1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EDUCATION COMMITTEE

IRVIS OFFICE BUILDING ROOM G-50 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

FEDERAL "RACE TO THE TOP" FUNDING PUBLIC HEARING

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010 9:35 A.M.

BEFORE:

HONORABLE JAMES R. ROEBUCK, JR., MAJ. CHAI RMAN HONORABLE KEN SMITH HONORABLE JOHN T. YUDICHAK HONORABLE MI KE CARROLL HONORABLE H. SCOTT CONKLIN HONORABLE RI CHARD T. GRUCELA HONORABLE PATRI CK J. HARKINS HONORABLE MARK LONGIETTI HONORABLE MI CHAEL H. O'BRIEN HONORABLE JOHN E. PALLONE HONORABLE JAKE WHEATLEY HONORABLE PAUL I. CLYMER, MIN. CHAIRMAN HONORABLE BERNI E O'NEILL HONORABLE KATHY L. RAPP HONORABLE MI KE FLECK HONORABLE DUANE MI LNE HONORABLE THOMAS P. MURT HONORABLE MI KE REESE

BRENDA J. PARDUN, RPR P. O. BOX 278 MAYTOWN, PA 17550 717-426-1596 PHONE/FAX 2 ALSO PRESENT:

CHRISTOPHER WAKELEY, EXECUTIVE DI RECTOR (D) MARLENA MILLER, LEGISLATIVE AI DE (D) ERI N DIXON, RESEARCH ANALYST (D) TRACEY MCLAUGHLIN, RESEARCH ANALYST (D) PATTY WHI TE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (R) ASHLEY DEMAURO, RESEARCH ANALYST (R) DUSTIN GI NGRICH, RESEARCH ANALYST (R) KATHLEEN STREAKER, RESEARCH ANALYST (R) EILEEN KRICK, LEGI SLATIVE AIDE (R)

BRENDA J. PARDUN, RPR REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC 3 I NDEX

NAME PAGE

INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING REMARKS 4

DR. GERALD L. ZAHORCHAK 5 SEC RET ARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Good morning.

Like to call the House Education Committee meeting to order.

The purpose of today's meeting is to hear from the Secretary of Education, Gerald

Zahorchak, on the Race to the Top initiative.

Before we begin, let me say a couple things. I understand that there are legislative caucuses, that some members will be leaving, and so that is a reality that we fu n c t i o n wi t h.

And the other thing I do, in terms of housekeeping, is ask that all of the committee members might introduce themselves, and then we'll turn it over to the secretary.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : Good morning. Mark Longietti, state representative from Mercer County.

REPRESENTATI VE HARKINS: Good morning. Pat Harkins from Erie.

REPRESENTATI VE SMI TH: Good morning.

Representative Ken Smith, Lackawanna County.

REPRESENTATI VE CONKLI N: Scott

Conklin, Centre County. 5 REPRESENTATI VE O'BRIEN: Good morning. Mike O'Brien, Philadelphia.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Good morning. Mike Carroll, Luzerne and Monroe

Counties.

REPRESENTATI VE GRUCELA: Rich

Grucela, Northampton County.

REPRESENTATI VE MURT: Tom Murt,

Montgomery County and Philadelphia County.

REPRESENTATI VE O'NEILL: Good morning. Bernie O'Neill, Bucks County.

REPRESENTATI VE MILNE: Good morning.

Duane Milne, Chester County.

REPRESENTATI VE RAPP: Good morning.

Kathy Rapp, Warren, Forest, McKean.

REPRESENTATI VE CLYMER: Good morning,

Mr. Secretary. Paul Clymer, Bucks.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: And good morning, and again, Jim Roebuck, Philadelphia.

Mr . S e c r e t a r y.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: Thanks very much, Chairman Roebuck, Chairman Clymer, members of the Education Committee.

Happy New Year to all of you. Thanks for the opportunity to brief you on the 6 extraordi nary opportunity that we have available to Pennsylvania students through the

Race to the Top grant.

My office has been periodically updating the executive directors, and I 've discussed this issue with the chairs over the pas t s everal weeks , and I'm excited to present the committee with a comprehensive summary of our pr opo sal .

As you see i n the table of contents, the eight parts: The overview, why we believe we're wel l posi tioned, our objectives, what's required as districts to participate or as an eligible charter, what participating districts and eligible charters would receive, a summary of models for turnaround schools, the timeline, and then our expected outcomes.

The Race to the Top, to be clear, if we receive this grant, we must implement the plan proposed, with great fidelity, no variance. S o, in ess ence, if we get this money, it's because we're pushing from the ceiling through the roof and we're committed to the ob jec tiv es.

You'll see these requirements. First 7 of all, it's about bold education reform, very competiti ve, going only to the handful of states that can demonstrate a coordinated and deep-seated commitment to major reform. Our collaboration and buy-in is a big part of that from people who are impacted by the grant, and forces us to have the kind of consensus about the reform model that we propose. And the nation has said set a deadline, and that's

January -- in January for us to react, and our deadline here is January 13th. So, again, i t's urgent work.

This 4 .5-billion-dollar set aside competitive grant is meant to drive reform in four areas, four pillars. And if you see those under reform areas, it's about great teachers and leaders, about standards and assessments and systems, turning around the lowest performing schools, and using data systems to support the work. Four pillars.

I think it behooves us all to take note of those, because as the reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the

ESEA, which is now subtitled as No Child Left

Behind, as that reauthorization takes place, 8 I 'm sure the administration will begin from this particular framework.

Back to Race to the Top. Again, 4.35 billion dollars. States have to compete for it by submitting ambitious, yet achievable, plans. There's an application deadline for phase one of this of January 19th. And we believe we're in position to bring up to four hundred million dollars back to the state to share with our school districts.

You can also see for each of those four pillars what they mean in the column called "description" and what percentage of the grant will be -- how the grant will be weighted. Those four areas, teachers and leaders, 28 percent of the proposal will be focused on that. So your score will be up to

28 percent of the hundred percent, based on that one area. And then standards and assessment systems, turning around the lowest performing schools, the data system.

Then there are two other areas that are very important, broad-based support, so lots of school districts participating; those lowest performing schools also willing to 9 participate, and support from all of us who are obviously huge pieces of this proposal -¬ the legislature, those associations from superintendents, principals to teachers and others showing support for our proposal.

As well, there's the "Other," and you see in a footnote, we have a strong environment for charter schools. We have prioritized education funding, and we have what's been recognized from the -- even the office of the President of the United States a good model for our STEM -- science, technology, engineering, and mathematics work. So those three areas combined, adding up to another 1 4 percent of the whole.

We're positioned in those four areas. And let me just give you some reasons why we believe that. For system-wide reform, our foundations, we have a very progressive charter law that does not cap charters. We have had the Empowerment Act, which is a strong accountability piece in our state. We have something called Standard-Aligned Systems that links benchmark standards with rigorous curricular framework and fair assessments. 10 We have a longitudinal data system that has been recognized nationally. We have a also nationally recognized early childhood program that was called first in improvement overall in the whole country.

We have a Pennsylvania-inspired leadership initiative that brings professional development through your Act 4 5 that ensures that our principals are learning how to be the chief architects of standards-based systems.

We have no legal barriers to linking school performance to teacher evaluations -¬ student performance, that is.

And we have, already, a tiered-base school improvement program that also has been written about from the national ed labs work.

We are the only state in the nation -- according to the Center for Ed

Policy, a nonpartisan think tank in

Washington, the most comprehensive study done on student achievement, the only state in the nation that has made gains on both the NAEP and our state assessment at every grade level, both subject areas, and for all subgroups.

And we have innovation going on in 11 our state. Pittsburgh School District, for one example, was just -- just received a forty-million-dollar grant from the Gates

Foundation for -- for teacher effectiveness, and is a national model, one of a few for how uni ons and districts can collaborate to work at teacher and administrative effectiveness.

And, finally, there are systems for the equitable distribution of funds. Our system has been recognized as fair when it comes to equity and t he work we've done to provide technical support for our schools, via our partnerships with our PaTTAN and intermediate units is a system that gives us capacity and deliver capacity.

Our plan focuses on six objectives.

One, we want to strengthen our standards- aligned system. And when we say that, we mean standards connected to a curriculum framework that's connected to a assessment system, from diagnostics to benchmarks along the way to a summary, like the PSSA, and to formative techniques that go on in the classroom every day to see that all kids are comprehending, connects to good instruction, connects to 12 tutoring, connects in very deliberate ways to materi als and resources available at schools or available for school. Six pieces.

And we have a data system that helps inform our students. And our ideas for that data system will be described as I go forward.

The second objective is a pipeline for bringing teachers into pre-service education, bringing them out of and distributing them equitably across high-need areas and in high-need subjects; a multi- measure evaluation system for the teachers and principals; a coherent approach to professional development; an approach for turning around low performing schools; and, finally, a way to evaluate the work and share best practices.

The appendix to this PowerPoint provides greater details for all six of those for those schools that are participating and for those schools that are struggling, called our turnaround schools. Two types of schools wil l be i n the Race to the Top work with us.

This slide you see shows a pyramid, 13 and it is start with a base. And we've been using this pyramid for many years. What kind of tools and assistance can we give to all districts and all charter schools, all public schools? And we provide a robust, well- aligned set of tools, like getting results,

RRE metric data, and I could go on.

In the Race to the Top, we'll think the same way. What can we do with Race-to- the-Top funds to enhance those schools and to bui ld new ones? No requirements for schools.

You don't have to be a participant. You'll just reap the benefits of this kind of work.

The second level is where we start to joi n with intermediate units and others to help schools that are struggling or want to participate. So the participating school level is next. And this is where we could provide district- and school building-level and classroom-level assistance, but there's requirements through Race to the Top.

And then, finally, the top of the pyramid is for those hundred and forty-plus schools in many districts that are -- thirty- six-plus districts that are lowest performing 14 and need serious intervention. And those districts would participate with us, with expectations regarding those serious interventions.

They have to implement all of the mandatory reforms. They would agree to one of four turnaround models, and, again, they would submit a -- an agreement to do that up front through a Memorandum of Understanding.

Participating schools also would submit a Memorandum of Understanding. And, again, no requirement for the base.

So here's a slide that says, How would we share money with schools? Assuming that a hundred fifty schools would end up saying they wanted to participate -- school districts, that is -- let's assume a hundred and fifty school districts tell us they want to participate, what's the formula for driving out half the money, at least, to those schools?

So two assumptions here: A hundred fifty districts and a four-hundred-million- dollar award. If that's the case, then it comes down to the question of, How poor is the 15 district? Because we have to distribute this through Title 1 allocation formulas under in exi stence from the federal law. So the law says we need to use the Title 1 allocation formul a to distribute half these funds to the school districts that participate.

And you'll see what that means. If you have 2 percent poor, that is "basic only." You could receive, if your school district's greater than ten thousand, three hundred thousand dollars to a million dollars to participate.

If you're a small school, less than twenty-five hundred students, and you're -- 2 percent of your students are census poor, that's a hundred thousand to a hundred fifty thousand. So that's a fairly low incident of poverty students.

In the mi ddl e i s a lot of our school districts, 5 percent census poor, poverty not free and reduced lunch, not to be confused with that -- you see the allocations are larger. For the larger districts, greater than ten thousand, a million to four million dollars. And, again, this is distributed 16 through the formula.

And if you are very poor, have more than 1 5 percent of your students that are census poor, then you see it is three million to eight million. Or if you're less than two -- twenty-five hundred students, the two hundred thousand to six hundred thousand dollars money, if you're a participating district, based on the assumption of four hundred million dollars and only a hundred fifty school districts participating.

In addition to that, you'll see the note that says: Turnaround schools will receive seven to nine hundred dollars per student that's not included in this table.

And that's those schools at the top of the pyramid that had struggled most with regard to s chool i mprovement.

These funds also expand the role for effective charter schools and creates, in our model, a state-level charter schools office to provide additional supports to charters and districts.

Here we would create innovation labs to provide support to really highly effective 17 charter schools, so at those labs we see the products come out the other end, and we start to share those with stakeholders and try to make those institutionalized throughout the system.

Identify -- and that's the second bullet point. We also would help districts in understanding how to monitor, support, and hold accountable their charter schools with regard to performance, and also provide assistance as schools or charters struggled.

Als o, in -- with regard to expanding the rule for effective charter schools, we've determined that eligible charters are brick- and-mortar schools that have met AYP or have the ability of meeting AYP because they're in a category under our accountability system of making progress up through School Improvement

2. New charters do not have an AYP status, so they would be included.

The potential awards for charter schools, assuming 75 percent of those schools elect to join the application, the highest award a charter may receive is four hundred fifty thousand dollars for the school 18 bui l di ng.

Allocations would be based on the proportion of Title 1 A funding for each -¬ each eligible charter receives currently, and those charters that do not receive Title 1 A funding, those with less than 2 percent census poor, would still be eligible to receive these funds.

The eligible charters would have to implement the requirements for participating the same as the districts would have to implement the requirements if they're going to participate, and then meet those achievement outcomes.

Let's tal k next about the turnaround schools, top of that pyramid. These are the school districts that have the school buildings that are struggling most. Those schools, if they participate, have to select one of these four models. One called turnaround, the other called transformational, restart, or closure.

Closure, if we could start from there, close the school and redistribute those students to higher performing schools in that 19 school district, and then monitor the performance of those kids that have gone out.

Restart is to convert or close and reopen the school under a charter operator or a CMO or an EMO.

Transformation -- and, again, make the charter do all the turnaround activities, and you'll see that list soon.

Transformation is the same as turnaround, so let me start with turnaround.

In a turnaround school choice, the school would have to hire a new principal and replace

50 percent of the staff with highly effective teachers, hire a chief turnaround officer at the school, implement multiple-measure evaluation systems, implement a research-based curriculum program, increase the time for learning, use student data to inform and differentiate instruction, and provide social, emotional support systems for students.

Transformational would be the same set without the requirement for the staff turnover. The districts have to agree to use the multi-measure evaluation tool, reward school leaders, teachers and staff who have 20 increased student achievement and remove those that -- who do not.

So those are the options that schools who are the lowest performing history and are in those fewer districts, if they choose voluntarily to participate. This would be the federal law for what they have to do.

Let's look at the timeline.

Dis tri cts that intend to begin our Race to the

Top activities will submit plans for implementing one of those intervention models. And, again, I'm talking about the turnaround schools, top of the pyramid.

Ninety days after we receive the award, they'd have to shows us their plan. We'd review that plan within thirty days, and then start the work in the summer or fall of 201 0.

Some districts will need additional time. For those schools, they'll share with us their planning timeline and their rationale for that, submit their plan for adopting one of the four models, and they would begin their work in the fall 2 011 .

And for those districts that have multiple turnaround schools, some of the 21 activities for the schools may be deferred with implementation, according to a larger approved plan that goes out in staggered starts. Some of the schools 2 010 , 2 011 , 2 012 , to help with capacity for the district doing the work.

With regard to our state application, we've sent plans to the school districts of what it means to participate, or if you have a turnaround school, what it means to participate with a turnaround school. We've conducted and will be conducting, rather, tomorrow and the next day, webinars.

We also have lots of information in sharing with regard to the pieces of this, like the SAS, a standardized system.

Superintendents have from the 7th to the 1 8 th to review the plan with the school board and their local union presidents.

They'l l s ubmit their preliminary letters of intent to participate on -- on December the

18th. So these are the things -- I'm sorry -¬ that have been done.

By January 13th, 2010 our final plans have been sent yesterday, again 22 detailing further what participating schools need to do, what turnaround schools need to do. They're now working with their school boards and local union presidents to make their determinations. They need to bring three signatures, and the memorandums are due on the 13th of January.

After winning the Race to the Top, the final piece is the implementation plans and, again, ninety days after receipt of the award, thirty days later, the PDE approves the plan. And then school turnaround plans to PDE would be due by the end of the year.

W i t h r e g a r d t o c e r t a i n expectations -- and here's bringing many, many more people to the ceiling and hopefully taking some people through the roof. It's -¬ expected improvement is based on real trajections that we have and beliefs that these kind of things can happen.

If a district i s currently greater than 50 percent advanced students in mathematics, for example, we want to make sure by 2014, they're above two-third to 90 percent advanced. And you can see how that chart 23 reads the same for reading. If they're -- 20 to 50 percent of their students in advanced, by the end of this work, we want them to be at

53 to 69 percent. And you see the 56 to 68 percent for reading. And if they have less than 2 0 percent of their students advanced, we want nearly half of their students advanced as a condition, as expectations for their kids.

And you'll see the same with above proficient. If they're greater than 7 0 percent or down through less than 50 percent, what that means. And you see below basic.

In your packet, you have an appendix. And let me just show you how that reads on the first page, and then you can go through, as you want, the rest of those pages for the four categories -- I'm sorry, for the, objectives that we have.

The first objective is the standard- aligned system and the use of data. You see what the state will do in bullets? What will be required in the next column of participating districts, any district that wants to participate. And then you see the turnaround schools in participating 24 districts.

And you can see the requirements for turnaround schools are much closer to the ground than participating schools, although the requirements for participating schools are serious. So you'l l s ee that kind of layout for each of the three -- for each of the three participants, the state, those schools that volunteer to participate, then those participating schools that also have turnaround schools, top of the pyramid, what they'll need to do with standard-aligned systems; the second objective, the pipeline; the third, the evaluation of staff; the fourth, professional development; the fifth, the turnaround; and then how to evaluate and share best practices is the sixth.

Also in the appendix is a list of the districts -- districts with turnaround schools. And then just a quick guide to what's required, what's optional of districts under those categories.

So that is a good summary of our application that has emerged, with an awful lot of participation by our staff as well as, 25 and more importantly, those folks representing schools, superintendents, associations, the teachers, and many, many others.

So I'l l be happy to take questions t ha t yo u mi ght have.

REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Okay. Thank you,

Mr . S e c r e t a r y .

Wa i t . T h a n k y o u , Mr . S e c r e t a r y .

I want to defer to my colleagues who have conflicting obligations.

REPRESENTATI VE O'NEILL: Thank you.

I apologize.

I just wanted to ask, we have a very, very important 10 o'clock caucus just called at the last minute for some extremely important legislation that's going to be run today. Would it be possible for you to meet with some of us at another date to answer some of our questions. I actually want to ask them in person and then follow through with the qu est ion s.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Of course.

REPRESENTATI VE O'NEILL: It'll -- 26 SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: It'll be okay to work through the chairmen?

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: That's fine.

REPRESENTATI VE O'NEILL: That's great. T hank you.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: I can't imagine wi t h regard to what.

Okay. As we transition, let -- I did want to just ask two quick questions, and then

I 'l l def er t o my c ol l eagues that I know have questions as well.

In your statement, you indicated or you asserted or noted that Pennsylvania's a strong environment for charter schools.

Coming from Philadelphia, I know we have a very strong environment for charter schools.

My sense, however, is that that is not as true outside of that school district in terms of numbers or the existence of such schools. And

I wonder if you could put that in some sort of context as we advance is that, indeed, we can demonstrate that we have a strong presence of charters across the entire commonwealth.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: We have -- the majori ty of our charters are brick-and-mortar 27 coming from the Philadelphia area, but beyond that, we have charters throughout the state.

Pittsburgh is probably the second largest area of the region for charters. A hundred seventeen total, and then more than a dozen cyber charter schools that report to the state. So we have a law that has allowed the emergence of charters. The law allows for the growth of charter schools according to the charters and the monitoring of charters. So we have a history of supporting innovation, and we have some of the country's highest performing charter schools as well as highest performing schools, public schools generally.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: And I , then, also, from what you just said, are then -- am I to understand that cyber charters are to be treated just as brick-and-mortar charters are in this proposal?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: No. Our cyber charter schools -- this proposal is focused on school buildings and getting at the work inside of a school building, not cyber charter schools.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Okay. Thank you 28 f o r t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n .

And I've been asked to ask one other question, which is a question that comes from the staff, and that is, how does our state data system tie in the Race to the Top to encourage more communication between secondary and post secondary education in reporting how stu den ts are do ing or no t d oin g a nd get tin g this information back to secondary schools, targeting certain areas that -- that secondary schools need to improve on?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: We're building out our data systems. We have, like the rest of the country, a very robust K through 12 with student identifiers, teacher identifiers, course identifiers for our students. And it's very, as I said, robust, hits most of the elements that the nation has set up as, here's what you would do if you had great state longitudinal data systems.

We're now, with Race to the Top, asking -- and through our application with the feds for improving our longitudinal data system, asking to go in two directions. One is towards higher education and through higher 29 education and beyond into the work force.

With education, that means, where are our teachers coming from? How do their students perform? And the that begins with collecting the data and then it continues with, How do you figure out how to do the metrics on performance?

So we'll be able to, as we build out that system, tell where our teachers are coming from and the connection they have to their work and if they're employed, to start with, and where they're employed, and how they're working. And also goes beyond.

And, by the way, we have -- before starting to write the Race to the Top grant or our new longitudinal data submission grant, we have an exploration with many of the higher eds already engaged in helping to build out the elements. It starts with, what are we collecting, data points? And so that's happening.

And early, our kids that get into our daycares and state-funded preschools, et cetera, how do we make sure the data systems talk? Because they have data systems that 30 have begun, to make sure that we have the interoperability of those systems, so that we can start learning from the data. Because the data will tell us interesting stories, if we're paying attention.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you,

Sec ret ary .

Representative Wheatley.

REPRESENTATI VE WHEATLEY: Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here and this very informative presentation.

I have a couple of quick questions.

You mentioned about the data system, and I do agree Pennsylvania has a very exciting data system put in place. And you mention during your presentation one of the points that you believe why we are well positioned is because we legally don't prevent our system from collecting information around teacher performance. But we don't necessarily connect the two. We don't say that you must use it.

As a matter of fact, talking to folks out in Pittsburgh, of course, the Gates funds, 31 and using their money, they're going to really do some very innovative ways of how they actually make that more easier, usable system.

So one question I have is, when -- if a turnaround district or school accepts the money, will you then say that they must connect teacher or evaluations of teachers and how their students are doing with performance?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Yeah. That's important. And it's required and a push through the Race to the Top, and it will be a push from this administration, and I think in nonpartisan ways, a push from the congress as we do the reauthorization of ESEA. So this idea, the conversation has commenced and will not stop about how do we really improve as systems go the way we evaluate the performance of the players in the system, and that includes educators who are teachers in the cla ssr oom.

And the Pittsburgh School District is an interesting model. And if I can paraphrase from the description of it, they're going 32 about it in a way that overcomes the idea that mos t people don't get evaluated or get evaluated acros s the country that very -¬ almost everybody is evaluated at the highest level. So we see that type of evaluation of principals and educators. And then you see performance that's staggered as far as the student results, the outcomes.

So the question that has commenced and the framework in Pittsburgh is, can we use a model for, you know, the principal who goes in and makes observations, can we really train that model very well and help principals build their advocacy in doing that kind of static evaluation, where I appear on site, the classroom, I have training that provides rubrics for me to use and to make my notes about the performance of this teacher, and hopefully that's information, and at the end that's a part of the comprehensive evaluation of that particular teacher.

A s econd place where we want teachers to grow is build your skill set. So if we can be in schools deliberate about what do you mean about the skills, the skills of how you 33 use data, the skills of how you are better at working with students no matter where they're at to take them to higher levels. Skill sets. Maybe you become a teacher coach or a teacher leader or you become nationally cer tif ied.

So in that section of a comprehensive evaluation system for teachers, you might call it a portfolio. Here's some of the expectations, some of the ladder that you can climb in terms of competencies, and as you build them, you get scored, and your portfolio is weighted.

And then, finally, what about student performance? And a piece of is the expectation, not rejected as no part, of a teacher's evaluation. So piece comes from what we have in Pennsylvania, value added.

But what Pittsburgh has done, rightfully so, is they're going to buy the statistical model to build on our statistical model for kids.

Now, i t's the teacher impact. So you can do for the teacher trajection based on this cohort of students of how well those students should perform in the end. And the teacher 34 ultimately can meet the trajection, fall above it or below it, and have that kind of range where they're okay or go way above it or significantly below it, and, eventually, the value added to the students' performance is a percentage of that comprehensive measure.

So the static evaluation that the principal does, the portfolio of competencies, and then the student's performance. Teachers in that student performance can be weighted on things as a team or weighted on the statistics as me, I'm that child's math teacher. But it's all three of those with predetermined and negotiated weights.

And I have to give credit to those people who are breaking the barriers, being pioneers in the work and saying, we can get at this, and we can do it in fair, very objective but consistent ways for our teaching force that are going to improve all of us, and, you know, the best investment we can make is in that kind of improving all of us who work in classrooms.

REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY: And I guess -- and I don't want to take up too much 35 more of the committee's time. I guess the question I was really asking is, from a department perspective, one, do you see that as something that the state should be investing in and -- instead of individual districts trying to come up with models on how they can connect performance with evaluating a teacher's -- and putting that all together?

One, I that's additional cost to the districts, but I guess it's part of a district's local ability, being innovative.

But, two, should we have a systematic way of addressing that issue? That's a longer range conversation, but that's one that I'm just interested in understanding from your perspective how that should go.

The other question I have is, it was really based on -- and I 'm going use Duquesne, even though Duquesne wouldn't get into this because they no longer have a high school, but there was children who come out of Duquesne who now go to West Mifflin, for the most part. How will they be impacted with this, with West Mifflin being a more wealthier district? I 'm not even sure if they made the 36 list. Would they be eligible for the other half of the money? What do you do for those districts like those who are having more students who are coming into their districts but they're not showing up as turnaround schools or turnaround districts but they still have many individuals who need additional resources and support?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: First answer is yes, we're really interested in investing in the professi onal development of our teachers.

Teacher are the most important, and evaluation's a piece of the dynamics there.

The second one is with regard to

Duquesne specifically, be happy to answer that, because I think that's something you helped do. Duquesne is listed as a turnaround school. They can choose to participate and most likely will. As a participating school, they would follow the participating rules.

They've already started down the track of a lot of the expectations for turnaround schools.

Duquesne students go to East

Allegheny or West Mifflin. Those schools can 37 be participating schools. They -- neither of those schools have schools that are turnaround schools. Neither of them -- neither of those districts, but we are monitoring the performance individually of Duquesne students who reside inside those two districts on our own already and having set expectations for those kids.

So, again, Duquesne will be able to participate. Prophetically, with the work that they're doing this year, they've already announced that they have expectations to go to

80 percent of their students hitting proficiency. This is the lowest performing building in the district -- in the state as a school district goes. So we're really, really high on their expectations, really supportive of the models that they've chosen. And we know that they're going to be working well.

They can be supported and held accountable to greater heights as any one of the turnaround buildings can, if they participate in the plan.

REPRESENTATI VE WHEATLEY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you. 38 Representative Murt.

REPRESENTATI VE MURT: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Zahorchak, just one question.

Collaboration seems to be a very key issue for the Race to the Top program. I'm curious, what is the position of PSEA and our school boards on the Race to the Top program and the department's plans to apply?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, I can tell you this. The AFTs and PSEA and the school boards association has been really, really good to work with. They've been responsive and encouraging us to do well.

We've worked closely to understand their position, and they've worked closely to understand ours. As we put out a memo yesterday to school districts that's in your packet, the association also put out a letter to their regional and local leadership encouraging their conversations to continue and framing it from their perspective, and we've been more than encouraged by the collaboration.

REPRESENTATI VE MURT: Have there been 39 any concerns voiced by PSPA relative to the authority, responsibility of local school boards?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, I think that the PSPA is going to be interested in legislation regarding accountability as you, as a legislative group, go forward, and will voice their concerns for themselves appropriately at that time.

REPRESENTATI VE MURT: I'll be curious to hear that response.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you.

Representative O'Brien.

REPRESENTATI VE O'BRIEN: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for joining us today.

I want to follow up on a question that the chairman answered. And I have to say, as you're going through your presentation, you tripped my interest in the charter school area with the phrase brick-and- mortar charter school. 40 Now, during the chairman's questioning, he brought into the fray the question of cyber charter school. Now, if we have these charter schools, they're all recognized by the Commonwealth as legitimate educational institutions; is that correct?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: That gets a lit tle te chn ica l. Yo u k now -¬

REPRESENTATIVE O'BRIEN: Are they on -- on a high school level, would they be a diploma-granting institution, whether it's brick or mortar or -¬

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: The answer to that is yes.

REPRESENTATI VE O'BRIEN: Okay. So -¬ it's a very simple question. Just help me get my head around this. Why not? I f you have recognized institutional -- educational institutions in the Commonwealth, why is one included and one excluded? I 'm just not getting that. Help me with that.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Our strategy is to work at the building levels with comprehensive programs that are different even i n terms of the teacher's work than cyber 41 charter schools would do.

And we're pleased with many of the cyber charter school's work and we will encourage the continuation. And they'll benefit by any and all the tools, if they desire, that the state will produce on their behalf.

REPRESENTATI VE O'BRIEN: I -- I don't want to be argumentative. And I think this is going to be my last question, and I'll hear your answer. Thank you.

But I'm just not getting why you would disenfranchise some students from -- in any group and any good that could come out of this, any achievement that would come out of this, you know, why you would shut down their ability to achieve, you know, regardless of what venue they use for the education. If you could address that, and I'll thank you.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Sure. I think we are addressing that when we spend thirty billion dollars a year on our education system, including all public schools. We're building tools and expectations and accountability and all of the dynamics that go 42 with s chool.

In the work on Race to the Top, our reform strategy, which can be second to our large comprehensive education reform strategy, is based on what's going on in the classroom and how do we best impact the work of the classroom teacher, the relationship with the principal, and it is, again, building-based and classroom-based.

And so this reform strategy, in the larger context, is deliberate about that. So we were deliberate in policy in saying, our decision would be that, of course, it's the school buildings that we're after here.

REPRESENTATI VE O'BRIEN: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you.

Representative Smith.

REPRESENTATI VE SMI TH: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.

Quick question. The deadline for that program is January 13th; am I correct?

When was this program initially brought to the 43 local school districts?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, we've been in conversation broadly about our interest in the Race to the Top from the announcement from the secretary in

Washington. Every school district commis sioned officer in the state was watching, as I was, what the secretary was doing with regard to Race to the Top.

We waited, as school districts waited, for the guidance coming from the federal government. We waited again for the final guidance, after long periods of feedback. S ome of our s uperintendents and we were very proactive in responding to the federal government when there were those

"respond to our draft guidance" on the Race to the Top.

And when the final guidance came out and we had a framework, we then started gathering first, and met for days, with folks like -- just people who could be very innovative and have proven leadership, charter schools and public schools, and folks from outside the community, from all over the 44 country even met with us, thinking about us.

And then we started meeting with the turnaround school districts. Those school districts that have the most troubled students, and we met for a whi le directly here in Harrisburg through webinars and beyond with those leaders.

And then we finally came up with, okay, this is the way we'll do that, through an announcement. But building up to that announcement, we were in communication with the associations that represent the superintendents and school boards and others.

So I think people would say, in fairness, with the tightness of timeline, that if we were at it ourselves, we would, and we did, try to influence the federal government to change that timeline. But they had an appropriation that will expire, so they have their own problems with the timeline.

So in the tightness of the timeline, after the guidance came out, we went full force to make sure the collaboration was as good as we possibly could have done, and I think we've done, overall, a job that's 45 commendable. And I 'm commending others in regard to that, that participated in that from outside the Department of Education.

REPRESENTATI VE SMI TH: So when this program was brought forward, and I 'm a superi ntendent, I would receive the information and then bring it to my staff, and we would sit down to see how it would be relevant to our school district and then communicate with the Department of Education.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: Um-hum. That's right.

And we -- you know, December the 4th, we put out a very formal and then an intention to apply. And three out of every five districts, to our surprise -- remember our assumption's built on a hundred fifty districts. Three hundred forty some -- I 'm estimating there -- over three hundred districts responded, saying, We intend to apply.

Now, we're going to see now, with the

MOUs being signed by three parties, what that comes out to be. But people are well aware, if we would have been in total control of it, 46 we may have done the timelines much differently, but we were responding to the framework that was not set by us.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Thank you,

Mr . S e c r e t a r y .

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you.

Representative Harkins.

REPRESENTATI VE HARKINS: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for meeting with us this morning, Secretary.

Just one question with regards to the charter schools. When I went through the paperwork and everything, am I correct that they were only allotting five million of the four hundred million to the charter schools?

And if so, why is that?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, it's not of the four hundred million. Remember, we're going to be distributing to turnaround schools, to participating schools, half the money. And then the other half the money will stay to build the state's systems, for all of the things that we want to do as a state that 47 is in the reform. We talked about things like building the longitudinal data system, getting data clos er to the teacher's desk, where everyone can take advantage of, participating or not. So building from where we are.

Then of the rest of the money, we have a distribution expectation for schools.

Schools -- if you saw the chart, charter schools will do quite well if they participate. When we set four hundred thousand dollars -- you see some schools in the charter school districts will receive less than that. So we feel that's an appropriate number.

And we think they'll benefit doubly because they'll be able to take advantage, like every school, all public schools, of all the work that the state does and have additional funds just for their single school uni ts.

REPRESENTATI VE HARKINS: Would there be flexibility going forward with some of those things as the need arises as we move on with it?

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: That's a 48 question that would be answered, I think, situationally.

REPRESENTATIVE HARKINS: As things arise.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: If things would arise. However, we're very committed to what participating districts or charters must do.

REPRESENTATI VE HARKINS: Okay. One other real quick, in the Erie School District, we have many buildings that are in need of repairs. Any money for bricks-and-mortar basically bricks and mortar with this, or I mean i s i t just sort of the -¬

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: No. It's student achievement inside the bricks-and- mo r t a r .

REPRESENTATI VE HARKINS: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Representative

Carroll.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Thank you,

Mr. Secretary, Doctor.

To fol low up on Representative

Smith's question, how many of the districts and charters have actually applied? Have any 49 thus far?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: How many have applied, school -¬

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: School dis tri cts ?

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Yes, or charters.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Charters?

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: And charters. The sum total, how many have applied?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: We're waiting for that. There's a deadline. We don't have -- from the three signatures, I don't have a number this morning for you.

REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: Are there any?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Not that I know of. They're working back at their districts to get three signatures, understanding what these expectations are and making their determinations.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Okay. And that doesn't surprise me, because the feedback 50 that I have from back home i s that the district's folks -- the teachers, the school boards -- are struggling to try and figure out what to do here.

And on page six in your pyramid, the foundational assistance and then the district- wide assistance, the bottom of the pyramid and the center of the pyramid, I don't represent any schools in the turnaround category, so my district will have the choice between the foundational and the district-wide.

How do they -- school board members and the teachers and the administration, what's the differential in funding between the foundational assistance and the district-wide assistance? They do not -- is the status quo group with the folks that decide for district- wide assistance? What's the difference in funding there?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Okay. The base of the pyramid is state-only activities.

School districts don't have to do anything.

We are going to be doing those things if we win this award. And so you can see in the appendix all of the things that the state's 51 going to be doing if they win the award.

Then districts may choose to participate, second level up on the pyramid.

REPRESENTATIVE CARROLL: But in the first -- not to interrupt you -- in the base group, the foundational assistance group, will they still receive Race to the Top funds?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: No.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Okay. So they must choose to participate if they want to get Race to the Top funds?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: That's correct.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Okay. The

"implement all mandatory reforms," I don't remember the testimony, and I -- can you point out for me what all of the mandatory reforms are for the districts? Where is that?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: If you go to page seventeen of your handout -- if you go to page fifteen of your handout, it begins there in the appendix. Those sub bullets, "the state wil l," that's the foundation base of the pyramid. That's what we're going to do with half the money that would come to

Pennsylvania. 52 The second column, participating districts, here's the things that they will do under each of our objectives. Does that make sense?

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Yes.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: Okay. And I know, first time.

Now, just for -- to reiterate and give more information to your question, we had over three hundred districts tell us they int end to apply. So tho se plus -- t hree hundred-plus districts are home working hard to figure out, now are there two more signatures, becaus e they had pretty much all of this information for a long time.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: When you say

"the districts," you mean the administration of the districts intended to apply?

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: That's correct. And I 'm s ure none of them were operating without their school board being aware. So when they -- I'm assuming, most of them, as a former superintendent, worked with their school board president and said, you know, we're about to at least submit the 53 intent. I t doesn't bind us to anything. Now, it's getting closer to, are we committed to doing this, and can we get three of us to agree?

So from that three fifty, what that will become, we're not sure.

By the way, the third column is the intense turnaround, those are the most struggling districts that have had little to no improvement or have seen students in the below-basic category actually being added to, going in the wrong direction or going no where kind of status. That's struggling schools.

So they have even more, if they're going to participate, but it's substantially more, because the federal school improvement funds, which are substantially more for the next couple of years, are directly tied to the Race to the Top fund amounts. So they can be helped, if they want help.

And I think most of them would say,

We're not going to leave that kind of investment in us, especially with our performance record on the table. We are getting them. 54 So be interested to watch, and I'd be interested to watch the reaction of their communities if they choose not to participate in serious reform eff orts with the perf ormance record that some of them have had.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: In your view, what's the highest hurdle for the districts to clear if they decided to be a participating district?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, probably the conversation that we had earlier about teacher eval uation wi ll be the conversation that leads to some signatures.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: That leads to some signatures, what does that mean?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: It's an easy hurdle. School associations locally will make a determination, can we get into a mode like the Pittsburgh school's good leadership all around? Can we get into a mode where we agree to start thinking about evaluation that includes student results?

And if we can start to work on that, that probably would be the biggest hurdle.

But I think it's the biggest breakthrough 55 opportunity for all levels. This is not coming from any kind of direction that we think we should do anything other than support the most important factor of the education system, the teacher.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: I'll close with one final question. I t's a specific question I received from my school district, and that is -- and I 'm not sure they have all the phraseology right here -- but what happens if a participating district that met AYP in the past, is involved in the funding for Race to the Top, and then they don't meet AYP sometime after that? What's the penalty?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: We would continue to work with the federal government's and then the state's congruent accountability expectations. So we would continue to operate now under the ESEA's No Child Left Behind frame work for school improvement through corrective action. With some schools, they may start to fall into another category, and there would be more demanded of them.

We'll also hopefully watch our own state accountability program leave the 56 empowerment and go to one that congruently aligns with the federal government's reauthorized, I'm hoping, ESEA —

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Let me narrow the question a little bit. Would a school district that's AYP -- doesn't meet

AYP, is enrolled in RTTT, would they -- would this end up in the turnaround category as a result of not meeting AYP after being a participant?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: No. They would fall under the accountability systems that are established by federal and state law.

REPRESENTATI VE CARROLL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Representative

Longietti.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : Thank you,

Mr . C h a i r ma n .

Thank you, Secretary, for your testimony today.

I wanted to focus on the turnaround school districts. I have one, Farrell Area

School District, that is listed. You kind of answered the question of how they were identified just a minute ago, but looking at 57 the different models that they would have to select from, the turnaround model, how do you agree to replace at least 50 percent of your staff with highly effective teachers, given the constraints currently that exist on how teachers can be removed under the school code? Are you abl e to comment on that?

How do you replace somebody, you know, that -- agree up front, We are going to replace 50 percent of our teaching staff, given the fact that you can only remove a teacher for certain enumerated reasons under the school code?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: I think those models would have to be -- the determinations for which model would have to be made at a local level. And in particular school districts, you're talking about -- I think, probably talking about a couple of schools or one. So, locally, they would have to choose from those four options. And they would have to work at -- with our support, work at and make the determination of which one -- if they want to include the 50 percent, they'll have to work at, how does that happen, to answer 58 your question.

REPRESENTATIVE LONGIETTI: I guess what I 'm getting at is -- and I could be wrong, but in my view, the turnaround model is not really an option, because you can't, up front, agree that we're going to replace 50 percent of our staff. I mean, you'll have some retirements, granted, but that's a high percentage, and school districts aren't going to be able to pick that option because their solicitors are going to tell them, there's no way that you're going to legally be able to do this.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, if you, you know, go to near the end of our presentation, you see those required elements in that chart, required optional? Districts will need to now start making the determination of, you know, what do we intend, because eventually show us the implementation plan, which turnaround model that they've chosen. Up front, they have to say, We agree that we're going to choose one of the four intervention models.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : When I 59 look, the one that jumps out to me the most feasible is the transformation model. I don't see too many picking restart or school closure or tur nar oun d. Bu t i f y ou loo k a t t he transformational model, same required elements as the turnaround model without the requirement of 50 percent staff turnover. Are you able to comment, does that mean that you have to agree to hire a new principal, because that's

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: That's situational. I f a school district would say to us, Look, we did that last year. We're pleased now with the benchmark results and some of the work that's going on. And that district would be able to say, We've accomplished that.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : And I can personally say Farrell Area School District recently fired -- you know, I don't know if it was within the last year, but it wasn't that long ago they fired their principal, brought in a new principal, who's doing, I think, an outstanding job, and you'd hate to see them be stuck with picking a model that they have to 60 replace the principal.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: We -- we have made that clear that in those cases where a principal's just getting started, you wouldn't come back -- it would be unreasonable to say,

No, come back and fire them anyway just becaus e we s aid so. That's a requirement, but it does have that kind of flexibility with it.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : Wanted to see if you woul d comment, too, on the transformational model. It says, district must agree to evaluate teachers using a multi- measure evaluation tool, reward school -¬ reward school leaders, teachers, and staff who have increased student achievement. Sounds like a laudable goal, but wondering, again, with the constraints of collective bargaining agreements, are school districts able to do that? Are they able to say, We're going to give you a reward, you know, based on what we think your performance is?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Well, remember, they're also saying that we agree to bargain this, and they would make those determination of how we meet that requirement through that 61 process of collaborative work all together.

So I see that as very doable, but it is a process to get to the doable.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : Could you comment on the table that you provided what amount of funding the districts could receive, depending on what the state receives? I notice one of the footnotes is that the table does not apply for Philadelphia and

Pittsburgh. Are you able to comment or will there be information provided on what

Philadelphia or Pittsburgh could realiz e if they participate, if the state receives funding?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Sure. The

Philadelphia School District, and I think you always need to sort of put the footnote when we tal k about that as if it's one of the five hundred districts, that it's a district where one in every ten students go to. And so it's sort of like seventy places. Their eligibility range would be ninety to a hundred and ten million dollars. The Pittsburgh eligibility range, being a second-class city, would be ten to twelve mill ion dollars. 62 REPRESENTATIVE LONGIETTI: Thank you.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Again, that's with regard to their census poor, number of students, et cetera.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : I guess the last question is, in -- at least from what

I s aw as a rank and file member of the legislature, there was some discussion of Race to the Top, particularly when we were debating the budget and proposal to increase basic education funding to the school districts, but really, beyond that, at least at my level, I didn't see a whole lot of information, so I was a little surprised when -- I guess, when I came here today -- maybe I should have educated myself better -- that school districts were going to need to do something affirmatively to take best advantage of this program.

And if the deadline is January 13th,

I guess, in my mind, I envisioned the way it was spun out, it seemed like when budget time was, well, the state is going to try to compete for this Race to the Top money, and we have a good shot at it, but I never envisioned 63 that that meant that school districts would have to do something to take best advantage of it.

And we can be advocates for these types of things. I mean, I certainly would be getting on the horn to all my superintendents, encouraging, saying, Look, there's money out there. I would strongly encourage you to try to take advantage of this.

It's kind of too late for me to do that now, a week away, given the fact that s c ho o l bo a r ds ha ve t o t a k e a c t i o n , Me mo r a n dums of Understanding have to be signed, so I just wanted to throw that out.

I appreciate the chairman holding this hearing because I would never probably have found out until after the fact. But we can be advocates here, too, as well, to try to encourage school districts.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: You always are and your work is always absolutely appreciated.

REPRESENTATI VE LONGIETTI : Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 64 CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you.

Representative Conklin.

REPRESENTATI VE CONKLI N: Mine's really easy, Doctor.

Did I understand you correctly that whether the school district participates or not, every school district in Pennsylvania is going to have some type of advantages from this money because of the hundred-fifty- million-dollar base, which is going to go to the state to help with programming, information, and those type of items?

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Yes. Every district in the state will be benefited.

Every public school entity will be benefited as we improve our tools and systems of support .

By the way, since we've been improving, building on the last administration's work with standards and assessments, the accountability law that resided here, and then bringing a lot of frame on top of that strong foundation, we have been providing an awful lot of really good tools and supports for our school districts, there 65 is no doubt about it, and the school buildings.

This is going to take us closer to the student's desktop with this work and get the tools that get that kind of information exchange of students in tutoring or if a student's with his teachers, there's going to be data there available, telling these stories about what we can do with eligible content for this particular student's need on -- today.

So that kind of tools -- those kind of tools and approaches are going to benefit everyone.

REPRESENTATIVE CONKLIN: Thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: And I think, as we work to -- work on the school turnarounds, those interventions for the struggling districts, as we improve in those districts, this whole commonwealth benefits long term, and you all know where I 'm going with that.

We're going to spend less when those kids are nineteen to eighty years of age because of this kind of work that we're doing with those schools and all of our schools today. 66 CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Mr. Secretary, if

I might, in closing, just ask two quick ques ti ons , bui l di ng i n part upon what

Representative Longietti asked.

In the area of evaluating teachers and demonstrating increasing student achievement, how do you apply that across the board to a teaching faculty that includes not only teachers of major subjects which get evaluated, but other subjects that do not?

For example, so I can understand that you can measure student achievement in English or language arts or math or science. How do you do that for, say, art or music?

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: That a great challenge for America. Two things are happening. One is we know the fundamentals of reading and math, of science are very, very important, and we all share, if we work in an education system, a responsibility to help grow students in basic literacy. It's the first thing, when we say 21 st century skills, they always start with basic literacy.

When you say what is the definition?

It's mathematics, it's reading, it's 67 fundamentals. Everybody takes a share in that.

So part of this evaluation model could be -- and, again, we're pioneering here as a country -- so part of that for all teachers could be a team approach. We have an interdiscipl inary team of high school teachers working with one subset of students. How well do we help them improve basic literacy?

We can go further than that. How can we, as a school district, start to judge?

What are some of the other 21 st century skills maybe? Or how can we, as content-area providers, like the fine arts, how can we say,

Here's a measure metric that we can agree? Or phys ed teacher, that's almost simple. You know, when you say something like, improve cardiovascular health, and we can do metrics on that.

So we're going to start challenging people more and more to say, Well, how do you measure the work that you do for all kids?

One thing is take advantage, first of all, starting easily with the team approach. So we all have a responsibility to improve the basic 68 fundamentals of literacy. How do we do that in the arts or in health class or social studies class? How do make that happen for kids?

Some other areas with the trades, for example, in the current technology education, there's NAC exams that we can do value added with, and we can make projections early on.

Kid goes into the field, here's what that kid should score in terms of that student's performance on PSSA, like summary assessments.

So we can do this work. It's a challenge, but saying that it's complicated as a reason not to do it would be illegitimate, would be wrong for us as leaders in this country or commonwealth or in our local school communities, saying because it's complicated, we are never going to get at it. The time is -- to get at it is right now. It's past due .

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: And then just one other thing that was mentioned about legislative advocacy. I sn't it, in fact -¬ isn't your department, in fact, asking 69 legislatures to proactively support the application for Race to the Top? And if so, what are you asking us to do? Maybe you want to articulate that to us.

SECRET ARY ZAHORCHAK: Thanks for nudging me on that. Teresa nudged me on that too. And I felt that, too.

Please, your work as partners would be appreciated. Your work as supporters would be appreciated.

We talk about the more impactful partner work. If a letter could come out saying, We really want to improve the accountability system and make sure that it's congruent as we go forward in replacing the empowerment law here in Pennsylvania, and as partners, we're going to eventually take some action -- don't know what that will be yet, but we're going to take some action on that end, and we want to improve accountability partners.

Supporters is, Hey, we like what you're up to. Atta boy, girl. Go get 'em.

So you can make those determinations. That help in the next couple 70 of weeks would be very, very important. Some of this is low-hanging fruit. I think you're going to do the support that we give for some things like improving the accountability system. Your groups may say, you know, We're also supportive of some things that we're doing now and we'll continue to do and build on, you can determine what they are, and get the kind of partner signature that would be really impactful.

Support signatures are also important, and if we end up with a letter of support f rom the c ommitt ee or beyond, we'd appreciate that. But, please, do take some action.

And I 'm sure, through the chairmen, and through our offices, we'll continue to ask you to do that.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ROEBUCK: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Do you have anything, Representative

Pallone, who just joined us?

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

And we'll look forward to continuing this 71 dialogue as we move forward.

Tha nk you to the members of the com mit tee .

SECRETARY ZAHORCHAK: Thanks for the work you do. Thanks.

(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at

10:50 a.m.)

* * * * * 72 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I was present upon the hearing of the above-entitled matter and there reported stenographically the proceedings had and the testimony produced; and I further certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my said stenographic notes.

BRENDA J. PARDUN, RPR Court Reporter Notary Public