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, 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, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, standards and assessments here, data systems here and teachers and principals here). This post focuses on the fifth of six selection criteria: turning around struggling schools.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 points)
E1. Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and districts (10 points)
The extent to which the state has legal, statutory or regulatory authority to intervene directly in the state’s persistently lowest-achieving schools and districts that are in improvement or corrective action status.
Washington does not have intervention authority. Current law will need to me changed to grant the state this authority.
E2. Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Extent to which the state has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to:
i) Identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools and, at its discretion, any non-Title I eligible secondary schools that would be considered persistently lowest-achieving schools if they were eligible to receive Title I funds (5 points)
ii) Support its districts in turning around these schools by implementing one of four school intervention models: turnaround, restart, school closure or transformation (35 points)
Like the other 49 states, Washington complies with the accountability system established by No Child Left Behind. NCLB places schools and districts that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” in categories based on the number of years AYP has not been made. This is the main system the state uses to identify struggling schools. However, as many have pointed out, AYP doesn’t really give any insight into which schools could be considered persistently low-achieving. This is a large part of the reason behind the State Board of Education’s work on creating a more exhaustive accountability system. The SBE’s proposed accountability system would incorporate federal accountability models and offer more depth in certain areas. If Washington wants to be competitive in this area, the state should adopt the SBE’s proposal.
One more to go: general criteria.
