Race to the Top: Eligibility & Priorities
Posted on 17. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts this week, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here). This post focuses on the eligibility requirements and application priorities.
Eligibility Requirements
- Approved application for Phases 1 and 2 of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program
Washington received funding from Phase 1 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program, and should receive funding in Phase 2. If we don’t, we’ll have much larger problems than not qualifying for R2T (ever-growing budget hole anyone?).
- No legal, statutory or regulatory barrier to linking student achievement or growth data to teachers and principals for the purpose of evaluation
Washington meets this requirement. Teacher and principal evaluations are established in RCW 28A.405.100 and nothing prohibits districts from using student data in evaluations (some districts already do). It should be noted, our state laws do not explicitly list student data as a necessary component of evaluations. Whether or not this will be a sticking point for the feds is yet to be seen.
Priorities
- Comprehensive approach to education reform (absolute priority)
If we don’t address this, Washington doesn’t have a chance. So it should be pretty safe to say that every state will make sure it nails this. The U.S. Department of Education does say in the appendix on scoring that this priority cuts across the entire application (agreed) and should not addressed separately.
- Emphasis on STEM (competitive preference priority) — 15 points
Washington likes to hang its hat on STEM, and our R2T application will certainly be no exception. With schools like Aviation and Delta high schools and our planned ramp-up of math and science graduation requirements (a la CORE 24), Washington should be able to make the case that we care about STEM. Let’s just hope the Department of Education doesn’t look out our baccalaureate degree production in these fields. It is worth noting that this is the only priority with points attached to it.
- Innovations for improving early learning outcomes (invitational priority)
The Department of Early Learning, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and other leaders in early learning are working on a plan to present to Governor Gregoire that would aid the state in meeting this priority. The early learning plan will advocate for, among many things, increased pre-kindergarten opportunities for children in Washington that phase-in alongside all-day kindergarten. If Washington moves forward with this group’s recommendations, we would be well poised to hit this priority.
- Expansion and adaption of statewide longitudinal data systems (invitational priority)
Washington is already doing a lot of work to improve our statewide longitudinal data system. Once fully developed, the system will provide longitudinal assessments of student and teacher growth, useful data that aligns curriculum with desired student outcomes, and transparency of information with a demonstration of governmental accountability to students, parents, taxpayers, policymakers and other stakeholders. The passage of ESHB 2261 in April also puts into law the intent for linkage of student, educator and financial information. The early learning plan referenced above will push for data of 3- and 4-year-olds to be incorporated into the K-12 data warehouse.
- P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment (invitational priority)
Washington can better align it’s early learning, K-12 and higher education systems, and already has policy work underway to do so. First, simultaneous expansion of pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten will help link early learning to K-12. Once the CORE 24 graduation requirements are funded and fully implemented, our high school graduates will be better prepared to transition to post-secondary institutions (4-year universities, community colleges, workforce training). Current high school graduation requirements are well below entrance requirements to many post-secondary institutions. CORE 24 will align high school exit with college entrance.
- School-level conditions for reform, innovation and learning (invitational priority)
The Department of Education lists seven examples of how schools can demonstrate this, only three (maybe four) seem possible for schools in our state. This isn’t to say the examples listed are good or bad, they are simply what the Department of Education will be looking for.
The three are: 1) providing comprehensive services to high-needs students, 2) creating school climates and cultures that remove obstacles to student engagement and achievement, and 3) implementing strategies to effectively engage families and communities in supporting academic success of students. There are plenty of examples across the state of schools doing these things. The one are that is a maybe is staff selection. Some districts give principals a lot of discretion in hiring; others are more centralized.
The three Washington would struggle with are: 1) implementing new structures and formats for the school day or year that result in increased learning time, 2) controlling the school’s budget, and 3) awarding credit to students based on student performance instead of instructional time. The largest barrier to #1 is money. Most districts don’t have the cash to offer longer school days or years. R2T funds could obviously help here. For #2, the “barrier” is that most funding in education goes to uncontrollable costs, like staff salaries and building utilities. Most principals would say they have discretion over 5 percent of their school’s budget. And for #3, our state law currently defines credits based on instructional hours. The State Board of education has discussed the idea of shifting to competency based credits, but no proposals have moved forward. Either way, this issue is out of the hands of the local school.
Next post will tackle Selection Criteria A: State Success Factors.
Continue Reading
Race to the Top: Final Guidelines
Posted on 17. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
As we all learned last week, the final Race to the Top (R2T seems to be the preferred acronym) guidelines were released. So what changed? Generally speaking, not that much, although a fair amount of reorganization occurred (for the better if you ask me). Each R2T application will be evaluated on a 500-point scale, with different parts of the application being worth different point values. Education Week has a great chart on the point breakdown.
Here’s an at a glance look at the guidelines/requirements:
Eligibility Requirements
- Approved application for Phases 1 and 2 of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program
- No legal, statutory or regulatory barrier to linking student achievement or growth data to teachers and principals for the purpose of evaluation
Priorities
- Comprehensive approach to education reform (absolute priority)
- Emphasis on STEM (competitive preference priority) — 15 points
- Innovations for improving early learning outcomes (invitational priority)
- Expansion and adaption of statewide longitudinal data systems (invitational priority)
- P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment (invitational priority)
- School-level conditions for reform, innovation and learning (invitational priority)
Selection Criteria
- State success factors (district participation, capacity for reform, stakeholder buy-in, progress in student achievement) — 125 points
- Standards and assessments — 70 points
- Data systems to support instruction — 47 points
- Great teachers and leaders — 138 points
- Turning around the lowest achieving schools — 50 points
- General (making education funding a priority, ensuring successful conditions for charter and other innovative schools, demonstrating other reform conditions) — 55 points
The U.S. Department of Education also put together some budget guidance for states, breaking up all 50 states into five categories based on student population. Washington was put into Category 3, along with Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland and Wisconsin. By the Department of Education’s estimation, states in Category 3 should have applications in the $150-250 million range. These numbers are non-binding, so we can feel free to ask for heaps more money if we like.
Now the big question: what are Washington’s chances of scoring a piece of the pie? This week we’ll be blogging on just that, going through each section and highlighting Washington’s strengths and weaknesses (or areas for improvement).
Continue Reading
Education news for November 17
Posted on 17. Nov, 2009 by Katrina.
Unprotected programs at risk: Gregoire won’t call special session
Levy or bond? Three options for Olympia school funding
Ready for anything: Brewster not waiting for state’s Core 24 requirement
Quantity over quality in charters? Study finds that gains fall short of success in regular schools
Continue Reading
Make CORE 24 a top priority
Posted on 17. Nov, 2009 by Mike.
Last year, the State Board of Education approved the CORE 24 graduation framework to better prepare students for college, job training and the workforce. CORE 24 is an integral part of the basic education reform bill signed by Gov. Gregoire this year. Policymakers are now planning how to implement and fund CORE 24.
Kathleen from the NW Progressive Institute blog reminds us why CORE 24 is so important for the students of our state. Here’s an excerpt:
Core 24 was at the heart of the education reform bill that groups such as the League of Education Voters (LEV) and the Washington State PTA advocated so passionately for last winter. Right now, a legislative workgroup is working to implement the new definition of basic education that came out of that reform. Core 24 is on the group’s agenda but word has it that it is not a top priority. And yet there are many reasons why it should be.
By 2013, thirty-one states will have higher graduation requirements than Washington, once again putting our fair state in the bottom third of national education rankings. And according to the SBE:
Over half of community and technical college students who graduated from high school [in Washington] in 2006 took pre-college (remedial) classes in 2006-07: English, reading or math. This level of remediation cost students and the state $17.5 million.
