Agency, has approved the request for information.
Current law authorizes the establishment of California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) to
provide school districts and the California Department of
Education (CDE) with data to comply with federal reporting
requirements prescribed under the No Child Left Behind Act
and to
(1) improve the evaluation of educational progress and
investments over time,
(2) provide school districts with information that can be
used to improve pupil achievement, and (3) provide an
efficient, flexible, secure means of maintaining
longitudinal statewide pupil level data.
ANALYSIS
With regard to the State's participation in the Race to the
Top, this bill:
1) Authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and President of the State Board to enter into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local
educational agencies (LEAs) for the purpose of
participating in the Race to the Top. The local
Superintendent, President of the Local Board and
leader of teacher's bargaining unit are required to
sign for each LEA.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 7
2) Requires the Governor, SPI and State Board, in
collaborations with participating LEAs, to jointly
develop the state's plan for Race to the Top.
3) Requires the Department of Finance to provide copies
of the state plan(s) for participation in the Race to
the Top to appropriate policy and fiscal committees of
the Legislature when the plan(s) are submitted to the
Attorney General for review as required by federal
law.
4) Requires that the plan include an expenditure plan
that addresses how RTTT and related federal funds are
to be used to assist low-achieving schools.
5) Requires that, by January 1, 2011, the SPI contract
for evaluation of the implementation of the state RTTT
plan and further requires that the SPI convene a
working group of legislative and executive staff to
develop parameters for the evaluation and make
recommendations for the request for proposals for the
contract with an independent evaluator.
6) Requires that the evaluation be delivered to the
Legislature, Governor and State Board by June 1, 2014,
with an interim report due on June 1, 2012.
With regard to low-achieving schools, this bill:
7) Defines "Low-achieving schools" as Title I schools
that have been identified for improvement, corrective
action or restructuring.
8) Defines "Persistently lowest-achieving schools" as
schools that are in the lowest 5% of low-achieving
schools (as defined above) and high schools that have
graduated less than 60% of their pupils each year for
the previous three years.
9) Authorizes the SPI and State Board of Education, for
the purposes of identifying the lowest 5% of
low-achieving schools, to use a methodology consistent
with the one used to calculate the Academic
Performance Index, unless the SPI and State Board
develop a more appropriate methodology. Prior to the
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 8
implementation of a methodology, the SPI and State
Board must notify the appropriate policy and fiscal
committees of the Legislature.
10) Allows county community schools, juvenile court
schools, special education schools and schools that
have grown at least 50 points on the API in the
previous five years, to be exempted from the
low-achieving categories if allowed by federal law,
and not returned to the category by joint action of
the SPI and State Board. Community day schools
(operated by school districts) may be excluded by
joint action of the State Board and SPI, if allowed by
federal law.
11) Mandates that school district governing boards impose
one of four intervention models, defined in federal
law (see appendix 1), on persistently low-achieving
schools that have not implemented a similar strategy
within the past 2 years. Those intervention strategies
are known as:
a) The turnaround model
b) The restart model.
c) School closure.
d) The transformational model.
12) Requires that local boards hold at least two public
hearings prior to designating an intervention model
for a persistently low-achieving school.
13) Permits a persistently low-performing school
implementing the turnaround model or the
transformational model to participate in a partnership
with a mentor school, provided that all federal
requirements are met as well.
14) Defines a "mentor school" as a school that has exited
from "program improvement" status under the federal No
Child Left Behind Act or has increased its API ranking
by two or more deciles over the last five years.
15) Authorizes regional consortia established under the No
Child Left Behind Act to use Race to the Top funds and
requires them to provide support to local educational
agencies with persistently low-achieving schools with
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 9
various forms of assistance, including identifying
strategies that provide financial incentives to
recruit or retain staff and strategies that reward
staff for improving pupil achievement and remove staff
that have failed to do so. Regional consortia are
also authorized to assist LEAs to implement teacher
hiring policies in persistently lowest-achieving
schools that are not seniority based, provided that
the policies are consistent with local collective
bargaining agreements.
With regard to teacher credentialing, this bill:
16) Establishes the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Math, and Career Technical Education Educator
(STEM-CTE) Credentialing Program for purposes of
providing alternative routes to credentialing.
17) Requires the Commission in consultation with the
Committee on Accreditation, to establish by June 1,
2010, a process for authorizing alternative route
educator preparation programs provided by school
districts, county offices of education,
community-based organizations (CBOs) and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and as such, adds
CBOs and NGOs to the list of entities that may be
approved to offer science, mathematics, and career
technical education teacher preparation programs.
Also authorizes the Commission to assess a fee on CBOs
and NGOs seeking approval to participate in the
STEM-CTE program.
18) Requires the Commission to authorize community-based
or non-governmental organizations accredited by an
organization that is recognized by the Council for
Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the United
States Department of Education, and authorizes the
Commission to establish alternative criteria, if
necessary.
With regard to standards and assessment, this bill:
19) Extends authorization for the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) pupil assessment program by two
years, from July 2011, to July 2013.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 10
20) Establishes the 21 member Academic Content Standards
Commission comprised of 11 members appointed by the
Governor and 5 members each appointed by the Senate
Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker, provided
that at least half of each appointing power's
appointees are public classroom teachers.
21) Requires the Academic Content Standards Commission to
develop academic content standards in language arts
and mathematics that are at least 85% the same as the
national standards being developed by the Common Core
State Standards Initiative. The Commission is required
to report its recommendations to the state board by
July 15, 2010, and the Board is required to accept or
reject, with written reasons for rejection, by August
2, 2010.
22) Requires the committee that advises the SPI on matters
relative to the Academic Performance Index (API) to
make recommendations, by January 1, 2011, on how to
measure group and individual academic performance
growth and how to increase emphasis on the assessment
of science and math.
23) Requires the SPI, the State Board and a representative
appointed by the Governor to participate in the Common
Core State Standards Initiative or any related effort
to develop a common set of national standards.
24) Requires the SPI and State Board, in consultation with
the SPI's advisory committee on API matters to make
recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2011,
on each of the following:
a) Increasing emphasis on Science and Math in
the API.
b) Revising the API to include a measure of
pupil skills and knowledge needed to obtain entry
level employment.
c) Revising the API to include a measure of
pupil skills and knowledge needed to succeed in
postsecondary education.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 11
d) And, by July 1, 2013, developing a method to
determine group and individual academic
performance growth from individual pupil results
from a longitudinally valid assessment system,
addressing any interactions with the Academic
Performance Index (API).
With regard to data systems and management, this bill:
25) Authorizes the data in the California Educational
Information System, alone or in conjunction with any
other data system, to be used by local educational
agencies for evaluating teachers and administrators
and for making employment decisions, if those
decisions are in compliance with specified public
school employee collective bargaining law.
26) Declares Legislative intent that by January 1, 2011,
and to the extent funds are appropriated for this
purpose, the California Department of Education ensure
that data elements pertaining to success in the
workforce as described in the federal America COMPETES
Act be collected for career technical education
programs operated by local educational agencies.
27) Authorizes the California Department of Education, the
University of California, the California State
University, the Chancellor of the California Community
Colleges, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the
Employment Development Department and the California
School Information Services to enter into interagency
agreements to facilitate, (1) the implementation of a
longitudinal data system, (2) the transfer of data
across educational segments and (3) the transfer of
workforce data to the educational segments.
28) Expands the existing goals of the California
Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS)
to include the requirement that it
facilitate the ability of the state to publicly report
data, consistent with the requirements of the federal
America COMPETES Act and AARA.
29) Authorizes the SPI, with approval of the State Board,
to add data elements to CALPADS that are needed to
comply with the federal reporting requirements
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 12
delineated in ARRA and, prior to implementation,
requires the California Department of Education and
appropriate higher education agencies to submit an
expenditure plan to the Department of Finance (DOF),
to be provided by DOF to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee within 10 days of its receipt, detailing any
related administrative and local educational agency
costs.
30) Authorizes the California Department of Education,
University of California, California State University,
and the Chancellor of the California Community
Colleges to obtain quarterly wage data beginning July
1, 2010, to the extent permitted by federal law, to
assess, analyze, and report to the Legislature and
Governor on the impact of education on
employment/earnings of the students attending their
respective segments, and the higher education system's
performance in achieving priority educational
outcomes.
With regard to pupil data, this bill :
31) Clarifies that fees or charges imposed upon
researchers applying for access to individually
identifiable data, (authorized by SB 2 (Simitian) of
the 5th Extraordinary Session) must be imposed and
must equal the actual costs incurred by the Department
of Education in responding to the applicant's request.
Contingent enactment provisions:
36) Makes its provisions contingent upon the enactment of
SB 4 (Romero) of the 5th Extraordinary Session.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Bills are linked . This bill and SB 4 (Romero) both
contain contingent enactment provisions. This bill
becomes operative only if SB 4 of the Fifth
Extraordinary Session is also enacted and becomes
operative.
2) Related legislation. Other bills introduced in the
5th Extraordinary Session include:
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 13
SB 4 (Romero) - As it was heard and passed by this
committee on December 17, 2009 (7-0), proposed several
changes to law in an effort to make California more
competitive for federal K-12 Race to the Top (RTTT)
grants. This bill is nearly identical to SB 4 as it
was previously heard by this committee, but omits any
provisions related to open enrollment and parental
involvement.
SB 2 (Simitian) - Develops a process for reviewing and
responding to requests for individual pupil data
records housed in the emerging pre-school through
higher education statewide longitudinal educational
data system (P-20 data system). SB 2 was passed by
the Legislature on December 17, 2009, and is currently
before the Governor awaiting action. This bill makes
the following clarifications regarding the fees or
charges imposed upon researchers:
a) SB 2 references fees or charges that may be
imposed, while this bill references fees or
charges that shall be imposed.
b) SB 2 prohibited any fees or charges from
exceeding actual costs, while this bill requires
fees or charges to be equal to actual costs.
AB 8 (Brownley) - Declares legislative intent and
provides statutory direction concerning the state's
application for Race to the Top funds and contains
provisions related to lifting the cap on charter
schools as well as imposing new requirements for
charter school renewal, intervention in persistently
low achieving schools, professional development,
standards and assessment and allocating RTTT funds.
Although AB 8 was scheduled to be heard in this
committee on December 17, 2009, its hearing was
cancelled at the request of the author.
3) Related regular session legislation. SB 19 (Simitian)
in the 2009-10 Regular Session repealed the firewall
and addressed statutory changes related to the
collection and use of data necessary to qualify for
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding.
SB 19 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger
on October 11, 2009.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 14
4) STEM-CTE programs : Currently, institutions of higher
education must be accredited by a regional accrediting
organization such as the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges in order to be eligible to seek
approval from the Commission to offer teacher
preparation programs. Because regional accrediting
associations may not accredit CBOs or NGOs, these
entities may not be able to meet this essential
eligibility "precondition." The bill requires the
Commission and the COA to establish a process for
approving programs, yet the bill also appears to
require the Commission to authorize community-based or
nongovernmental organizations if those entities are
accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the US
Department of Education. It appears to be the intent
that the Commission consider community-based or
nongovernmental organizations accredited by an
accrediting organization recognized by CHEA or the US
Department of Education as satisfying the precondition
of accreditation may be necessary. Future legislation
may be necessary to clarify this intent.
SUPPORT
(none received on this version of the bill)
OPPOSITION
(none received on this version of the bill)
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 15
Appendix I
Federal School Intervention Models
(Appendix C in the Notice of Final Priorities,
Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; and in
the Notice Inviting Applications)
There are four school intervention models referred to in
Selection Criterion (E)(2): turnaround model, restart
model, school closure, or transformation model. Each is
described below.
(a) Turnaround model. (1) A turnaround model is one in
which an LEA must--
(i) Replace the principal and grant the principal
sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing,
calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a
comprehensive approach in order to substantially improve
student achievement outcomes and increase high school
graduation rates;
(ii) Use locally adopted competencies to measure the
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround
environment to meet the needs of students,
(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50
percent; and
(B) Select new staff;
(iii) Implement such strategies as financial incentives,
increased opportunities for promotion and career growth,
and more flexible work conditions that are designed to
recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary
to meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school;
(iv) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality,
job-embedded professional development that is aligned with
the school's comprehensive instructional program and
designed with school staff to ensure that they are equipped
to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the
capacity to successfully implement school reform
strategies;
(v) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include,
but is not limited to, requiring the school to report to a
new "turnaround office" in the LEA or SEA, hire a
"turnaround leader" who reports directly to the
Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a
multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added
flexibility in exchange for greater accountability;
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 16
(vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional
program that is research-based and "vertically aligned"
from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State
academic standards;
(vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as
from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to
inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the
academic needs of individual students;
(viii) Establish schedules and implement strategies that
provide increased learning time (as defined in this
notice); and
(ix) Provide appropriate social-emotional and
community-oriented services and supports for students.
(2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies
such as-
(i) Any of the required and permissible activities under
the transformation model; or
(ii) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language
academy).
(b) Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA
converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a
charter school operator, a charter management organization
(CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that
has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A
CMO is a non-profit organization that operates or manages
charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain
functions and resources among schools. An EMO is a
for-profit or non-profit organization that provides
"whole-school operation" services to an LEA.) A restart
model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former
student who wishes to attend the school.
(c) School closure. School closure occurs when an LEA
closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that
school in other schools in the LEA that are higher
achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable
proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not
limited to, charter schools or new schools for which
achievement data are not yet available.
(d) Transformation model. A transformation model is one
in which an LEA implements each of the following
strategies:
(1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader
effectiveness.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 17
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to
commencement of the transformation model;
(B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation
systems for teachers and principals that--
(1) Take into account data on student growth as a
significant factor as well as other factors such as
multiple observation-based assessments of performance and
ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of
student achievement and increased high-school graduations
rates; and
(2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal
involvement;
(C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and
other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased
student achievement and high-school graduation rates and
identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities
have been provided for them to improve their professional
practice, have not done so;
(D) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality,
job-embedded professional development (e.g., regarding
subject-specific pedagogy, instruction that reflects a
deeper understanding of the community served by the school,
or differentiated instruction) that is aligned with the
school's comprehensive instructional program and designed
with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate
effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to
successfully implement school reform strategies; and
(E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives,
increased opportunities for promotion and career growth,
and more flexible work conditions that are designed to
recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary
to meet the needs of the students in a transformation
school.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement
other strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders'
effectiveness, such as--
(A) Providing additional compensation to attract and
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of
the students in a transformation school;
(B) Instituting a system for measuring changes in
instructional practices resulting from professional
development; or
(C) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a
teacher without the mutual consent of the teacher and
principal, regardless of the teacher's seniority.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 18
(2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional
program that is research-based and "vertically aligned"
from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State
academic standards; and
(B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as
from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to
inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the
academic needs of individual students.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement
comprehensive instructional reform strategies, such as--
(A) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the
curriculum is being implemented with fidelity, is having
the intended impact on student achievement, and is modified
if ineffective;
(B) Implementing a schoolwide "response-to-intervention"
model;
(C) Providing additional supports and professional
development to teachers and principals in order to
implement effective strategies to support students with
disabilities in the least restrictive environment and to
ensure that limited English proficient students acquire
language skills to master academic content;
(D) Using and integrating technology-based supports and
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
(E) In secondary schools--
(1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for
students to enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced
Placement or International Baccalaureate; or science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics courses,
especially those that incorporate rigorous and relevant
project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning
opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment
programs, or thematic learning academies that prepare
students for college and careers, including by providing
appropriate supports designed to ensure that low-achieving
students can take advantage of these programs and
coursework;
(2) Improving student transition from middle to high
school through summer transition programs or freshman
academies;
(3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example,
credit-recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller
learning communities, competency-based instruction and
performance-based assessments, and acceleration of basic
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 19
reading and mathematics skills; or
(4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify
students who may be at risk of failing to achieve to high
standards or graduate.
(3) Increasing learning time and creating
community-oriented schools.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Establish schedules and implement strategies that
provide increased learning time (as defined in this
notice); and
(B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community
engagement.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement
other strategies that extend learning time and create
community-oriented schools, such as--
(A) Partnering with parents and parent organizations,
faith- and community-based organizations, health clinics,
other State or local agencies, and others to create safe
school environments that meet students' social, emotional,
and health needs;
(B) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add
time for such strategies as advisory periods that build
relationships between students, faculty, and other school
staff;
(C) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive
behavioral supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying
and student harassment; or
(D) Expanding the school program to offer full-day
kindergarten or pre-kindergarten.
(4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained
support.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility
(such as staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to
implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially
improve student achievement outcomes and increase high
school graduation rates; and
(B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive
technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the
SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization
(such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).
(ii) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement
other strategies for providing operational flexibility and
intensive support, such as--
(A) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 20
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA
or SEA; or
(B) Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula
that is weighted based on student needs.
If a school identified as a persistently lowest-achieving
school has implemented, in whole or in part within the last
two years, an intervention that meets the requirements of
the turnaround, restart, or transformation models, the
school may continue or complete the intervention being
implemented.
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 21
Appendix II
Race To The Top Selection Criteria & Points
A. State Success Factors (125 Points)
(1) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEA's
participation in it
(i) Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda
(ii) Securing LEA commitment
(iii) Translating LEA participation into statewide
impact
(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale
up, and sustain proposed plans
(i) Ensuring the capacity to implement
(ii) Using broad stakeholder support
(3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising
achievement and closing gaps
(i) Making progress in each reform area
(ii) Improving student outcomes
B. Standards and Assessments (70 Points)
(1) Developing and adopting common standards
|
(i) Participating in consortium developing high-quality
standards
(ii) Adopting standards
(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments
(3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and
|high-quality assessments
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 22
C. Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 Points)
(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system
(2) Accessing and using State data
(3) Using data to improve instruction
D. Great Teachers and Leaders (138 Points)
Eligibility Requirement (b) - Linking student data to
teachers and principals
(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers
and principals
(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on
performance
(i) Measuring student growth
(ii) Developing evaluation systems
(iii) Conducting annual evaluations
(iv) Using evaluations to inform key decisions
(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers
and principals
(i) Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or
high-minority schools
(ii) Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas
(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs
(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals
E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 Points)
(1) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs
(2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools
SB 1 (5th Extraordinary Session)
Page 23
(i) Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools
(ii) Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving
schools
F. General (55 Points)
Eligibility Requirements (a) - State application must be
approved by the Department |
(1) Making education funding a priority
(2) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing
charter schools and other innovative schools
(3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on STEM (15
Points)