State Board Of Education – Topic Summary

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY Topic: Race to the Top Date: Oct. 22, 2009 Staff/Office: Sue Levin, Race to the Top Team; Ed Dennis, Doug Kosty, Colleen Mileham; ODE Action Requested: Information only Policy Adoption Policy Adoption/Consent Calendar

ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: Opportunity to weigh in on Race to the Top strategies.

BACKGROUND: The $4.35 billion federal Race to the Top Fund is the largest ever federal competitive investment in school reform. It will reward states for past accomplishments and create incentives for future improvements. The funding criteria that the US Department of Education proposes to use will challenge states to create comprehensive strategies for addressing the four central areas of reform that will drive school improvement:  Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace;  Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals;  Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices; and  Turning around our lowest-performing schools.

The goals of improvement:  Drive substantial gains in student achievement  Improve graduation rates and college success  Close the achievement gap

There are two competitive grants: Race to the Top State Competition ($4 billion) and Race to the Top Standards and Assessment Competition ($350 million). States’ plans for reform must be comprehensive, integrating and addressing all four core reform areas. In order to be eligible to apply, states must have:  Approved applications for funding under both Phase 1 and 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program; and  No statutory or regulatory barriers to linking data about student growth and achievement to teachers for the purposes of teacher and principal evaluation.

States’ governors are eligible to apply. States that receive a Race to the Top grant must use at least 50 percent of the award to provide subgrants to local districts and public charter schools. The remaining funds are available to the state for state-level activities and for disbursements to districts as outlined in the state’s approved plan. Individual state grants are expected to be between $150 million and $300 million.

There are two grant phases. Phase 1 will open for applications late in 2009, and awards will be made in early 2010. States that need more time may apply in Phase 2, which is planned to open in late spring of 2010; these awards will be made in September 2010. States that apply in Phase 1 but are not awarded grants may reapply in Phase 2, together with states that are applying for the first time.

Oregon’s primary innovative education reform will be credit by proficiency (see attachment).

Proposed timeline: Oct. 15: Work group public meetings Oct. 21: Final combined WG recommendations to Design Team (this is not a meeting) Oct. 23: Work Group recommendations posted to ODE website and sent to advisors. Oct. 30: - Public meeting for Design Team and Work Group leaders; comments due from advisors (Salem) Nov. 4: Draft recommendation of Design Team posted to ODE website and sent to advisors Nov 12: Public meeting #2 for Design Team (Portland); comments due from advisors Nov. 18. Final recommendation of Design Team (not a meeting)

1 RACE TO THE TOP OVERVIEW

The Challenge: Analyze and develop recommendations in federally-identified four core reform areas plus provide an overall view of the state’s education “climate”:

1) Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace 2) Recruiting, developing, retaining and rewarding effective teachers and principals 3) Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices 4) Turning around America’s lowest-performing schools

Standards and Assessment – Matt Coleman

Objective:  Define a system that is characterized by proficiency-based instruction leading to evidenced-based learning, with strong links to international benchmarks.  Increase accountability for alignment of secondary exit with college and career readiness (focus on 6-12)

Data Systems – Mickey Garrison

Objective:  Advance and implement classroom-based data system with summative and formative data components to inform improvement in instruction.  Work in close alignment with Standards and Assessments Working Group

Teacher and Principal Effectiveness – Dan Jamison

Objective:  Design an approach to systemic professional development, from pre-service to job-embedded in-service, to improve instructional quality.  Determine appropriate linkages of school, student, teacher and administrator performance, and how to provide better quality data for this process  Focus on principals as instructional leaders  Assess readiness of districts for major reform

Low Performing Schools – Mark Mulvihill

Objective:  What do we know about schools that are not working, and what are the conditions that need to be changed, research-based, on behalf of students?  What are examples of successful Oregon turnarounds? How did they do it?  Create a rubric that identifies trigger points for a mandatory turnaround  Is Oregon ready for that “state takeover” model?

STEM Invitational Priority – Dennis Dempsey (A single meeting held to date)

Objective: 2  Create a Blueprint for Oregon Pre-K thru 20 for STEM education

3 Work Group Updates

Standards and Assessment – Matt Coleman Define a system that is characterized by proficiency-based instruction leading to evidenced-based learning, with strong links to international benchmarks. Increase accountability for alignment of secondary exit with college and career readiness.

 Need for a balanced formative and summative assessment system.  Need for professional development with regards to assessment literacy, data use, etc.  Need for clarity of purpose with regard to assessment use.  Need to focus on assessment for learning - "shaping" learning at the student level.

Specific examples of ideas/possible recommendations:  Assessment: Expand and enhance mid and high assessment to inform students pertaining to post-secondary achievement / college readiness  Formative Assessment: Develop an optional statewide diagnostic and progress monitoring formative assessment system tied to future performance on OAKS  Time and adequate resources: Teachers and administrators should be provided adequate time to calibrate and collaborate around common assessments and student performance.  Diploma: The ideal would be that the Oregon Diploma should equal college readiness. This must include an in- depth process in developing what “post-secondary” readiness means in the larger construct.

Data Systems – Mickey Garrison Advance and implement classroom-based data system with summative and formative data components to inform improvement in instruction. Work in close alignment with Standards and Assessments Working Group. The theme: using data to create a holistic improvement cycle from pre-service into practice and from K-12 into post secondary and beyond. This holistic improvement cycle would be used:  To refine teacher and administrator education programs and to provide differentiated “professional development” for both.  To broaden our data systems beyond student performance

Priorities to date:  # 1 Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal system  # 2 Accessing and using State data  # 3 Use of data to develop instructional improvement systems

Teacher and Principal Effectiveness – Dan Jamison An approach to systemic professional development, from pre-service to job-embedded in-service, to improve instructional quality. Determine appropriate linkages of school, student, teacher and administrator performance, and how to provide better quality data for this process. Focus on principals as instructional leaders. Need to look at readiness of districts for reform 1. Student and staff proficiency are based upon multiple measures that extend far beyond standardized test scores. 2. Oregon’s commitment to professional growth must be sustainable beyond the current dysfunctional two-year biennial funding cycle. 3. Reform efforts must be collaborative and offer incentives. Top-down mandates will encounter unreceptive and resistant participants. 4. Equity and engagement are key. Efforts need to reach every corner of Oregon, and to be based in culturally competent practices that build proficiency for all students and staff. 4 5. This is an opportunity to strengthen linkages with our higher ed partners.

Low Performing Schools – Mark Mulvihill  What do we know about schools that are not working, and what are the conditions that need to be changed, research-based, on behalf of students?  What are examples of successful OR turnarounds? How did they do it? Create a rubric that identifies trigger points for a mandatory turnaround.  Is Oregon ready for a “state takeover” model?  What is a fair process to identify the bottom 5% of Oregon schools?

STEM Invitational Priority – Dennis Dempsey (A single meeting held to date)

Create a Blueprint for Oregon Pre-k thru 20 for STEM education

 What do we want to happen with and for STEM education in Oregon over the next 5-20 years?  How do we make this happen?  What steps do we need to take to make our vision come true?  How can we tie our efforts to the state focus on proficiency based education?

5 From US Race to the Top Overview Guidelines:

6 7 8 Proficiency Practice: Oregon’s Innovation in Race to the Top September 2009

When the Obama Administration evaluates state education systems that are competing for a share of $4.35 billion in Race to the Top awards, it will be looking for bold, innovating approaches that work in making a greater percentage of students college and career ready. Various Oregon schools are beginning to pioneer an effective system of classroom practice that does just that. It’s called proficiency-based instruction and assessment, sometimes credit for proficiency, sometimes just proficiency practice.

Oregon is one of the few states with policies that allow and encourage proficiency practice. Oregon’s lead in this innovation will make it a strong contender for Race to the Top funding. More importantly, this funding would give Oregon a tremendous boost in taking proficiency practice to scale in a way that helps it accomplish student outcomes coveted in Oregon education policy (especially 40-40-20 goals) and in Race to the Top criteria: Achievement gains for all students Reduction of the achievement gap among less advantaged students Higher high school graduation rates Better student preparation for success in college and careers

In constrained fiscal environments, proficiency practice has the added advantage of delivering such outcomes at relatively low incremental cost. It only asks administrators and teachers to do things differently and better than they do now.

That’s happening right now in high schools in Beaverton, Redmond, and Scappoose. Forest Grove is in the beginning stages. Gresham-Barlow and other schools have elements of proficiency practice. The growth and gains of students in proficiency settings are remarkable.

Features of proficiency-based education. Proficiency practice is geared directly to student achievement of standards. In a proficiency-based system, proficiencies that students must achieve are drawn from officially adopted standards, whether standards for core academic subjects, for essential skills, or for career-related skills and behaviors. Teachers adopt not only state standards but often college-success and international standards. Students start a course knowing exactly what proficiencies they need to master to demonstrate that they have acquired content knowledge and skills. They work at it at their own pace until they get it right. Students learn in a variety of ways and settings – individually and in groups, participation in projects, in and outside the classroom – under teacher guidance. Teachers use formative assessment at every step of the way to measure learning and to gauge and adjust instruction. When students demonstrate mastery of the required proficiencies, they are assessed and graded on that basis only. Inconsistent, arbitrary, and inflated grading across classrooms, schools, and districts goes away under proficiency-based education.

In a proficiency-based system, the whole school is a learning organization. Principals are instructional leaders and teachers flourish in professional learning communities. Educators study best practices in the literature and peer application, they open up their classrooms to share and improve practices, and they use data to improve classroom practice and student outcomes.

Such practices address all of the Race to the Top concerns about standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and careers, that raise teacher qualifications, that use data to track student progress and improve teaching, and that turn schools around.

These practices also represent a significant departure from traditional school practice, in a which a third of students don’t graduate from high school in four years and a significant share of those who do graduate are not ready to succeed in college and work. The table on the following page illustrates the difference between traditional practice and proficiency practice.

9 Race to the Top Design Team and Working Groups

Ed Edwards Design Team Standards Assessment Bill Porter Matt Coleman, Co-Lead STEM Carlos Perez Jill Kirk, Co-Lead Dennis Dempsey, Lead Colleen Mileham Annette Mattson Jan Lariviere Courtney Vanderstek Dana Hepper Dr. Sam Stern Dena Hellums Dave Conley Ford Morishita Doug Stamm David Wilkinson Steve Nelson Duncan Wyse Evelyn Brezinski Deb Mumm-Hill Ed Dennis Jon Bridges Bill Becker Eduardo Angulo Michael Bremont Allen Bruner Gail Rasmussen Michelle Hooper Brad and Terry Thode Jim Mabbot Salam Noor Ray Hasart Joanne Waller Tony Alpert Cheryl Kleckner Joyce Harris Tom Thompson Julia Brim-Edwards Data Group Wade Holmes Kate Richardson Dean Livelybrooks Marjorie Lowe Mickey Garrison, Lead Karen Sprague Matt Coleman Bill Stewart Jill Baxter Mike Geisen Bob Kieran Dave Johnson Pat Burk Doug Kosty Ron Narode Sue Levin Jim Harrington Ellen Momsen Susan Castillo Joe Holliday Ed Armstrong Vickie Fleming, Lead Joe Stevens Kathleen Vanderwall KEY DATES Low Performing Schools Les Moore 10-15-09 9-12:00 Mark Mulvihill, Lead Rick Wahlstrom Oregon State Capitol Beth Gerot Rob Saxton Workgroup Public Meetings Bill Lesh 10-15-09 12:30-4 Brian Putnam Effective Teachers Oregon State Capitol Workgroup Lead Meetings Colleen Mileham Dan Jamison, Lead 10-21-09 12:30 to 4 Darlene Cook Carla Randall WG Recommendations due to David Bautista Courtney Vanderstek Design Team Dianna Carrizales Mary Cadez 10-23-09 Eduardo Angulo Diane Smith WG Recommendations posted to Gail Rasmussen Hilda Rosselli ODE website, sent to advisors John O’Neil Jim Golden 10-30-09 TBA in Salem Joyce Harris Julia Brim-Edwards Public meeting #1 Design Team and Karl Logan Kate Dickson WG leads, comments due from all Lolenzo Poe Lynda Sanders 11-4-09 Draft recommendations of Design Marilyn Miller Marlene Martin Team posted to ODE website and Mark Davalos Pat Burk Sent to advisors Steve Baker Randy Hitz 11-13-09 TBA in p.m. Sue Levin Rob Larson Portland TBA Design Team Tryna Luton Susanne Daggett Public meeting #2 Xavier Botana 11-18-09 Colin Cameron Design Team finalizes recommendations 10 11 Published Online: July 23, 2009

'Race to Top' Guidelines Stress Use of Test Data

By Michele McNeil

The U.S. Department of Education’s proposed guidelines for awarding $4 billion in Race to the Top money send a strong message that any state hoping to land a grant must allow student test scores to be used in decisions about teacher compensation and evaluation.

According to draft plans outlined by department officials on Friday, states would be judged on 19 education reform criteria, from how friendly their charter school climates are to whether they cut state K- 12 funding this year.

But only two criteria would be absolute requirements: States must have been approved by the Education Department for stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (most already have been), and states must not have any laws in place barring the use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals.

States not meeting those two absolutes would be ineligible to compete for aid from the Race to the Top Fund, a small but highly coveted slice of some $100 billion in federal economic-stimulus aid for education. That policy could eliminate California and New York—big states with powerful congressional delegations and a lot of students, but with legal firewalls between student and teacher data.

Being able to link teacher and student data is “absolutely fundamental—it’s a building block,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in an interview. “We believe great teachers matter tremendously. When you’re reluctant or scared to make that link, you do a grave disservice to the teaching profession and to our nation’s children.”

Timetable for Grants

So far, those criteria are just proposals. The public will have 30 days to comment before the Education Department makes them final in October.

States would have 60 days to apply for the first round of grants, with applications due in December. Awards would be made by the end of March. The second wave of grants would go out in September 2010, with applications due in late spring. A state that won a phase-one grant would not be eligible to win a phase-two grant.

12 The state’s governor would have to officially apply for the money, but the state education chief and the president of the state education board would also be required to sign off. Notably, one of the criteria states would be judged on is whether they have statewide backing for their reform plans, including from teachers’ unions. A letter of endorsement from the state union would be evidence of such support.

A winning state could use half the award however it wished, but half would have to be distributed to school districts based on the formula for the Title I program for disadvantaged students. The money would not, however, have to be spent according to Title I rules.

There will be a separate competition for the $350 million of the Race to the Top Fund that Mr. Duncan has said will be used to help spur a movement for common student assessments. Also, details will be announced later for a $650 million innovation-grant program for school districts that is not part of the fund.

The fact that the Race to the Top Fund is just $4.35 billion of the $100 billion in education aid in the $787 billion recovery act passed by Congress in February belies the fund’s importance. Mr. Duncan is using these competitive grants to cajole states into making specific policy moves, such as lifting caps on the expansion of charter schools and tapping rainy-day funds rather than cutting state funding to K-12 schools. ("Racing for an Early Edge," July 15, 2009.)

The education secretary has been crisscrossing the nation for months, making dozens of speeches foreshadowing how his department would determine which states get the money. The list of criteria, therefore, is fairly predictable, revolving around the four “assurances” that states were required to make to receive stimulus money. They call for states to adopt internationally benchmarked standards; improve the recruitment, retention, and rewarding of educators; improve data collection; and turn around the lowest-performing schools.

States that have signed on to the common-standards movement being spearheaded by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers would be given preference under the Education Department’s draft. All but Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas have done so. ("46 States Agree to Common Academic Standards Effort," June 10, 2009).

States that allow alternative-certification routes for teachers and principals, and have merit-pay plans for educators, also would be looked on favorably. States also would be judged on whether they used their share of the $39.5 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund on education reform efforts, rather than plugging budget holes.

Although Mr. Duncan has hammered on the issue of charter school caps, which he wants removed, states also would be judged on how equitably they fund charter schools compared with regular public schools, and on how much funding they provide for charter school facilities. Those criteria may answer some

13 charter school advocates’ concerns that Mr. Duncan was focusing too much on caps and ignoring other components of of what advocates deem good charter school policy.

Use of Test Scores

Secretary Duncan had also stressed his disapproval of states that have laws barring the use of student- achievement data in teacher-evaluation decisions, but the proposed criteria go further: Having such a law would automatically disqualify a state. At least two states have such laws on the books: California and New York.

“I hope states that don’t presently meet the eligibility will decide to take the steps necessary to meet it. It’s the right policy to take our education system to the next level,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller, a Democrat and the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, whose home state of California has such a law.

The idea behind linking individual teachers to student data is to determine the extent to which teachers are contributing to students’ achievement growth. In theory, such “value added” systems can filter out elements such as students’ ethnicity or family economic levels that have a correlation with academic performance.

The two states’ laws on the matter differ somewhat. California prohibits its newly established teacher- identification database from being used for decisions about teacher pay, promotion, evaluation, or other employment matters.

In New York, state legislators barred the use of student-achievement data in tenure decisions. That law is scheduled to sunset in 2010, according to the state department of education.

Teachers’ unions harbor concerns about the technical quality of the tests that would be used to judge their members’ performance, as well as the validity of many value-added methodologies.

Although in recent weeks both Mr. Duncan and leaders of the two national teachers’ unions have underscored the need to collaborate on reforms, the notion of using test scores in pay and evaluation is an area in which there may be fundamental differences between the Obama administration and its union allies.

Policy resolutions approved by the 3.2 million-member National Education Association eschew the use of student test-score data in pay and evaluation decisions. NEA officials would not comment until they had reviewed the proposed criteria.

The president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, has in the past said that student test-score data should be used primarily for informative and instructional purposes. 14 More recently, she has said student-achievement results do have a place in evaluations, but must be incorporated in a way that is fair to all teachers—including those who teach subjects not covered by states’ standardized-testing programs.

In an interview, Ms. Weingarten demurred from commenting specifically on the proposal. “What I’ve learned about Washington is that you actually have to wait to see the exact language,” she said.

Other commentators felt that the proposed guidance sent a clear signal to the teachers’ unions.

“This is clearly poking the unions in the eye,” said Michael J. Petrilli, the vice president for national programs and policy at the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “What’s so good about this issue is there’s not a lot of nuance. Either you’re allowed to use this information for evaluations or you’re not.”

Although the criterion on linking teachers and student data would be an all-or-nothing eligibility requirement, still unresolved is whether any of the remaining criteria would be given more weight than others, and if so, which ones.

And, while states would be judged heavily on their plans for the Race to the Top money, it’s still unresolved how Education Department officials would balance a state’s proposed reform plan and the policies it already has in place. The department would, however, give extra weight to proposals that focused on science, technology, engineering, and math, known as the STEM subjects.

“We’re not just looking for a plan but a commitment, … what you are doing now,” Mr. Duncan said. “This is not about the hypothetical. You must demonstrate to us your plans, ideas, and capacity to deliver on this.”

Judging the applications would be a peer-review panel made up of education experts from outside the federal department. The applications would ask for evidence for the criteria, such as financial documents and copies of state laws, with the states’ respective attorneys general having to sign off on the laws.

Staff Writer Stephen Sawchuk contributed to this story.