The Education Stimulus Report

A monthly update from ICW on the education programs and initiatives funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

August, 2010

Race to the Top Phase II Finalists On July 27th, Secretary Duncan announced the finalists for Phase II of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program. Of the 35 States and the District of Columbia submitting an application, 19, including the District were chosen. Representatives from each of the finalists have since come to Washington to make their case before a panel of peer reviewers. The final winners (between 8-10 are expected) will be announced in early September. Winners will take their share of the remaining $3.4 billion originally set aside for RTTT. In Phase I, Delaware received $100 million of the funds while Tennessee was awarded $500 million.

A Look at the Finalists A review of Phase II applications of the finalists and comparison with Phase I, provides insight into the selection and review process. Phase I scores were strongly reflected in Phase II: Only 3 States with “top 20” scores in Phase I of RTTT failed to make the first cut in Phase II: 

Arkansas: 17th in Phase I



Utah: 19th in Phase I



Minnesota: 20th in Phase I (didn’t apply in Phase II) (Continued on page 9)

Congress Passes New Ed Jobs Stimulus Despite looking all but dead just weeks ago, the President signed a $10 billion emergency stimulus, which supporters claim will save 160,000 education related jobs. A week after the House had adjourned for its summer recess, the Senate took up the measure after winning support from two key Republicans. Upon the Senate’s passage, the House was called in for a oneday session and quickly passed the measure for the President’s signature. Through an expedited grant process, States

will have access to grants within two weeks of submitting their application for funds, which are due no later than September 9th. Similar to prior versions of the proposal, the funds would flow through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) which was originally created under ARRA. However, unlike SFSF, no funds will be directed to higher education; instead, 100% of funds must be used by States to off-set cuts in (Continued on page 2)

Inside this issue: Race to the Top Education Funding I3 School Improvement Program Updates

(“Ed Jobs” from page 1)

elementary and secondary education. Other key aspects of the jobs funding include: 









The education reform assurances apply to these funds. States with an approved Phase II application for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund are considered to be in compliance with the assurances and are not required to supply additional information relative to the assurances. Funds will be allocated to States based upon total population and school age population, but States may distribute funds to school districts based on either the State formula or the Title I formula. The Secretary of Education may bypass States not submitting an approvable application and distribute funds directly to other entities within the State, such as school districts. Funds must be used only for the preservation of jobs (including rehiring teachers who have been laid off) serving elementary and secondary education and may not be used for equipment, renovations, rainy day funds, etc. States must provide an assurance that State spending for K-12 AND higher education in fiscal year 2011 will be at or above their 2009 funding level; make up the same percentage share as they did in the State’s 2010 budget; or for States in particular financial distress, the fiscal year 2006 levels or percentage share.

A significant factor leading to the jobs bill’s passage was that proponents offset the new spending by including cuts in other programs. However,

funds were not taken from the President’s other education initiatives as was attempted earlier this summer when Congress proposed slicing $500 million from the current State competition for Race to the Top; $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Program; and $100 million from the Charter Schools program. The move resulted in a veto threat and the plan was quickly scuttled.

However, other education programs were cut, such as the Striving Readers program (cut $50 million) which provides grants to States. The Department has put up a webpage providing information regarding the new Ed Fund. The site will also include links to individual State applications as they are submitted to ED. The site is: www.ed.gov/programs/ educationjobsfund

Congressional Appropriations Update Prior to leaving for the August recess, the Senate’s Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2011 education spending legislation. The move follows the House Appropriation’s Education subcommittee which marked up their bill in July. As highlighted in the chart below, the Senate provided funding for President Obama’s main education reform initiatives. However, the $675 million for Race to the Top was $125 million below Program

FY2010 Final

the House version and less than half of the Administration’s request. Similarly, the Senate provided just $250 million for Investing in Innovation (i3), just half of the Administration’s request and $150 million less than the House. The House and Senate are not likely to move forward on the legislation until after the mid-term elections, which will clearly play into how the difference between the two bills will be negotiated.

FY2011 President’s Request

FY 2011 House Subcommittee

FY2011 Senate Full Committee

Title I

$14.4 billion

$14.4 billion

$14.8 billion

$14.9 billion

Race to the Top (RTTT)

$4 billion (ARRA)

$1.35 billion

$800 million

$675 million

Investing in Innovation (I3)

$650 million (ARRA)

$500 million

$400 million

$250 million

Promise Neighborhoods

$10 million

$210 million

$60 million

$20 million

2

Tough Odds for I3 Grants On August 5, the US Department of Education announced the preliminary winners of the Investing in Innovation (I3) grant competition; just 49 were chosen from a field of nearly 1,700, making the odds of any single grant winning just 1 in 34, perhaps the highest hurdle of any competition the Department has run.

Areas in Which Grantees Were Awarded Bonus Points

However, as highlighted in the chart below, the odds weren’t the same for all 3 categories. Big-money winners in the scaleup category faced the best chance of funding (together with the highest requirements for evidence and the largest matching funds). Category

Max. Award Amount $50 Million

No. of Apps

No. Funded

Odds

19

4

1:5

Validation

$30 Million

355

15

1:24

Development

$5 million

1,324

30

1:45

Scale-Up

The 49 grantees, if they succeed in securing the required 20 percent match, will share $650 million. Grantees are in 24 States, 14 of which have a single winner. Four States stand out for their number of winners: California, with 8; Massachusetts and New York, each with 5; and Washington, DC with 4. Full proposals are not yet available for most winners, but should be posted relatively quickly at www.data.ed.gov. In the meantime, the Department has released some interesting statistics about the winners. As highlighted in the following pie chart, the breakdown in the number of priority areas was relatively even. The greatest percentage of winning applicants were focused on standards while “use of data” had the lowest percentage.

As anticipated, the majority of winners still need to secure their matching funds, and have just until September 8 to do so. In the meantime, some hopeful grantees will be engaging in a form of speed dating, trying to round up sufficient matching funds to be able to collect their award. Businesses will also have an opportunity to learn more about the many promising applications that were not selected in this first round. Although details are scant, the Department has announced that, “In order to continue to support innovation and evidence based practices, a summit will be held in November, 2010 for other promising applicants…. The department plans to highlight these high quality programs at a forum at which potential funding partners may support efforts that the department is unable to directly support at this time.” Expectations for the 49 grantees (assuming all are successful with the match) are very high, but it will take some diligence to track their progress over the 3, and sometimes 5, years of these awards. The Department will host project director meetings, and has let a contract for support for grantees and their evaluators. But for the public – both supporters and detractors of the program – most projects will disappear from view until they are completed. Business partners who are either in the geographical area of particular grantees, or who are interested in a particular project, may want to consider partnering with grantees to help them communicate ongoing progress and lessons learned.

3

Pending I3 Grantees by State and Current Match Status Project Title

Institution

State

Has Match?

Write to Learn!

Corona-Norco Unified School District

CA

Yes

CollegeYes

Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools

CA

Yes

STEM Learning Opportunities Providing Equity

California Education Round Table

CA

No

Integrating English Language Development and Science: A Professional Development Approach

Exploratorium

CA

Yes

District-wide program development, expansion and evaluation of the Education Pilot Project (EPP) for foster youth and preparation for Statewide scaleup.

Advancement Through Opportunity and Knowledge -Children Youth and Family Collaborative

CA

No

L.A.'s Bold Competition -- Turning Around and Operating Its Low-Performing Schools

Los Angeles Unified School District

CA

No

Scaling Up Content-Area Academic Literacy in High School English Language Arts, Science and History Classes for High Needs Students

WestEd

CA

No

Success as the Norm: Scaling-Up KIPP's Effective Leadership Development Model

KIPP Foundation

CA

No

St. Vrain Valley School District i3 Project

Saint Vrain Valley School District

CO

Yes

Collaborative Strategic Reading Colorado (CSR-CO)

School District No. 1 of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado

CO

No

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education for the 21st Century (STEM21)

Education Connection -- Center for 21st Century Skills, School Services

CT

Yes

Every Child Ready

AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation

DC

No

American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation Educator Evaluation for Excellence in Teaching and Learning Consortium

American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation

DC

No

4

Pending I3 Grantees by State and Current Match Status (Con’t) Project Title

Institution

State Has Match?

The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education

Smithsonian Institution

DC

No

Using Data to Inform College Access Programming in the 21st Century High School (Using DICAP)

Council for Opportunity in Education

DC

Yes

Facilitating Long-Term Improvements in Graduation and Higher Education for Tomorrow

Take Stock in Children Inc.

FL

Yes

Florida Master Teacher Initiative

School Board of Miami-Dade County

FL

Yes

Engage ME P.L.E.A.S.E.

Forsyth County Schools

GA

Yes

Achieving High Standards for Pre-K-Grade 3 Mathematics: A Whole Teacher approach to Professional Development

Erikson Institute

IL

Yes

Schools to Watch: School Transformation Network

National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform

IL

No

Making Time for What Matters

Jefferson County Public Schools

KY

No

Scaling The New Orleans Charter Restart Model

New Schools for New Orleans

LA

No

Improving Data Use in Schools: Expanding the Achievement Network Model

The Achievement Network LTD

MA

No

The Data Driven School Transformation Partnership. A project of the Bay State Reading Institute and 12 Massachusetts Elementary Schools

Bay State Reading Institute

MA

No

Boston Teacher Residency: Building the Pipeline of Effective Teachers for Turnaround Schools

Boston Plan for Excellence in the Public Schools Foundation

MA

No

New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK)

Plymouth Public Schools

MA

Yes

Project READS: Using Data to Promote Summer Reading and Close the Achievement Gap for Low-SES Students in North Carolina

Harvard U.

MA

No

North Star

Montgomery County Public Schools

MD

Yes

Validating the Talent Development-Diplomas Now Secondary School Turnaround Model

Johns Hopkins UniversityCenter for Social Organization of Schools

MD

Yes

5

Pending I3 Grantees by State and Current Match Status (Con’t) Project Title

Institution

State Has Match?

Scale-Up and Evaluation of Success for All in Struggling Elementary Schools

Success for All Foundation

MD

Yes

The Building Assets-Reducing Risks Program: Replication and Expansion of an Effective Strategy to Turn Around Low Achieving Schools eMINTS Validation Project

Search Institute

MN

Yes

University of Missouri Parents as Teachers National Center IredellStatesville Schools New York City Department of Education Board of Education of the City of New York The Studio in a School Association, Inc. The New Teacher Project, Inc. Teach for America

MO

Yes

MO

No

NC

No

NY

No

NY

No

NY

Yes

NY

No

NY

No

Ohio State University

OH

No

Beaverton School District 48J Children’s Literacy Initiative’s Model Classroom Innovation for Raising Teaching Children’s Quality and Increasing Student Literacy Achievement Literacy Initiative ASSET Regional Professional Development Centers for Advancing STEM Educa- ASSET Inc. tion

OR

No

PA

No

PA

No

Northeast Tennessee College and Career Ready Consortium

Niswonger Foundation

TN

Yes

Rio Grande Valley Center for Teaching and Leading Excellence

IDEA Public Schools

TX

No

New Mexico K-3 Plus Extended School Year Validation Study

Utah State University

UT

No

Virginia Initiative for Science Teaching and Achievement (VISTA)

George Mason University

VA

Yes

Re-imagining Career and College Readiness: STEM, Rigor, and Equity in a Comprehensive High School

Belleview School District

WA

No

The Milwaukee Community Literacy Project

Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee

WI

Yes

Improving Educational Outcomes for American Indian Children

COMPASS: collaborative Organizational Model to Promote Aligned Support Structures Everyday Arts for Special Education

New York City Department of Education - School of One

Arts Achieve: Impacting Student Success in the Arts

Teacher Effectiveness and Certification Initiative (TEACh Initiative)

Scaling Teach for America: Growing the Talent Force to Ensure All Our Nation's Students Have Access to a Quality Education Reading Recovery: Scaling Up What Works The Beaverton School District Arts for Learning Lessons Project

6

School Improvement Grants As the 2010-2011 school year begins in schools across the country, a number of districts will be launching their Title I school improvement grants. As of press time, 47 States had been approved, and the US Department of Education said that the rest are “days away” from approval. Nationally, 2,050 schools – or approximately 2 percent of all schools were included in either Tier I or Tier II status. Together, these two tiers include the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools and secondary schools graduating 60 percent or less of their students over several years. States had the option to include a wider group of schools, but it’s not yet clear how many States chose to do so. States have between 5 (the minimum number) and 198 schools on their lists, with the average list including 41 schools.

Locations of Grantees

City

Projected

Actual (based on sample)

50%

55%

Suburb

21%

26%

Rural

29%

19%

Grade Level of Grantee Schools: Projected

Actual (based on sample)

Elementary

30%

20%

Middle

18%

17%

High School

40%

51%

Other Configurations

12%

12%

As States award grants to districts, the shape of the program is beginning to emerge. Seven States have finished awarding grants. Across those States, 283 schools were eligible, and 114 are receiving grants (approximately 40 percent of eligible schools). The award size per building is from $502,000 to $1.26 million.

Other statistics for grantee schools:

Readers may be aware that the four required improvement models have generated a great deal of controversy on Capitol Hill. Controversy has ranged from the appropriateness of any of the four models for rural schools, to the adequacy of the research base for the models. The Department wanted to discourage too many schools from selecting the model regarded as the “easiest,” called “transformation,” so districts with more than 9 grantee schools could only select that model for half of the schools. However, this also sparked protest; the argument is that if the model is based on adequate research, it shouldn’t be limited. Fortunately, it appears that all four models will be tried out this fall. Based on the early States, 

70% chose transformation



21% chose turnaround



3% chose restart



6% chose closure

Grants also appear to be likely to impact all kinds of schools, in all kinds of communities. The Department of Education made some projections, and based on preliminary data the projections were fairly close. The following tables compare projected to actual data in several areas.



79% regular schools



11% charter schools



26% have more than 800 students



62% are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Planning for Round II The timing of this year’s grants wasn’t ideal; States applied in February and at least a handful have yet to receive their awards, despite the expectation that schools will implement their chosen model starting with day one of this school year. The Department has already started planning to get an earlier start with the next round of grants. Most encouraging is that the Department has no plans to regulate or revise existing program requirements, meaning that the four models will stay. States will have to re-apply, so the Department should have an opportunity to incorporate lessons learned from this round of applications. One thing to watch is that States will be allowed to revise their definitions of “lowperforming school” – it’s important to understand your State’s definition and encourage States to hang onto rigorous definitions. As schools begin implementing these rigorous models, there will undoubtedly be pressure to water down both the definitions and the models. Round II Preliminary Timeline September-October: State application package published November-December: Applications due and awards made December-January: District-level competitions & awards 7

School Improvement Grants (con’t) Model Turnaround

Required Actions          

Restart

 

School Closure

Replace principal Grant the new principal operational flexibility (including in staffing, time, and budgeting) Review all staff and re-hire no more than 50% Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development Adopt new governance structure Implement research-based instructional program vertically aligned from grade to grade and with State standards Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction Increase learning time Provide appropriate support services for students

Convert school or close and re-open under management of a charter school operator, charter school management organization, or education management organization selected through a rigorous review process. Must re-enroll former students who choose to re-enroll and are in the grade span served by the school

Close school and enroll students in other, higher-achieving schools in reasonable proximity Four required strategies, each with numerous required activities:

Transformation

1. Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness     

Replace principal Evaluate teachers and principals using student growth as a significant factor Identify and reward high-performing staff, and remove staff who do not improve after multiple opportunities Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the school

2.Comprehensive instructional reform strategies  

Use data to identify and implement research-based instructional program vertically aligned from grade to grade and with State standards Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction

3. Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools  

Increase learning time Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement

4. Providing operational flexibility and sustained support  

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 Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the district, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization. 8

(“RTTT” from page 1)

But...Phase I success was not always essential: Three States not in the “top 20” for Phase I made the cut: 

Arizona made the biggest leap forward, having ranked 40th in Phase I



California was 27th in Phase I



Hawaii was 22nd in Phase I

Sitting out Phase I didn’t pay off — for the most part: Of the Phase II applicants that sat out in Phase I — including Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada — only Maryland made the cut Most States had strong district participation, but it wasn’t crucial in making the cut: Only 4 States in Phase II had less than 50% of their school districts agreeing to participate. Three of these States made the first cut: 

Georgia (14%)



California (18%)



Pennsylvania (32%)



Maine had only 38% participation, but did not make the cut.



Of the 19 finalists, 11 had 75% or less participation from their districts and 8 had greater than 75%, of which 4 States, (HI, KY, NC, and SC) had 100% district participation. (Both winners in Phase I also had 100% participation)

Union buy-in was not a critical factor for Phase II finalists—over half lacked the support of 50% of their local unions: Overall, 10 States APPLYING for Phase II had 50% or less “union buy-in” — 8 of these 10 made the first cut.

Union buy-in:

but instead an improvement in laying out how their current practices meet the grant criteria.



DC

0%



New Jersey

1%



Colorado

5%



Maryland

8%

However, roughly a half dozen States did enact new laws to strengthen their chances for Phase II funding. For example:



Rhode Island

30%





California

33%



Illinois

49%

Arizona passed a referendum to increase the sales tax to fund education



Arizona

50%



Colorado passed landmark tenure reform legislation



Louisiana passed a new teacher evaluation initiative



New York passed a new teacher evaluation system and also increased the number of charters allowed in the State; and



Rhode Island passed a new law increase the number of charter schools in the State.

Of the 19 States (including DC) making the first cut, 9 had greater than 70% union buy-in, with 5 States having 100% buy in (PA, OH, HI, KY, NC, and GA) Improvements over Phase I As would be expected, the vast majority of States in Phase II built upon their Phase I application and worked to respond to areas where they lost the most points. For the most part, changes to applications had less to do with new policies,

A more detailed State-by-State summary of Phase II finalists may be found on the following pages. 9

State Arizona

Phase I Ranking 40th 240/500 pts

California

27th 336/500

Major Changes from Phase I Application In Phase I, Arizona scored just 240 pts out of 500. The greatest number of points was lost in areas related to teachers and local support. In Phase II, Arizona made several changes to help their chances at success. In particular, a State-passed referendum will create a new stream of education funds from an increase in the sales tax. The State also adopted new alternative teacher certification procedures as well as a new teacher and principal evaluation system. However, the State still struggled getting local support, with 389 districts (out of 633) signing up this time compared to 376 in Phase I. In Phase I, CA lost significant points due to low LEA participation - only 804 of 1,729 districts signed on, due largely to union opposition. This, coupled with weak data and teacher performance systems, kept CA out of the running in Phase I. In Phase II, CA had 2 choices; expand LEA participation by diluting reforms, or setting a higher bar for a smaller number of districts. In the end, they chose the latter approach and as a result captured just 302 districts – less than half of the original total. At the same time, they replaced the Phase I “voluntary model” of evaluating teachers and principals with a new mandatory Multiple Measures Evaluation System based at least 30% on student growth. Other aspects of the application were also strengthened, including plans around a new data portal to better share accountability data with educators and the public.

Colorado

14th 409/500

In Phase I, CO greatest challenge was meeting requirements related to ensuring “great teachers and leaders“ where they picked up just 104 of 138 points. Their Phase II score in this area should be bolstered by legislation enacted in May, which as described in their application makes them “among the first States to enact legislation that requires educators to earn and retain tenure based upon annual performance evaluations, based at least 50% upon their students’ academic growth.” The same legislation also made Colorado “one of the first States to eliminate the forced placement of teachers Statewide. Principals in Colorado now have control over the staffing in their buildings and teachers who cannot secure a placement within 12 months are placed on unpaid leave.” While the reforms are likely to bolster their point total related to “great teachers and leaders” – they likely contributed to the fact that nearly two dozen fewer districts signed on to the Phase II application – which could cost them a few points related to overall participation.

District of Columbia

16th 402/500

In Phase I, DC lost points in several key areas including local support, data and the 15 STEM priority points. However, the Phase II application is nearly identical to the Phase I version – with some limited exceptions, including a more robust set of initiatives around STEM.

10

State Florida

Phase I Ranking 4th 431/500

Georgia

3rd 433/500

Hawaii

22nd 364/500

Major Changes from Phase I Application In Phase I, Florida had one of the highest-ranking scores, but lost points in areas related to district participation (despite a relatively high buy-in) and teacher evaluation. For Phase II, the State held onto district support and also gained the support of local union leaders. In Phase I, just 8% of local union leaders were on board – in Phase II, 79% lent their support. This support came as a direct result of the Governor’s veto of legislation which would have instituted a rigorous pay-for-performance initiative and ended the current tenure system. In lieu of that plan, the Governor and unions did, however, agree to a Phased-in plan for evaluating teachers in which at least half of a teacher’s performance rating would be based upon student achievement growth and would also be tied to teacher pay. In Phase I, Georgia just missed the cut off for a winning application. The State lost points due mainly to a lack of district participation, given that just 23 of the State’s 181 districts signed on to their plan. For Phase II, the State picked up just 3 additional districts, but obviously, the State remains in a good position to be a finalist. In Phase I, Hawaii struggled with several factors, including being one of the few (if only) State to receive straight “zeros” on an entire category. Specifically, when it came to equitable distribution of effective teachers, not one reviewer found enough evidence for even a single point. The State also struggled with a lack of a plan around measuring teacher effectiveness; school funding; and innovation – particularly around charter schools. In Phase II, the State responded to several of these issues by focusing on a handful of strategies geared toward expanding the numbers of effective teachers in high need areas. The State plan also bolstered it previous teacher effectiveness measurement systems to require that 50% of the annual performance-based evaluations for teachers and principals be based on student achievement. A series of more aggressive reforms also made some progress through the State’s legislature, but failed to be enacted.

Illinois

5th 423/500

In Phase I, Illinois had one of the highest-scoring applications. This was no doubt in part due to a series of education reform bills aimed at addressing several of the key RTTT requirements. These laws included the establishment of a State longitudinal education data system; allowing for alternative certification programs to operate independently from higher education; a new teacher and principal evaluation system based 50% on student growth; and an expansion of charter schools. However, the State lost the greatest number of points related to progress in improving achievement and closing gaps. The State also lost points related to ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals and securing district participation. The Phase II application attempted to address each of these issues in more detail and with respect to district participation, increased the participation from 42 to 60 percent of districts. Since Phase I, the State also enacted a new law overhauling the State's principal preparation and certification requirements. 11

State Kentucky

Phase I Ranking

Major Changes from Phase I Application

9th

In Phase I, KY scored very well in nearly every category, save one – ensuring successful conditions for charters and other innovative schools. In this single category, the State lost 32 points.

418/500

The State made the argument that its “school-based decision making” (SBDM) process, which provides “autonomy not normally granted to public schools” is akin to having all of their schools being charter schools. The argument was clearly lost on the reviewers. Nevertheless, for Phase II, the State stuck to many of the same arguments – although it addressed the issue in a more detailed fashion on how each of the SBDM elements meet the individual requirements related to charters and innovative schools. The plan also highlighted that “In the just completed Special Session of the Kentucky General Assembly (May 2010), legislation was passed that provided another innovative school choice option. HB 1 (2010) allows the Commissioner of Education to approve plans established by a local school board of education and a Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accredited postsecondary education institution for purposes of creating early and middle college high schools that provide a rigorous academic curriculum within a supportive and nurturing environment for underserved students; and encouraging academic success by linking students, teachers, and community partners in innovative ways.”

Louisiana

11th 418/500

In Phase I, Louisiana did fairly well across the board, but lost points in a few key areas, most notably related to their data systems and the failure to pick up any of the 15 STEM points. To a lesser degree, the State lost points related to district participation and demonstrating improved student outcomes. For Phase II, the State didn’t make significant policy changes to address most of these issues as much as they more clearly articulated what they were trying to accomplish. However, in the area of STEM, they significantly bolstered their plan, which should help them with the “all or nothing” 15 priority points. While the State only lost a handful of points based upon its proposed teacher evaluation system, the Governor has since signed legislation implementing the new initiative which bases half of reviews on student achievement growth. The Governor also signed into law an initiative to provide increased “charter-like” flexibility to non-charter schools in the State.

Maryland

NA

Maryland was the only State to make the cut that had not participated in the Phase I competition. To improve their competitive advantage, the State enacted a new teacher evaluation system based 50 percent on student growth. The State also signed on to the common core standards and is generally viewed as a high-performing State overall. These factors will likely make the State a strong contender, but other areas – most notably related to charter schools - will likely cost the State points.

12

State

Phase I Ranking

Massachusetts

13th 411/500

Major Changes from Phase I Application In Phase I, Massachusetts lost points in several key areas – most notably, the State’s initial lack of participation in common core standards contributed to the State’s loss of 15 points in that category. Despite having passed new charter expansion legislation, the State also lost 9 points in that area as well as 9 points each in categories related to teacher evaluation and effective teacher distribution/preparation. For Phase II, the biggest shift was the State’s adoption of the common core standards – this move alone will clearly make their application very competitive. Recent actions taken by the State Board of Education, including adopting regulations lifting the charter cap and the establishment of a task force for implementing teacher and administration’s evaluations - should also increase Massachusetts’s chances in Phase II.

New Jersey

18th 387/500

In Phase I, New Jersey picked up just 83 out of 125 points related to State success factors – due in large part to difficulty in getting more districts and local unions on board. The State also lost 18 points for its lack of a plan around implementing a State longitudinal data system. The State’s plan around teachers and leaders also showed weaknesses, especially related to using evaluation data to inform key decisions. For Phase II, New Jersey did not enact any major additional reforms, nor were they able to greatly increase local support. However, they did undertake a fairly substantial rewrite in many areas of their initial application – arguably laying out a more compelling case for funding.

New York

15th 393/500

In Phase I, New York lost the most points (25) in categories related to teachers and leaders – particularly around teacher evaluation, where the State lost 11 of those points. The State also lost 12 points each for not fully implementing a Statewide longitudinal data system and not fully ensuring successful conditions for charters and other innovative schools. For Phase II, New York passed major education reform legislation addressing many of the shortcomings in its first application. Specifically: A new teacher/principal evaluation system was enacted which is based 40 percent on student achievement. The system would differentiate effectiveness and be used as a significant factor in employment decisions. The plan also reforms tenure systems to ensure expedited disciplinary process for teachers and principals with a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance. A new charter law maintains a cap, but increases it from 200 to 460. The State also provided $20 million for the implementation of a longitudinal data system.

North Carolina

12th 414/500

In Phase I, North Carolina did well in most categories. In fact, the only element where the State took a significant hit was related to charter schools – the State has a cap on the overall number of charters allowed. While the State modified aspects of its application, the State did not modify its stance on capping charter schools. 13

State Ohio

Phase I Ranking

Major Changes from Phase I Application

10th

In Phase I, Ohio struggled with getting district participation – with just over half signing onto the State’s plan. Despite this fact, the State lost relatively few points for this factor. Instead, the State lost more points tied to its record of student outcomes and the distribution of effective teachers.

423/500

For Phase II, Ohio did not make any major policy changes at the State level, but instead provided a far more comprehensive summary of what they have done (and will do) in each of the major reform categories. In particular, the State provided a far stronger case for their efforts tied to student outcomes and expanding the distribution of effective teachers Statewide. The State also slightly increased the number of participating districts.

Pennsylvania

7th 420/500

In Phase I, Pennsylvania was one of the top finishers. Despite only 28% of districts participating, the Commonwealth lost only a handful of points in this category. The greatest number of points overall were lost in areas related to student outcomes; improving teacher effectiveness based upon performance; and creating successful environments for charters. For Phase II, Pennsylvania did not pass any additional education reforms to address issues raised in Phase I. Instead, they worked to make a much stronger case in a revamped application.

Rhode Island

8th 419/500

In Phase I, Rhode Island had a very strong proposal overall. Major areas where the State lost points included district support; longitudinal data; and creating successful environments for charters. For Phase II, the State enacted two major reforms to address areas of weakness in the first round. Specifically, the State lifted the cap on the number of charter school students and raised the cap on the number of charter schools to 35. However, multiple campuses are allowed under a single charter. The State claims the combined impact will permit “virtually unfettered growth of high-performing charter schools in Rhode Island.” More recently, the State enacted legislation creating a new funding formula increasing funds based on the number of poor students enrolled. The State also revamped many parts of its application in response to Phase I comments.

South Carolina

6th 423/500

In Phase I, South Carolina was among the top-scoring States with strong scores in many categories. Both student outcomes and conditions for successful charter schools were areas where the State lost the greatest number of points. In Phase II the State revamped some aspects of its proposal, highlighting its role in improving student achievement in certain areas. In addition, the plan included a much more aggressive description of the State’s charter school laws. 14

Update on Key Programs Funded Under ARRA PROGRAM

FUNDING FOR

QUICK FACTS

Race to the Top (RTTT) $4B

ED is using this high-profile grant competition as an incentive to get States to remove barriers to reform. Grantees will have to implement reforms in teacher quality, high academic standards, using data to drive reform, and turning around lowperforming schools.

In July, the Secretary announced 19 finalist from among the 35 States and the District of Columbia to apply (see story this issue). Winners are expected to be announced in early September.

ARRA-Title I School Improvement Fund $3.545B, including FY2009 allocation

Reforming the lowest-performing Title I schools and middle/high schools.

Districts that receive this funding will have to implement one of four dramatic reforms in the lowest-performing schools, and will have to report on the outcomes. State applications were due in midFebruary, and 47 grants have been awarded so far (see story this issue). Targeted are the lowest-achieving schools, which must use one of four prescriptive models to raise student achievement.

Investing in Innovation (i3) $650M

Scaling up successful education reform practices and programs. This fund is intended to support innovations that have succeeded in improving school performance, ranging from small grants (up to $5 million) for promising practices, to large grants (up to $50 million) for programs with strong evidence of effectiveness.

The Department announced 49 preliminary winners (see story this issue). Qualified applicants who are able to secure the required match, or who are granted a waiver from this requirement, will receive awards in September.

Race to the Top - Assessment $350M

Assessments aligned with new national academic standards.

The Department received 4 applications (3 of which are eligible). Peer reviewers are evaluating applications and winners will be announced in the fall.

ARRA- Teacher Incentive Fund $300M, including FY2009 allocation

Incentive pay for high-performing teachers and principals in high-need schools.

Applications were due June 28. The Department expects to make awards in September.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, is working to drive public policies that increase opportunity and prosperity through advocacy, intelligence, and our worldwide network. Through the Chamber's Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW), the Chamber promotes high educational standards and effective workforce training systems to attract, educate, and empower works for successful careers 15