Washington Race To The Top Diagnostic Report

Washington’s “Race to the Top” Proposal
Detailed Diagnostic
January 2010
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2
▪ Review of Washington State’s initial position 9
▪ Detail on each requirement area 13
– Criteria A. State success factors 14

– Criteria B. Standards and assessments 23
– Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction 41
– Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders 64
– Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools 91
– Criteria F. General 105
– Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, 116
engineering, mathematics)
▪ Appendix 142
| 1
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction
Race to the Top will be judged based on an extensive point system
There are 500 total possible points, split amongst seven requirement areas: six criteria of the absolute
priority and one competitive priority:
Requirement areas Points
▪ Criteria A: State success factors 125

▪ Criteria B: Standards and assessments 70
▪ Criteria C: Data systems to drive instruction 47
▪ Criteria D: Great teachers and leaders 138
▪ Criteria E: Turning around the lowest achieving schools 50
▪ Criteria F: General criteria 55
▪ Competitive priority: STEM 15
Within each of the requirement areas, there are several sub-criteria that can earn a state points. The next two
slides show how the points are broken down in the guidelines. The chart on page five arranges the categories
by the total amount of points awarded, detailing the number of points each sub-criteria is worth and labeling the
largest sub-criteria. For a complete list of sub-criteria, please see the appendix.
Points are awarded both based on the level of reform the state has already achieved as well as the rigor of
and district support of its reform plan for the future.
This document summarizes where Washington currently stands on each of these requirements according to
guidelines set forth by the Department of Education. It is from this current state that Washington will build its reform plan.
SOURCE: Department of Education RTTT Guidelines | 2

RTTT Scoring Rubric from U.S. ED (1/2)
Selection Criteria Points Percent

State Success Factors 125 25
▪ Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEAs’ participation in it 65
– Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 5
– Securing LEA commitment 45
– Translating LEA participation into statewide impact 15
▪ Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain 30
proposed plans
– Ensuring the capacity to implement 20
– Using broad stakeholder support 10
▪ Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps 30
– Making progress in each reform area 5
– Improving student outcomes 25
Standards and Assessments 70 14

▪ Developing and adopting common standards 40
– Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20
– Adopting standards 20
▪ Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments 10
▪ Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality 20
assessments
Data Systems to Support Instruction 47 9

▪ Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24
▪ Accessing and using State data 5
▪ Using data to improve instruction 18
Note: “LEA” terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to “District”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education | 3
RTTT Scoring Rubric from U.S. ED (2/2)
Selection Criteria Points Percent

Great Teachers and Leaders 138 28
Eligibility Requirement Eligibility
▪ Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals 21
▪ Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58
– Measuring student growth 5
– Developing evaluation systems 15
– Conducting annual evaluations 10
– Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28
▪ Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25
– Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or high-minority schools 15
– Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas 10
▪ Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 14
▪ Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools 50 10
▪ Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs 10
▪ Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 40
– Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools 5
– Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools 35
General 55 11
Eligibility Requirement Eligibility
▪ Making education funding a priority 10
▪ Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and 40
other innovative schools
▪ Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5
Competitive Preference Priority: Emphasis on STEM 15 3
Total 500 100
Note: “LEA” terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to “District”

Great Teachers and Leaders is the largest requirement area in RTTT,
though the top five sub-criteria are spread throughout requirement areas
RTTT grant requirement areas, ranked by number of possible points Top five criteria
Points
Securing
Ensuring district
capacity to commitment Conditions for
implement Supporting charter schools
Improving
transition to
student
Use of standards/assmt
138 outcomes
evaluations
to improve 125 Adopting Turning around
instruction 28 schools
standards
Participation
21 45 in standards
consortium Fully implementing State
20 70 Longitudinal Data System (SLDA)
Providing
25
high-quality 15 20 55
pathways 50 47 STEM – all or
15 20 nothing
20
14 40 35 24
Providing 15
teacher/principal 10 20 15
10 18
support 10 5 10 10
5 5 10 5 5 5
D. Great A. State Success B. Standards and F. General E. Turning C. Data Systems STEM
Teachers and Factors Assessments Around Lowest
Leaders Performing
Schools
Percent of
total 28% 25% 14% 11% 10% 9% 3%
(500 pts)
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis | 5

Another way to analyze the point system is by the number of points a state
can readily influence
The RTTT sub-criteria can be divided in three buckets that varies by the level
of influence the state has over gaining points in the application
Sub-criteria Level of
involving influence Description
Little Points in these sub-criteria are directly a

Historical result of what WA has already accomplished
performance
Limited Points in these sub-criteria depend on

Policy barriers legislation being passed
High Points in these sub-criteria depend on the

Future plan quality of the application and district support
actions
| 6
While the majority of points fall into “Future Plan actions” a large portion
still is dependent on legislation and historical performance
Criteria that states have limited influence over account …leaving 310 points for criteria that states can
for 190 pts (~40% of the total)… impact with their reform plans
Sub-criteria involving policy barriers Points Sub-criteria involving future plan actions Total
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing Securing district commitment 45
Biggest levers
charter schools and other innovative schools 40 Turning around the lowest achieving schools 35
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28
and principals 21 Ensuring capacity to implement 20
Adopting standards 20 Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts 20
Intervening in lowest-achieving schools and districts 10 Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 Using data to improve instruction 18

Translating district participation into statewide impact 15
Total 96
STEM 15
Developing evaluation systems 15
Sub-criteria depending on historical performance Points
Ensuring equitable distribution to high-need students 15
Improving student outcomes 25
Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prep
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data programs 14
system 24 Using broad stakeholder support 10
Participating in consortium developing high-quality Conducting annual evaluations 10
standards 20 Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects 10
Making education funding a priority 10 Accessing and using State data 5
Developing and implementing high-quality Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 5
assessments 10 Measuring student growth 5
Making progress in each reform area 5 Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools 5
Total 94 Total 310
Grand Total 500

SOURCE: Department of Education | 7
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 8
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Review of Washington State’s initiatl position
The state has performed a rigorous review of Washington’s current stance
on all RTTT requirements, providing detailed assessments in thematic areas
Process: In-depth interviews with state officials and data from existing state resources were used to create this
diagnostic. There two were types of reviews conducted:
Type of requirement for which

Type of review review was performed Format and content
▪ Non-thematic requirements ▪ Relevant data and charts will be shown

Data review
▪ Education-themed requirements ▪ Every thematic criteria will begin with a Summary page that
Detailed assessment (e.g., Teachers and Leaders, shows rankings on each of the sub-criteria.
STEM) ▪ Following with be pages that break down the sub-criteria into
more granular super sub-criteria and rankings are applied
Overview of types of review by requirement area:
Requirement areas Type of review
▪ Criteria A: State success factors Data review

▪ Criteria B: Standards and Assessments Detailed assessment
▪ Criteria C: Data systems to drive instruction Detailed assessment
▪ Criteria D: Great Teachers and Leaders Detailed assessment
▪ Criteria E: Turning around the Lowest Achieving Schools Detailed assessment
▪ Criteria F: General Criteria1 Data review/Detailed assessment
▪ Competitive Priority: STEM Detailed assessment
1 General Criteria includes included both thematic (Charter Schools) and non thematic (Budget) sub-criteria. A detailed assessment was performed for
the thematic area in this criteria.
SOURCE: Team analysis | 9
How to read a detailed assessment
Where WA will be once current

initiatives are complete
(excluding new plans via RTTT)
Where WA current
stands
Results format
100% ILLUSTRATIVE
0% RTTT RTTT
Sub-criteria compliant compliant Rationale
SA1 Washington has ▪ Washington is part of the Common Core

demonstrated Washington has not Washington has Washington has
committed to adopting committed to committed to standards which are internationally
commitment to
the Common Core participating in Common participating in Common benchmarked and build toward college
developing and
standards Core and will adopt Core and will adopt readiness
adopting common high-
quality standards standards by December standards by August 2,
31, 2010 2010
Details of findings that led to

A description and this judgment
A description of what it means
labeling of the sub-
to be at different levels of RTTT
criteria
compliance

Summary of Washington’s performance: The state has
opportunity for improvement in nearly all sub-criteria
Washington current capability
Criteria B, C, D, E: The “Four Assurances”1

Compliant with RTTT criteria Compliant with RTTT criteria
Standards and Assessments 0% 100% Great teachers and leaders 0% 100%

•
TL1 Providing alternative pathways for aspiring
•
SA1 Washington is committed to developing and teachers and principals
adopting common standards
TL2
• Differentiation of teachers and principals based
SA2
• Washington is committed to developing and on performance
implementing common high-quality assessments
•
TL3 Ensuring equitable distribution of effective
SA3
• Washington is supporting transition to enhanced teachers and principals
standards and high-quality assessments
•
TL4 Reporting the effectiveness of teacher and
principal preparation programs
TL5
• Providing effective support to teachers and
Data systems to drive instruction principals
•
DS1 Washington has fully implemented a statewide Turning around lowest-achieving schools
longitudinal data system
•
DS2 Key stakeholders have access to and use •
LS1 Intervening at the lowest-performing schools and
State Data districts
DS3
• Stakeholders use data to improve instruction LS3
• Turning around lowest-achieving schools
Criteria A, E, F
State Success Factors STEM
1. Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, and
•
ST1 Rigorous course of study in mathematics,
sustain proposed plans
sciences, technology and engineering
2. Enlisting statewide support and commitment
ST2
• Community partners assist teachers in integrating
3. Raising achievement and closing gaps
STEM content across grades / disciplines,

General promoting effective instruction, and offering
1. Making education funding a priority applied learning opportunities for students
2. Demonstrating significant progress ST3 More students prepared for advanced study and
careers in STEM, including underrepresented
CS2 Ensuring successful conditions for high-
performing charter and other innovative schools
groups and women
1 These thematic areas are what the U.S. Department of Education (ED) calls the “Four Assurances.” The ED considers them to be priority areas that will drive the
most education reform and have focused federal funds around them
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis
| 11
This assessment translates to an estimated 169 out of 500 points, with

largest opportunities in the top six “future plan actions” sub-criteria
Washington earns 101 out of a potential 190 points on criteria The greatest six opportunities amount to ESTIMATES ONLY
regarding policy barriers and historical performance 168 points, of which WA potentially has 27 today
Potential WA1 Potential WA1
Sub-criteria involving policy barriers points points Sub-criteria involving future plan actions points points
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing Securing district commitment 45 0
Biggest levers
charter schools and other innovative schools 40 0 Turning around the lowest achieving schools 35 5
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring Using evaluations to inform key decisions 28 0
teachers and principals 21 10
Ensuring capacity to implement 20 5
Adopting common core standards 20 20 Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts 20 15
Intervening in lowest-achieving schools and Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20 2
districts 10 0
Using data to improve instruction 18 5
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 3 Translating district participation into statewide impact 15 0
Total 96 33 STEM 15 0
Developing teacher and principal evaluation systems 15 0
Sub-criteria depending on historical Potential WA1
performance Points points Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers to high-
need students 15 5
Improving student outcomes 25 18 Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prep
programs 14 4
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data
system 24 22 Using broad stakeholder support 10 5
Participation in consortium of states developing Conducting annual evaluations 10 3
high-quality standards 20 20 Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers in hard-to-
staff subjects 10 3
State’s demonstration of education funding priority 10 5
Accessing and using State data 5 5
Developing and implementing high-quality student
assessments 10 0 Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 5 4
Measuring student growth 5 3
Making progress in each reform area 5 3
Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools 5 4
Total 94 68
Total 310 68
1 Preliminary estimated for WA points based on current performance and RTTT guidelines that spell out number of points earned for different levels of performance
| 12
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education; team analysis
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 13
Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors
Overall achievement: Washington has marginally reduced the number of
students performing “below basic” level in reading and math
Percent of all Washington students below basic on NAEP assessments, 2003 to 2007
4th Grade Reading, 2003 to 2007 8th Grade Reading, 2003 to 2007
33 24 25
30 30 23
-3% -1%
Key insights
• The percent of
students performing
at below basic
decreased in each
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 category and each
year from 2003 to
2007
4th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009 8th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009
• The percent of 8th
graders reading at
19 28 below basic
16 16 25 25 decreased at a
16 -3% 22 -6%
slower rate as
compared to other
categories
2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009
1 Most recent available test data
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics | 14

Achievement Gaps in Math: The ethnicity gap has increased
in the eighth grade
Gap between white and other minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment
Percentage point different between the two groups
White-Black
Eight Grade White-Hispanic

Fourth Grade
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15 The achievement gap in 8th

grade math has increased
significantly for Hispanics, even
10 10 though both Hispanic and White
groups have improved
5 5
0 0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009
SOURCE: NCES, NAEP | 15

Achievement Gaps in Math: The income gap is steady or decreasing,
while the gender gap remains relatively small
Gap between majority and minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment
Fourth grade
Eighth grade
Income gap Gender gap
(Not Eligible vs. Eligible for free lunch program) (Male vs. Female)1
Percentage point difference between the two groups Percentage point difference between the two groups
35 30
30 25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
-5 -5
2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009
1 In 4th grade, females outperform males; in 8th grade males outperform females
| 16
SOURCE: NCES, NAEP
Achievement Gaps in Math: The English proficiency gap has increased
while the disability gap has largely remained constant
Fourth grade
Eighth grade
English proficiency gap Disability gap
(Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs. (Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES)
ELL students) vs. Having SES)
55 55
50 50
45 45
40 40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
10 15
5 10
0 5
-5 0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

Achievement Gaps in Reading: The ethnicity gap has improved for
Hispanic, but increased for black students
Gap between white and other minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment
Percentage point different between the two groups
White-Black
Eight Grade White-Hispanic

Fourth Grade
35 30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

Achievement Gaps in Reading: Both income and gender gaps have
remained relatively constant
Fourth grade
Eighth grade
Income gap Gender gap
(Not Eligible vs. Eligible for free lunch program) (Male vs. Female)1
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007
1 Females outperform males in both grades

| 19
SOURCE: NCES, NAEP
Achievement Gaps in Reading: The English proficiency and disability
gaps have largely increased
Fourth grade
Eighth grade
English Proficiency gap Disability gap
(Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs. ELL (Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES)
students) vs. Having SES)
60 55
55 50
50 45
45 40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007

Graduation rate: Graduation and Dropout rates have remained relatively
flat over the last three years
Graduation and dropout rate summary Estimated 4-year Cohort dropout rate
05-06 06-07 07-08

Native American 40.8
On-time graduation rate 70.4% 72.5% 72.0%
African-American/Black 32.5
Extended graduation rate 75.1 77.5 77.0
Hispanic 29.6
Annual dropout 5.7 5.5 5.6
Pacific Islander 26.7
4-year dropout rate 21.4 21.0 21.4
All students 21.4
Caucasian 18.7
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3
Asian 14.7
| 21
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 22
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments
Summary: Washington’s current status of Key issues
Projected capabilities once
Standards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria current initiatives implemented
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

SA1 Washington has ▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards

demonstrated commitment Washington has not Washington has Washington has which are internationally benchmarked and build
to developing and committed to adopting committed to committed to toward college readiness
adopting common high- the Common Core participating in Common participating in Common ▪ The Common Core includes all but three states
quality standards standards Core and will adopt Core and will adopt ▪ Washington is able to adopt the Common Core
standards by December standards by August 2, standards by August 2, 2010
31, 2010 2010
SA2 Washington has

demonstrated its
▪ Washington has not yet committed to developing
high-quality common assessments with a
commitment to developing Washington has not Washington has Washington has consortium of states
and implementing committed to developing committed to developing committed to developing
common high-quality and implementing high- and implementing high- and implementing high-
assessments quality assessments with quality assessments with quality assessments with
a consortium of states a consortium of states, a consortium of states,
but that consortium and that consortium
includes less than half of includes more than half
all states of all states
SA3 Washington is supporting

▪ Recent implementation of new mathematics
transition to enhanced standards can be leveraged as a plan to
standards and high-quality Washington does not Washington has high- Washington has high- implement Common Core standards
assessments have a plan to quality plan to implement quality plan to implement ▪ There was a reduction in the number of
implement standards enhanced standards and enhanced standards and professional development days included in
and assessments or assessments but does assessments and districts’ budgets during most recent legislative
translate standards and not have a plan to translate standards and session
information from translate standards and information from ▪ Assessments were adjusted based on new
assessments into information from assessments into mathematics and science standards and contracts
classroom practice assessments into classroom practice with vendors allow for additional changes
classroom practice
SA1 Summary: Washington’s current status of Projected capabilities once

current initiatives implemented
Standards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

SA1 Washington has

▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards
demonstrated commitment Washington has not Washington has Washington has which are internationally benchmarked and build
to developing and committed to adopting committed to committed to toward college readiness
adopting common high- the Common Core participating in Common participating in Common ▪ The Common Core includes all but three states
quality standards standards Core and will adopt Core and will adopt ▪ Washington is able to adopt the Common Core
standards by December standards by August 2, standards by August 2, 2010
31, 2010 2010
Super Sub-criteria
SA1A Washington is part of a

consortium of states Washington is not part of Washington is part of a

Washington is part of a
▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards
which are internationally benchmarked and build
working to develop high- toward college readiness
a consortium of states consortium of <25 states consortium of >25 states
quality standards that is working toward that is working toward that is working toward
developing and adopting developing and adopting developing and adopting
K-12 standards K-12 standards that are K-12 standards that are
supported by evidence supported by evidence
that they are that they are
internationally internationally
benchmarked and build benchmarked and build
toward college and toward college and
career readiness career readiness
SA1B Washington will adopt the

standards by August 2,
▪ Washington is able to officially adopt the standards
by August 2, 2010
The state will adopt the The state has committed The state has committed
2010
standards later than to and made progress to and made progress
2010 toward adopting the toward adopting the
standards by December standards by August 2,
31, 2010 2010

SA3 Washington’s current status of Standards Projected capabilities once

relative to RTTT criteria Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

SA3 Washington is supporting

transition to enhanced
Washington has not Washington has Washington has standards can be leveraged as a plan to
standards and high-quality
committed to adopting committed to committed to implement Common Core standards
assessments
the Common Core participating in Common participating in Common ▪ There was a reduction in the number of
standards Core and will adopt Core and will adopt professional development days included in
standards by December standards by August 2, districts’ budgets during most recent legislative
31, 2010 2010 session
▪ Assessments were adjusted based on new
mathematics and science standards and contracts
with vendors allow for additional changes
Sub-criteria
SA3A Washington has a plan to

implement new standards
standards can be leveraged as a plan to
Washington meets fewer Washington meets at Washington meets all
than four of the criteria least four of the criteria criteria for a high-quality implement Common Core standards
for high-quality for high-quality implementation plan for ▪ The state has a method of developing centralized
implementation plan for implementation plan for standards professional development materials and curricular
standards standards reviews for implementation of new standards
▪ There was a recent reduction in the number of
professional development days included in
district’s budgets
SA3B Washington has a plan to

implement new
▪ Assessments were adjusted based on new
mathematics and science standards and contracts
assessments Washington meets fewer Washington meets at Washington meets all with vendors allow for additional changes
than three criteria for least three of the criteria criteria for a high-quality ▪ Professional development plan and
high-quality for high-quality implementation plan for communication plan are incomplete
implementation plan for implementation plan for assessments
assessments assessments

SA1 Washington standards show some alignment to areas of

Common Core College and Career Readiness Standards
Alignment between 5 = Strong alignment
WA & Common Core1
1 = Weak Alignment
Subject area (Scale of 1-5) Key differences
Reading 3 ▪ Many standards align; Common Core Standards do lack some elements present in
Washington reading standards; these include:
– Assessing reading strengths and need for improvement
– Need for global perspective, values diversity and variety of cultures and culturally
responsive teaching
– Reading and analyzing online information
– Reading to perform a task
– Synthesizing ideas from selections to make predictions and inferences
Writing 4 ▪ Many standards align however key differences include:

– Common Core Standards focus on writing to make an argument and to inform or
explain, versus Washington which also includes other purposes such as civic writing
and reflection
– Common Core excludes the interrelationship of writing process to the standards
Communication 3-4 ▪ Many standards align however key differences include areas where the Common Core
standards have a stronger focus, including:
– Command of Standard English
– The concept of asking strong questions and challenging presented ideas
– The use and value of technology
Mathematics 4 ▪ The Common Core Standards are closely aligned on eight of the ten content areas and
differ in the following ways:
– Washington Standards do not address the area of quantity
– Washington addresses the content area of modeling within other content areas rather
than as a stand alone content area
– The Common Core addresses Standards of Mathematical Practice which include the
practice of looking for underlying structure in mathematics
1 As estimated by OSPI in September 2009, based on preliminary version of Common Core College and Career Readiness Standards; Common Core K-12 standards
are not yet available for comparison | 26
Requirement met
SA2A Washington’s summative assessments, meet five of ten of Requirement
partially met
the required elements outlined by Department of Education Requirement not met
Additional detail provided
Assessments must WA
Required characteristics Status Rationale
measure
1. Reflect and support good instructional practice by eliciting ▪ More constructed response
complex responses and demonstrations of knowledge and than most states but less than
▪ Individual student international best practice
skills consistent with the goal of being college and career
achievement as
ready by the time of high school completion
measured against
standards that build 2. Be accessible to the broadest possible range of students ▪ Thorough set of
toward college and with appropriate accommodations for students with accommodations available as
career readiness by disabilities and English learners necessary
the time of high
school completion 3. Contain varied and unpredictable item types and content ▪ Varying test items selected
sampling so as not to create incentives for inappropriate from broad pool; items not
▪ Individual student test preparation and curriculum narrowing repeated >3x
growth (data
showing change in 4. Produce results that can be aggregated at the classroom, ▪ Not available at classroom
student achievement school, district and State levels level
for an individual
student between two 5. Produce reports that are relevant, actionable, timely, ▪ Available on Washington
or more points in accurate, and displayed in ways that are clear and Query and Teacher Tool
time) understandable for target audiences, including teachers,
students and their families, schools, districts, … etc.
▪ The extent to which
each individual 6. Make effective and appropriate use of technology ▪ Online testing coming in 2010
student is on track,
at each grade level 7. Be valid, reliable and fair ▪ Approved by ED
tested, toward ▪ Confirmed by independent
8. Be appropriately secure for the intended purposes
college or career audit
readiness by the time 9. Have the fastest possible turnaround time on scoring ▪ 53 day turnaround
of high school without forcing the use of lower quality assessment items
completion
10. Be able to be maintained, administered and scored at a cost ▪ Funding and budget
that is sustainable over time maintainable through 2013
| 27
SA2A Washington has a greater proportion of selected response

than international best practice, but less than other states
1
Test- Performance-
Selected Constructed Product Performance Process
based based
response response
Product
0 3 • Washington utilizes
Extended 15 16 fewer selected response
Short 0 27 34 questions than U.S.
Answer 21
peers, but more than
Short international best
Answer 42 practice
Selected 81 • Washington uses
64 66
Response product questions
31 (written assessment
based on prompt
whereas other U.S.
Washington Singapore - U.S. - Natl. U.S. - Sub- assessments use
Primary School Assessment set of state extended short answer)
Leaving Exam1 of Educational assessments
Progress (composite)3
Percent questions
(Grade)2
from “most
rigorous” types4 25-40% 44% 29% 15%
1 Given at the equivalent of Grade 6

2 NAEP based on entire item pool, students receive samples of content based on these item pools
3 Includes weighted average from the following, whose mathematics standards were previously assessed in the same study: North Carolina (End of
Grade Tests, Grades 6 and 8), Texas (Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, Grades 6 and 8), Florida (Comprehensive Assessment Test, Grade 8),
New Jersey (Middle School Test, Grade 8), Ohio (Proficiency Test, Grade 6)
4 Percentage of test problems that require multiple steps and/or solving for unknown variables
SOURCE: American Institute of Research, What the United States can Learn from Singapore’s World Class Mathematics System (2005) | 28
SA2A Washington has a system that aggregates summative

assessment results at the student, school, district and State level
4
• Teachers and administrators can see

individual student’s result on each
strand of the WASL
There is no state-provided
• Stakeholders can see how individual
class-level report for teachers
school performance compares to the
to see the aggregate results state and district on each WASL strand
of their class • Strand breakdown enables stakeholders
to identify which standards within a
subject are sources of struggle
| 29
SOURCE: Washington Query
SA2A Washington has an online tool to enable stakeholders to

access and track student summative assessment results
5
• Detailed results provide information

about specific areas of strength and
opportunities for improvement
• Overall scores are easy to read

• Overview of results highlights student
learning gaps and enables parents and
students to engage with teachers
| 30
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, Council of Chief State School Officers
SA2A A selection of U.S. scorecards provide examples of how to

display assessment data in an easily understood format
5
Synthesis and explanations Performance comparison
New York City School reports simplify

Chicago Public
communication by calculating an easy-
Elementary School
to-understand (albeit contentious1)
reports include trends
summary grade and by providing
over time on key
explanation on each evaluation criteria
metrics to enable
comparison (e.g.,
highlight improvement
or challenges)
Clarity Comprehensiveness
Chicago Public Middle

School reports are clearly Boston school reports
structured along four key provide information beyond
metrics (student outcome, student performance
academic progress, student metrics such as:
connection and school • Overview of staff and
characteristics) in an easy- teachers
to-read manner and provide • Details on community
rationale on why these partnerships
metrics are important
1 Critics of the New York City school grading system argue that it emphasizes student progress over absolute performance (e.g., SAT scores), and
hence does not provide a complete picture of the school’s overall performance
SOURCE: New York City Public Schools, Chicago Public Schools, Boston Public Schools, team analysis | 31
SA2A A sample scorecard shows an example of how to link

assessments directly to content standards
DISGUISED
5 Sample school report U.S. DISTRICT
Exam: Grade 3 Science standards
Time: Oct 2008
Sample assessment report
# of students: 500
Summary
%of students at basic or above: 8%
Average score: 12.3
Performance by band Performance by band
Band Range # of students % of students enables teachers to track
Advanced 26.10 - 29.0 25 5% number of students
Mastery 23.20 - 26.09 25 5%
achieving proficiency
Basic 18.85 - 23.19 50 10%
Approaching basic 14.50 - 18.84 110 22%
Dissatisfactory 11.60 - 14.49 150 30%
Poor 00.00 - 11.59 200 40%
Performance by content standard (# of students)

Assessment results are
reported by individual
Standard Low Middle High
standard to enable teachers to
SI–ASI: S 100 150 250
SI–ASI: 7 50 200 250
identify gaps in student learning
PS–POM: 19 10 290 200
PS–POM: 22 100 150 250
PS–PMO: 24 100 150 250
PS–PMO: 26 50 100 350
PS–FOE: 3 100 150 250
ESS–PEM: 48 60 90 350
Content standards
LAGLE–Science–Grade 3–SI–ASI
– ASI: 5 Use a variety of methods and materials and multiple trials to investigate ideas (observe,
Tested content
measure, accurately record data) standards are
Section 1: Multiple choice: 1, 2, 3, 4
– ASI: 7 Measure and record length, temperature, mass, volume, and area in both metric system
listed in detail
and U.S. system units
Section 1: Multiple choice: 5, 6, 7

SA2A Washington is increasingly implementing new

technologies in its assessment systems
6 Percent of grade level assessments projected to be online 2010
Percent
2011
2012
Reading Mathematics Writing Science
▪ Washington is
100 100
High school
proficiency1
increasingly using
technology in
50 50 50 administering its
summative assessments
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 By 2012:
▪ The high school
proficiency test will have
100% of its reading and
100 100 100
writing portions and 50%
8th Grade2
80 80 80 80
of its science portion
administered online
25 25 25 ▪ The 8th grade test will
0 0 have 100% of reading,
writing and mathematics
and 80% of science
80
4th Grade3
administered online
▪ The 4th grade test will
continue to be largely
25 25 25
paper and pencil
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Districts also use various assessment

1 Mathematics retest is projected to be 100% online in 2011 and 2012 technology for formative assessments (e.g.,
2 Writing assessment is 7th grade DIBELS, TeachScape, MAP and others)
3 Science assessment is 5th grade
SOURCE: Assessment Update: Redesign of State Assessments for 2010, 10/16/09 | 33
Element not in place
SA3A The state used a high-quality plan to implement Element partially in place
new mathematics standards Element fully in place
WA current Additional details follow

Elements of high-quality implementation plan Status Rationale
1▪ The state has allocated resources to developing new ▪ State provides centralized professional development
curricular and professional development materials materials and conducts “train the trainers” sessions to
ensure teacher leaders know necessary content to
support teachers in implementing standards
▪ State allocates materials and training modules but
financial support is minimal
2▪ Districts have a plan to efficiently approve and purchase new ▪ The state has provided reviews of curricular materials
curricular and professional development materials and common professional development materials, but
adoption and purchase plans vary across districts
▪ Review cycles vary by district
3▪ Districts have the time and resources to provide high-quality ▪ Districts have been provided state financial support for
professional development in the new standards to all professional development through Learning Improvement
instructional staff Days (LID); LID was reduced last year; Districts often use
local funds for professional development; Districts are
varied in delivery of professional development
4▪ The state has obtained support from colleges and ▪ Standards are used to create the college readiness
universities to align their entrance requirements with the mathematics test used for placement but are not explicitly
new standards tied to entrance requirements
5▪ The state has a communication plan to create buy-in among ▪ The state used a high-quality communication plan to
teachers, parents and students for the new standards implement new mathematics standards and has a high-
quality plan for Common Core
6▪ State teachers and principal programs will modify their ▪ Teachers will likely be more open to new curriculum in
curriculum to align with new standards areas that have not had recent adoptions
SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, The New Teacher Project, team analysis

| 34
SA3A The state created grade level professional development materials

to facilitate implementation of new mathematics standards
1
Facilitator notes State provided professional
development materials to facilitate
teacher knowledge development in
content areas associated with new
standards
Content
Problem 1.5.b
1.5.b. Then make a fold on segment FD.
(1) What is the shape of the triangle FGD? Prove your

conjecture.
(2) What is the measure of angle GED? How do you know?
State provided facilitator notes to ensure
(3) Label the intersection of FG and CD as H. What special
training is consistent with standards and
segment in this triangle is the segment DH?
thorough in locally administered
sessions (4) If the radius of the circle is r, what is the length of the
side of triangle FDG?
11/1/2009 Geometry 15
SOURCE: OSPI Mathematics Professional Development Facilitator documentation | 35

SA3A Washington recently passed legislation mandating the creation of a

statewide system for formative assessments
1 SB 5414 mandates a statewide formative assessment

system to improve instruction
Assessments must:
▪ Be aligned to state standards in areas that are being
SB 5414 mandates assessed
▪ Measure student growth and competency at multiple
points throughout the year in a manner that allows instructors
▪ Use of both formative and
to monitor student progress and have the necessary trend data
summative assessments to
with which to improve instruction
provide information to improve
▪ Provide rapid feedback
instruction and inform
▪ Link student growth with instructional elements in order to
accountability
gauge the effectiveness of educators and curricula
▪ Enables collection of data that
▪ Provide tests that are appropriate to the skill level of the
allows statewide and nationwide
student
comparisons of learning and
▪ Support instruction for students of all abilities, including
achievement
highly capable students and students with learning disabilities
▪ Balance of effort so that
▪ Be culturally, linguistically, and cognitively relevant,
decisions are made based on
appropriate, understandable to each student taking the
many data points, not a single
assessment
assessment
▪ Inform parents and draw parents into greater participation of
the student's study plan
▪ Provide a way to analyze the assessment results relative to
characteristics of the student such as, but not limited to, English
language learners, gender, ethnicity, poverty, age, and
disabilities
▪ Strive to be computer-based and adaptive
▪ Engage students in their learning
SA3A Washington has developed rigorous review process for

curriculum materials
2
Washington has a rigorous process for …which yields support to school districts
reviewing curriculum materials… in selecting curriculum materials

SA3A Washington can leverage its communication plan from recent rollout
of new mathematics standards for implementing Common Core
5
Key elements of communication plan to build buy-in for new standards
• Engage key statewide partners and stakeholders in learning about and
sharing information re: new standards – process for adoption and plans for
implementation
– Legislature and statewide professional associations
– Educational Service Districts and school districts
– Other local, regional, state stakeholders
– Media
• Establish common talking points/messages and support information (for
state, regional, local stakeholders)
• Implement multiple approaches to share information with districts, schools,
teachers
– Web site, email, newsletters, in-person (conferences), hard-copy mailing to
school buildings, districts, ESDs, IHEs
– Regional information-sharing / “learning” sessions
• Establish statewide opportunities for teachers to learn about new standards
(process for adoption, plans for implementation, content, comparison to old
standards, etc.)

Element not in place
SA3B The state has made progress in developing a Element partially in place
high-quality plan to implement new assessments Element fully in place
WA current
Elements of high-quality implementation plan Status Rationale
1▪ State has allocated resources to modify existing ▪ SB 5414 mandates that assessments be updated to
summative assessments to align with new standards reflect standards
▪ Contracts with service providers allow changes in
assessments to match standards
2▪ The state has allocated resources to developing a ▪ SB 5414 created a mandate for the creation of
bank of formative assessments tied to new centralized formative assessments which will be tied
standards to new standards
3▪ The state has a plan to provide high-quality ▪ Washington has implemented Assessment Leadership
professional development to instructional staff Teams that provide training of trainers who then
regarding access, interpretation, and usage of provide 1-2 day professional development sessions to
assessments discuss the nature of assessments and scoring
student responses
4▪ The state has a communication plan to create buy-in ▪ The state sponsors webinars with principals to
among parents, students teachers, and principals communicate plans for new assessments
for the new assessments ▪ One staff person is fully devoted to communications
▪ Information is shared through conferences, meetings
and weekly newsletter to all district coordinators;
coordinators distribute further
5▪ Teachers are willing to incorporate formative ▪ Many districts have implemented their own systems
assessments into their curriculum and adjust for formative assessments, indicating they are open to
teaching plans based on assessment outcomes using formative assessment systems
SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, team analysis | 39

Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 40
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction
Key issues
Summary: Washington’s current status of data Projected capabilities once
systems to support instruction Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

compliant compliant Rationale
Sub-criteria
DS1 Washington has fully ▪ Washington fully meets 11 of the 12

components of America COMPETES Act
implemented a The state complies The state complies The state complies
statewide longitudinal with fewer than four of with at least six of 12 with all aspects of the
data system 12 elements of elements of America America COMPETES
America COMPETES COMPETES Act Act
Act
▪ OSPI currently provides data through its
DS2 The state has a high-
quality plan to ensure
website including school and district report
Data is not accessible The state has a plan The state has a plan cards, demographic data and statewide
that data is accessible assessment results
to key stakeholders to make data to make data
to and used to inform ▪ Publicly available data is not presented in a
and the state has no accessible to key accessible and has a
and engage key way that is conducive to driving insight and
plan to make data stakeholders but no plan to ensure data
stakeholders engaging stakeholders
available plan to ensure data are used to engage
are used to engage key stakeholders ▪ After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261,
key stakeholders additional education data will be available
▪ Stakeholders report significant difficulty
accessing data
▪ No systems exist to enable users to request
ad hoc reports from all available data fields;
K12 SLDS grant will move this objective to
completion
The state has a high-

DS3 quality plan to help

The state has no plan The state has a plan The state has a high-
▪ There is no plan to support districts in
acquiring instructional improvement systems
districts access and use to increase to provide some quality plan to ▪ There is no plan to support districts in
instructional acquisition, adoption instructional increase use of local providing professional development to enable
improvement systems and use of local improvement systems instructional district level personnel to use instructional
and provide data from instructional to districts, but does improvement systems, improvement systems
those systems to improvement systems not support provide professional ▪ Elements of statewide longitudinal data are
researchers and does not provide professional development currently available
researchers with development regarding use of those ▪ District level data is not consistent across
access to information regarding use of those systems and to share districts and is available only by request
from existing systems systems data with researchers
| 41
Element implemented
DS1 Statewide longitudinal data system’s compliance Partially implemented
with America COMPETES Act No plan to implement element
America COMPETES Act elements1 include Status1

1. A unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a student to be
individually identified by users of the system
2. Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation
information
3. Student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer
in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education programs
4. The capacity to communicate with higher education data systems
5. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability
6. Yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments
under section 1111(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b))
7. Information on students not tested by grade and subject
8. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students
9. Student level transcript information, including information on courses
completed and grades earned
10. Student-level college readiness test scores
11. Information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully
from secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether
students enroll in remedial coursework
12. Other information determined necessary to address alignment and
adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education
1 Status is based on OSPI analysis additionally Data Quality Campaign is considered where DQC criteria match America COMPETES Act criteria | 42
SOURCE: Data Quality Campaign, Data Systems Overview 2008, OSPI analysis
DS2 Key stakeholders access to and use of Projected capabilities once

State data Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
▪ OSPI currently provides data through its website
quality plan to ensure that
including school and district report cards,
demographic data and statewide assessment results
data is accessible to and Data is not accessible to The state has a plan to The state has a plan to ▪ Publicly available data is not presented in a way that
used to inform and key stakeholders and make data accessible to make data accessible is conducive to driving insight and engaging
engage key stakeholders the state has no plan to key stakeholders but no and has a plan to ensure stakeholders
make data available plan to ensure data are data are used to engage ▪ After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261,
used to engage key key stakeholders additional education data will be available
stakeholders ▪ No systems exist to enable users to request ad hoc
reports from all available data fields; K12 SLDS
grant will move this objective to completion
Super Sub-criteria
DS2A The state has a high-

quality plan to ensure that
▪ OSPI currently provides data through its website
including school and district report cards,
The state has no plan to The state has a plan in The state has a high-
data from the statewide ensure that data from place to ensure the quality plan in place to demographic data and statewide assessment results
longitudinal data system the statewide some elements of data ensure all relevant data ▪ Stakeholders report key data is not always
are accessible to key longitudinal data system from the statewide from statewide accessible
stakeholders will be made available to longitudinal data system longitudinal data system ▪ After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261,
key stakeholders are accessible to key are accessible to key additional education data will be available
stakeholders stakeholders ▪ De-identified individual record data files are made
available to outside researchers upon request
▪ No systems exist to enable users to request ad hoc
reports from all available data fields; K12 SLDS grant
will move this objective to completion
DS2B The state has a high-

quality plan to ensure that The state has no plan to

The state has a plan to The state has a high-
▪ Available data is used by principals and others to
inform and motivate staff, community and school
data from the statewide provide data in a way ensure that data will be quality plan to ensure district board
longitudinal data system that will be used to used to engage key that data will be used to ▪ Publicly available data is not presented in a way that
are used to inform and engage and inform stakeholders by engage key is conducive to driving insight and engaging
engage key stakeholders stakeholders ensuring that some stakeholders by stakeholders
useful analyses and ensuring that a ▪ Implementation of Education Data Improvement
reports are available to comprehensive set of System of HB 2261 will enable stakeholders to
key stakeholders useful analyses and engage on many key questions
reports are available to ▪ There is state of education report card to engage
all key stakeholders in a stakeholders
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis timely manner | 43
DS3 Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction Projected capabilities once

0% RTTT 100% RTTT


quality plan to help

The state has no plan to The state has a plan to The state has a high-
▪ There is no plan to support districts in acquiring
instructional improvement systems
districts access and use increase acquisition, provide some quality plan to increase ▪ There is no plan to support districts in providing
instructional improvement adoption and use of instructional use of local instructional professional development to enable district level
systems and provide data local instructional improvement systems to improvement systems, personnel to use instructional improvement
from those systems to improvement systems districts, but does not provide professional systems
researchers and does not provide support professional development regarding ▪ Elements of statewide longitudinal data are
researchers with access development regarding use of those systems currently available
to information from use of those systems and to share data with ▪ District level data is not consistent across districts
existing systems researchers and is available only by request
Super Sub-criteria
DS3A The state has a high-
quality plan to increase
▪ There is no plan to support districts in acquiring
instructional improvement systems
The state has no plan to The state has in place The state has a high-
acquisition, adoption and increase acquisition, some elements of a quality plan to increase ▪ Data systems to improve instruction vary across
use of local instructional adoption and use of plan to increase acquisition, adoption and school districts in WA, and some districts lack
improvement systems local instructional acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional systems to improve instruction (especially
improvement systems use of local instructional improvement systems formative assessment and lesson planning
improvement systems systems)
▪ In some cases collective bargaining agreements
prevent full usage of data systems due to concern
of increased workload for teachers
DS3B The state has a high-

quality plan to support
▪ There is no plan to support districts in proving
professional development to enable district level
Districts are entirely The state has some The state has a personnel to use instructional improvement
districts that are using
responsible for providing elements of plan to comprehensive plan to systems
instructional improvement
their own professional support districts in support districts in
systems in providing
development to support providing professional providing professional
effective professional
personnel in use of development to support development to support
development regarding
systems to support personnel in use of personnel in use of
the use of these systems
continuous instructional systems to support systems to support
improvement continuous instructional continuous instructional
improvement improvement
| 44
DS3 Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction Projected capabilities once

0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Super Sub-criteria compliant compliant Rationale
DS3C State longitudinal data and

instructional improvement

The state has no plan to The state has a plan to The state has a plan to
▪ Elements of statewide longitudinal data are
currently available
systems are available and ▪ District level data is not consistent across districts
accessible to researchers provide researchers with ensure data from ensure data from
and is available only by request
access to state or local statewide longitudinal statewide longitudinal
▪ After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261,
data data system are readily data system and district
additional education data will be available
accessible to level instructional
researchers but not data improvement systems
from district level are readily accessible to
instructional researchers
improvement systems

DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (1/5)

Fully complies
– Partially complies
Does not comply

Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act Status
1. A unique statewide student identifier (ID) that does not permit a student to be individually
identified by users of the system
– Each student in the state is assigned a unique statewide student number
– The state has procedures to prevent two different students from receiving the same ID
– The state has procedures to prevent the same student from getting a different ID when she/he
changes districts

– The student identifier system can be used to link student-level records across all of the state’s
student-level databases

2. Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information

– Washington collects monthly student-level enrollment data
– The enrollment data is stored permanently by the state so that it can be used in subsequent
years to determine continuous enrollment

– The enrollment database contains information on students’ gender, ethnicity, low-income
status, English language learner status, and the school in which students were enrolled

SOURCE: Data Quality Campaign, Data Systems Overview 2008, team analysis | 46

Fully complies
Does not comply

3. Student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop
out, or complete P–16 education programs
– The state collects student-level graduation data
– Student-level graduation data are collected by diploma type
– The state collects student-level dropout data
– The state has the ability to identify exiting students as graduates
– The state has the ability to identify exiting students as dropouts
– The state has the ability to identify exiting students as transfers
– The state has the ability to identify exiting students as GED recipients
4. The capacity to communicate with higher education data systems
– Student-level K-12 records can be matched with the records of the same students in all of the
state's public colleges and universities
– Able to match using either the social security number or unique student ID

Fully complies
Does not comply

5. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability
– A state data audit system exists to review the accuracy of data submitted
– Statistical checks are performed on data submitted by school districts
– There is a system for investigating the accuracy of data flagged by the statistical checks
– There are standards for the percent of departing students that school districts should be able
to locate
– On-site quality checks are conducted at a small number of schools each year
– Consequences are imposed on districts that do a poor job of collecting and submitting complete

and accurate information –
6. Yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b))
– The state collects and maintains student-level test data
– The test data is stored permanently by the state so that it can be used in subsequent years to
determine prior achievement and academic progress

7. Information on students not tested by grade and subject

– The state collects and maintains individual records on each untested student in a tested grade
– There are specific explanations why each untested student was not tested

Fully complies
Does not comply

8. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students
– Each teacher has a unique identifier
– The state has procedures to ensure that a teacher does not have two different IDs
– The state has procedures to ensure that two teachers do not have the same ID
– The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in
elementary school
middle school

high school

9. Student level transcript information, including information on courses completed and

grades earned
– The state collects and maintains student-level course completion data
– The course completion data includes middle school courses taken for high school credit
– The course completion data includes all summer school courses taken for high school credit
– The course completion data includes dual enrollment courses taken from colleges
and universities

Fully complies
Does not comply

10. Student-level college readiness test scores
– The state collects and permanently stores student-level AP exam results
– The state collects and permanently stores student-level SAT exam results
– The state collects and permanently stores student-level ACT exam results.
11. Information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary school
to postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework

12. Other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for
success in postsecondary education
–
DS2A OSPI currently provides selected data through its website
Example: District level report card
Key data categories include
▪ Graduation and dropout

statistics
▪ Personnel by position,
ethnicity and gender
▪ Enrollment by gender and
ethnicity
▪ State, district and school
level report cards
▪ Demographic and
achievement data
▪ School comparison
SOURCE: OSPI | 51
DS2A Washington recently passed legislation to create a

comprehensive K-12 education data system
Legislative Background
The 2009 Legislature established its intent to create a comprehensive K-12 education
data improvement system for financial, student, and educator data. The objectives of this
system are to:
▪ Monitor student progress
▪ Have information on the quality of the educator workforce
▪ Monitor and analyze the costs of programs
▪ Provide for financial integrity and accountability
▪ Have the capability to link across these various data components by student, by class,
by teacher, by school, by district, and statewide
In addition to establishing the Legislature’s overall vision for the data system, Part two of
ESHB 2261:
▪ Identified twelve specific components that the Legislature intends to have included in
the system (e.g., educator information, student information, common coding of courses,
linking educator information with student information)
▪ Created a K-12 Data Governance Committee to identify critical research and policy
questions, identify needed reports, conduct a gap analysis that analyzes the current
status of the data system compared to the Legislature’s intent, and define the operating
rules and governance structure for K-12 data collections
▪ Identified specific financial, student assessment, data accuracy, and class size reports
that OSPI is to post on the internet
SOURCE: OSPI | 52
DS2A After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261, additional

education data will be available1
▪ Systems must include student information including:
Student progress
– Student characteristics, course and program enrollment, performance on statewide and
district summative and formative assessments to the extent district assessments are used,
and performance on college readiness tests
– A subset of student information elements to serve as dropout early warning system
▪ Systems must include information about educators including:
Quality of the – Grade level and courses taught, students taught, building or location, program, job
educator workforce assignments, years of experience, the institution of higher education from which the
educator has obtained his or her degree, compensation, class size, mobility of class
population, languages spoken by students, general resources available for curriculum and
other classroom needs, and instructional support staff in the building
– The capacity to link educator assignment information with certification information
▪ Systems must include information about programs including:
Cost effectiveness – The costs of programs at the school and district level with a focus on the cost of services
of programs delivered to students
– The capacity to link program cost information with student performance information to
gauge the cost effectiveness of programs
▪ Systems must include cost data including:

Financial integrity – The magnitude of spending per student, by student, district and state estimated based on a
and accountability summation of an approximate, prorated fraction the following components:
▫ Each teacher that directly serves the student
▫ Classroom or building costs used by the student
▫ Transportation costs used by the student
▫ All other resources within the district
– The cost of K-12 special education services per student, by student receiving those services
1 Certain data elements will be removed to ensure that student data is unidentifiable
| 53
SOURCE: Certification of Enrollment for Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2261, team analysis
DS2B Publicly available data is often provided in tabular form, but best
practice indicates report formats to engage stakeholders
Colorado’s SchoolView.org interface shows stakeholders a graphical

representation of school performance
• Washington
currently
presents much
of its data in
tabular formats
• Adopting
graphical
formats could
help engage
users by
enabling them to
draw insights
without
conducting their
own analysis
SOURCE: OSPI and SchoolView.Org | 54

DS2B Implementation of Education Data Improvement System of HB 2261

will enable stakeholders to engage on many key questions
Answerable after HB
Key questions 2261 implementation
How are our ▪ What proportion of the students who enter elementary school maintain continuous Yes
students enrollment and complete 8th grade in a timely manner?
performing? ▪ Do our teachers know how their students’ academic growth compares, by subject and Yes
grade, to other students with similar backgrounds? How about principals?
▪ To what degree does participation in early childhood programs increase kindergarten Yes1
How effective are readiness?
existing programs ? ▪ Are students who earn college credit in high school more likely to go on to college? Yes1
Are they more likely to graduate from college on-time?
▪ Which teacher preparation programs produce the graduates whose students have the Yes
strongest academic growth?
▪ What programs reduce dropout rates among at risk students? In some cases
▪ How cost effective are existing programs? Yes
Which schools and ▪ Which teachers are most effective? No
teachers are most ▪ Which elementary and middle schools in the state consistently perform best in Yes
effective at preparing different student populations for high school ?
preparing students? ▪ Which high schools are doing the best job of graduating students on-time, based on Yes
those students’ economic level?
▪ What achievement levels indicate that a student is well prepared to succeed in Yes
What are leading
challenging courses in high school?
indicators for
▪ What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous courses or Yes1
success in
performance on state tests) are the best predictors of students’ success in college or
students?
the workplace?
▪ What are leading indicators of dropout risk for students? Yes
How do our ▪ What percentage of high school graduates go on to college and take remedial courses? Yes1
students perform in ▪ How much do our high school and college graduates earn in the workforce over time?
higher education What about the dropouts? Yes1
and the workforce? ▪ Which industries employ the majority of our state’s high school and college graduates? Yes1
1 Will be available via Washington Education Research and Data Center (ERDC)
SOURCE: Certification of Enrollment for Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2261, team analysis
| 55
DS3A Data systems to improve instruction vary across school districts in

WA, and some districts lack systems to improve instruction
Percent of K-12 students whose school uses data

systems provided by vendor
Percent ▪ Functionality varies by district, but many district
data systems track and report:
Includes School Master, Power – Attendance
School and 40 districts which – Enrollment
have no data system – Participation in special programs
– Report cards
– Grade books (varies by district and grade level)
Other – Schedules
20 – Disciplinary issues
– Student health
▪ Many schools lack certain systems to improve
instruction
– Tools to tie lessons to subject grade level
standards
– Tools to track student and class level
60 performance on formative assessments
eSIS1 20 WSIPC1
– Tools to track and facilitate professional
development for teachers
In some cases systems may exist,

but there is insufficient professional
development for teachers to
effectively use them
1 Washington School Information Processing Cooperative (WSIPC) and electronic Student Information Systems (eSIS) are providers of educational data systems
SOURCE: District interviews | 56
DS3A Information systems should enable teachers and administrators to

solve problems and answer questions to improve instruction
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Teacher tools Curriculum ▪ How do my lesson plans compare with standards in this subject?
selection ▪ What materials can I access to make sure I teach all relevant standards?
Student ▪ How are individual students performing?

achievement ▪ How is the class performing relative to expectations?
tracking ▪ How much have students improved during the year?
▪ How are students doing within the term?
▪ What is student’s long term achievement history in terms of grades and test scores?
▪ How much progress is the student making toward graduation?
Formative ▪ What assessments can I use to test students learning that are aligned with the
assessments standards and curriculum I am teaching?
▪ How does student learning compare to state standards in the subject?
▪ Where are students having the greatest challenges learning the material?
▪ How should I adjust my teaching given the results of formative assessments?
Professional ▪ What professional development modules are necessary to enable me to have

development necessary content knowledge?
▪ What professional development modules are necessary to enable me to access
useful systems (formative assessments, information technology trainings, etc.)?
▪ How can I access professional development materials online ?
Administrator tools Program evaluation ▪ Which programs result in the biggest impact on student achievement?
▪ Which programs are most associated with reducing dropout rates?
▪ Which programs are effective at reducing achievement gaps?

DS3A Best practice: Data systems have reports for parents and
teachers to identify student progress
• Data systems can be used to provide reports that enable parents and teachers to track student progress
and identify and address issues early
• Reports include:
▪ Benchmark assessments: Identifies at-risk students and their specific instructional needs
▪ Real-time reports: Monitors progress at the student, school, and district level (bars indicate students that
moved out of or into risk or stayed the same)
▪ Individual progress reports: Shows parents where students are excelling/ struggling
▪ Individual progress charts: Indicates whether the student needs additional instruction to reach learning goal
Example: Individual progress chart
Gap shows current student

progress versus progress
required to be on track to
achieve goal
SOURCE: Wireless Generation Solutions | 58

DS3A Best practice: Washington District system enables parents to

track intra-term grades and teacher comments online in real time
xxxxxx
Parents can track

student progress and
engage with teachers
when an issue arises
Teachers can
communicate with
parents to set
expectations for the
class
SOURCE: Northshore School District grades website | 59

DS3A Best practice: Louisiana monitors student level data to evaluate

progress and improve instructional practice
Class List Report for Period 2 Teachers work with coaches to analyze results,
identify student needs and utilize data to re-teach
Exam: Mathematics 3 effectively
Student Performance
GROUP AVERAGE
For each student, a teacher can view incorrect

responses by topic area
SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District | 60

DS3A Best practice: Louisiana uses grade and subject-specific reports to

target opportunities for teachers’ professional training
Each month, students are tested and results are

displayed in six performance bands
Student results are displayed in six

performance bands
• Reports identify individual topics that

were particularly difficult for students
• Groups of teachers share best
• practices
Reports identify individual
and plan topics that were
for re-teaching
particularly difficult for students
• Groups of teachers share best practices and
plan for re-teaching
SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District | 61

DS3A Best practice: Report on monthly assessments that are

directly tied to selected content standards
Sample school report
Exam : Grade 3 Science standards
Time : Oct 2008
# ofSample
students assessment
: 500 report
Summary
▪ Short (30 minutes) multiple choice test
% of students at basic or above:
administered each month to all
8%
Average score: 12.3 students within the district
Performance by band ▪ Test questions cover selected grade-
Band Range # of students % of students specific content standards in each
Advanced 26.10 - 29.0 25 5 subject
Mastery 23.20 - 26.09 25 5
Basic 18.85 - 23.19 50 10
▪ Test results are reported back to
Approaching basic 14.50 - 18.84 110 22 schools and evaluated in order to plan
Dissatisfactory 11.60 - 14.49 150 30 intervention at the student level
Poor 00.00 - 11.59 200 40 (if necessary)
Performance by content standard (# of students) ▪ Results can be cut at various
Standard Low Middle High granularity levels to fit target audience
SI–ASI: S 100 150 250 (e.g., by school, by classroom, by
SI–ASI: 7 50 200 250 student)
PS–POM: 19 10 290 200
Assessment results
PS–POM: 22 100 150 250 are reported by ▪ Tests are designed to support teaching
PS–PMO: 24 100 150 250
PS–PMO: 26 50 100 350
individual standard and learning, there is no link to the
PS–FOE: 3 100 150 250
ESS–PEM: 48 60 90 350
accountability systems. However,
transparency of results naturally
Content standards
Tested content creates some peer pressure among
LAGLE–Science–Grade 3–SI–ASI
– standards
ASI: 5 Use a variety of methods and materials and multiple trials to investigate ideas are teachers and principals
(observe, measure, accurately record data)
Section 1: Multiple choice: 1, 2, 3, 4 listed in detail
– ASI: 7 Measure and record length, temperature, mass, volume, and area in both metric
system and U.S. system units
Section 1: Multiple choice: 5, 6, 7
SOURCE: Firm experts, team analysis | 62

Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 63
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders
Key issues
Summary: Washington’s current teachers and leaders current initiatives implemented
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Rationale
Sub-criteria
compliant
compliant
▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
No alternate routes Alternate routes Alternate routes none for principals
TL1 Providing alternative ▪ District perceptions of alternate route teachers and
available contribute less than contribute national
pathways for aspiring CBAs1 may be obstacles to placement
national average share average or greater share
teachers and principals
of teachers and leaders of teachers and leaders
▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely
accepted methods for mapping student outcomes
to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist
TL2 Improving teacher and Effectiveness data not Available data used Effectiveness data used ▪ Data analysis focused on compliance rather than
principal effectiveness available or not used to to drive one or more to differentiate performance assessment
based on performance differentiate key decisions performance and drive ▪ Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent
performance all key decisions is unknown
▪ State has implemented $5,000 bonus for NBCTs2

who teach in high-need schools
TL3 Ensuring equitable No plans for increasing Local plans or Successful state-wide ▪ Data on shortage areas is self-reported by districts
distribution of effective supply or effectiveness unimplemented and/or initiatives exist but not through objective, standardized criteria
teachers and principals of teachers or leaders in unsuccessful state plans ▪ State sets preparatory program standards but has
high-need schools and exist no mechanisms to forecast demand or control
shortage subjects supply
▪ No link between student achievement and teacher
preparation programs
▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
TL4 Improving the Student achievement Student achievement Student achievement this year, linked to teachers but not to principals
effectiveness of teacher data not available, not linked to teachers or linked to preparation ▪ PACT 2.0 and ProTeach Portfolio will increase
and principal preparation linked to programs, or leaders but not to programs and published links between student performance and teaching
programs links not published preparation programs programs, but not for principals
Providing effective support

▪ Student data is available but not linked to teacher
or principal supports
▪ Teacher and leader supports tracked and
TL5 Principal and teacher Supports are focused on Supports are job-
to teachers and principals supports do not exist or improving student embedded, data- decisions made at local district level
are not focused on achievement but are not informed, and ▪ No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating
improving student job-embedded, data- continuously improved to teacher or leader supports
achievement informed, or improve student ▪ State supports for principals exist but currently
continuously improved achievement underfunded or not funded
1 CBA = Collective bargaining agreement
2 NBCT = National board certified teachers | 64
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education
TL1 Availability of alternate routes to teacher certification Projected capabilities once

0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria ▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
No alternate routes Alternate routes Alternate routes
TL1 Providing alternative none for principals
available contribute less than contribute national
pathways for aspiring ▪ District perceptions of alternate route teachers and
national average share average or greater share
teachers and principals CBAs may be obstacles to placement
of teachers and leaders of teachers and leaders
Super Sub-criteria ▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
TL1A Extent to which the state

none for principals
▪ Alternate routes for principals explored in 2007 but
State does not permit State allows providers State allows providers no interest from Association of WA School
has legal, statutory, or
providers independent of independent of independent of Principals (AWSP)
regulatory provisions that
institutions of higher institutions of higher institutions of higher ▪ Collective bargaining agreements allow tenured
allow alternative routes to
education or include education and include at education and include at teachers without shortage area endorsements to
certification for teachers
fewer than two of five least two of five least four of five fill openings ahead of alternate route candidates
and principals, particularly
elements of alternate elements of definition of elements of definition of with shortage area endorsements
routes that allow for
routes alternate routes alternate routes ▪ WA alternate routes rely on existing in-state and
providers in addition to
institutions of higher out-of-state public and private institutions of higher
education learning
TL1B Extent to which the state ▪ WA alternate routes supply less than 5% of
endorsements, compared to 20% of all new
has alternative routes to Alternate routes do not Alternate routes Alternate routes teachers nationally
certification that are in use exist or contribute less contribute 10-20% share contribute greater than ▪ State working to get districts to view alternate
than 10% share of of teachers 20% share of teachers routes as viable professional and workforce
teachers and principals and principals and principals development tools and adjust hiring policies
accordingly
TL1C Extent to which the state

has a process for

No statewide process for Some but not all Statewide processes
▪ Supply and demand are difficult to forecast as data
on shortage areas is self-reported by districts and
monitoring, evaluating, not through objective, standardized criteria
monitoring, evaluating, processes exist at exist for monitoring,
and identifying areas of
identifying, or filling statewide level for either evaluating, identifying,
teacher and principal
areas of teacher and teacher or principal and filling areas of
shortage and filling these
principal shortage shortages teacher and principal
needs
shortage
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NY Times, October, 2009 | 65

TL2 Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based Projected capabilities once
on performance Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria ▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely
Effectiveness data not Available data used Effectiveness data used accepted methods for mapping student outcomes
TL2 Improving teacher and
available or not used to to drive one or more to differentiate to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist
principal effectiveness
differentiate key decisions performance and drive ▪ Data analysis focused on compliance rather than
based on performance
performance all key decisions performance assessment
▪ Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent
is unknown
▪ Student-level data (e.g., WASL) exists in CEDARS
Super Sub-criteria
TL2A Extent to which state, in

for some grade levels and subjects
▪ CEDARS rollout underway, eventually covering all
Student growth data Student growth data Student growth data
collaboration with students
not available available for some available for all students
participating districts, has a students in some in all measurable
▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in
high-quality plan and 2010
measurable subjects subjects
ambitious yet achievable ▪ Some districts (e.g., Vancouver) have data
annual targets to ensure available and analyzed beyond the state level
participating districts
establish clear approaches
to measuring student growth
for each individual student
▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in
TL2B Extent to which state, in
collaboration with
participating districts, has a No process for
2010
▪ No framework or mechanism exists to link student
Process for Process exists for both performance data to teacher effectiveness
high-quality plan and differentiating teacher differentiating teachers and principals,
ambitious yet achievable
▪ Data analysis is focused on compliance rather
and leader effectiveness effectiveness exists, but applies multiple rating than teacher or leader performance assessment
annual targets to ensure does not use multiple categories including
participating districts design
▪ No consensus on how to measure teacher
rating categories, does student growth, and was effectiveness based on test scores or whether or
and implement rigorous, not include student designed with both not WASL is sensitive to instruction
transparent, and fair growth and/or was not teacher and principal ▪ Effectiveness differentiation determined by districts
evaluation systems for designed with teacher or involvement and local CBAs may regulate processes
teachers and principals that principal involvement ▪ State statutes determine how principals and
differentiate effectiveness
superintendents are evaluated and currently do
using multiple rating
not include student achievement
categories including student
growth and are designed and
developed with teacher and
principal involvement
TL2 Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based Projected capabilities once
on performance Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Rationale
Sub-criteria
compliant
compliant
▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely

Effectiveness data not Available data used Effectiveness data used accepted methods for mapping student outcomes
TL2 Improving teacher and
available or not used to to drive one or more to differentiate to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist
principal effectiveness
differentiate key decisions performance and drive ▪ Data analysis focused on compliance rather than
based on performance
performance all key decisions performance assessment
▪ Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent
is unknown
Super Sub-criteria
▪ Annual review processes determined at district
TL2C Extent to which state, in
collaboration with level and vary by district and CBA
▪ Student data in CEDARS not linked to teachers
participating districts, has a Annual reviews not Annual reviews Annual reviews until 2010
high-quality plan and conducted, or do not conducted and include conducted and include
ambitious yet achievable include feedback of either feedback or both feedback and
annual targets to ensure student data student data student data
participating districts
conduct annual evaluations
of teachers and principals
that include timely and
constructive feedback with
data on student growth
TL2D Extent to which state, in

collaboration with
▪ Decisions such as continuing contracts,
compensation, promotion, and dismissal are
participating districts, has a Annual evaluations not Annual evaluations used Annual evaluations used determined at the district level
high-quality plan and used for key teacher and in some but not all throughout the state to ▪ Currently no widely accepted methods for mapping
ambitious yet achievable leader decisions districts to make some inform all key teacher student-level results to teacher effectiveness
annual targets to ensure that but not all key teacher and leader decisions ▪ No statutory prohibitions to using effectiveness
participating districts use and leader decisions data to drive key personnel decisions
annual evaluations, at a ▪ Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent
minimum, to inform decisions is unknown
regarding developing,
compensating, promoting,
retaining, granting tenure,
and removing teachers and
principals

TL3 Ensuring equitable distribution of effective Projected capabilities once

teachers and principals Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
No plans for increasing Local plans or Successful state-wide
▪ State has implemented $5,000 bonus for NBCTs who
TL3 Ensuring equitable teach in high-need schools
supply or effectiveness unimplemented and/or initiatives exist
distribution of effective ▪ Data on shortage areas is self-reported by districts but
of teachers or leaders in unsuccessful state plans
teachers and principals not through objective, standardized criteria
high-need schools and exist
shortage subjects
▪ State sets preparatory program standards but has no
mechanisms to forecast demand or control supply
Super Sub-criteria ▪ State has already implemented $5,000 bonus

NBCTs who teach in high-need schools
collaboration with
▪ Local associations have generally been in favor of
initiatives that offer additional incentives
No plans for increasing Local plans or Successful state-wide
participating districts, has number and percentage unimplemented state initiatives exist for ▪ No statutory or policy prohibitions against
a high-quality plan and of effective teachers and plans exists for increasing number and instituting incentives for teachers and leaders to
ambitious yet achievable leaders in high-poverty increasing number and percentage of effective teach in high-need schools or districts
annual targets to ensure schools percentage of effective teachers and leaders in ▪ Individual districts have provided incentives (e.g.,
the equitable distribution teachers and leaders in high-poverty schools Seattle Public Schools’ flight schools)
of highly effective teachers high-poverty schools ▪ Currently no reliable measures of teacher or
and principals in high- leader effectiveness
poverty and/or high- ▪ No incentives currently exist to attract principals to
minority schools high-need schools
▪ Supply and demand are difficult to forecast as data

TL3B Extent to which state, in
collaboration with on shortage areas is self-reported by districts and not
through objective, standardized criteria
participating districts, has No plans for increasing Local plans or Successful state-wide
number and percentage unimplemented state initiatives exist for ▪ Alternate routes account for only 1% of non-shortage
a high-quality plan and
of effective teachers in plans exists for increasing number and area endorsements, but nearly 7% of shortage area
shortage areas increasing number and percentage of effective endorsements
annual targets to increase
percentage of effective teachers in shortage ▪ State has full regulatory control over teacher and
the number and
teachers in shortage areas leader certification providers in revised code of WA
percentage of effective
areas – State preparatory programs cannot add new
teachers in hard-to-staff
programs without state approval
subjects and specialty
– State funds enrollment slots at public institutions
areas
– State has not enforced any enrollment limits at
preparatory programs instead allowing institutions
to manage enrollment independently
▪ No regulatory or legislative prohibitions on creating
such initiatives

TL4 Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal Projected capabilities once
preparation programs Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
▪ No link between student achievement and teacher
TL4 Improving the Student achievement Student achievement Student achievement
preparation programs
effectiveness of teacher data not available, not linked to teachers or linked to preparation
linked to programs, or leaders but not to programs and published
▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
and principal preparation
this year, linked to teachers but not to principals
programs links not published preparation programs
▪ PACT 2.0 and ProTeach Portfolio will increase
links between student performance and teaching
programs, but not for principals
Super Sub-criteria ▪ Student-level data (e.g., WASL) exists in CEDARS
TL4A Ability to link a student’s ▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in

2010
achievement data to the Student achievement Student achievement Student achievement ▪ No plans or frameworks for linking student
student’s teachers and data available but not data linked to either data linked to teachers achievement data to principals
principals linked to teachers or teachers or principals and principals
principals
TL4B Extent to which state, in ▪ Student data linked to teachers in CEDARS

collaboration with
participating districts, has
starting 2010
▪ No link between OSPI student data and PESB
a high-quality plan and No link between student Student achievement Student achievement teacher preparation data
ambitious yet achievable data and preparation data linked to either data linked to both ▪ Currently no reliable measures of effectiveness
annual targets to link programs teacher or principal teacher and principal ▪ State is adopting PACT 2.0 (Performance
preparation programs preparation programs Assessment for California Teachers) to evaluate
student achievement and
teacher effectiveness by 2011-2012
student growth data to
programs where teachers ▪ “Proteach Portfolio” initiative will correlate student
performance to teacher assessments during
and principals were
prepared for credentialing certification process
▪ No plans or frameworks for linking student
achievement data to principal preparation
programs
▪ Ongoing PESB redesign of teacher and principal
preparation program accreditation will incorporate
educator effectiveness measures

TL4 Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal Projected capabilities once
preparation programs Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
Student achievement Student achievement Student achievement ▪ No link between student achievement and teacher
TL4 Improving the
data not available, not linked to teachers or linked to preparation preparation programs
effectiveness of teacher
linked to programs, or leaders but not to programs and published ▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
and principal preparation
links not published preparation programs this year, linked to teachers but not to principals
programs
▪ PACT 2.0 and ProTeach Portfolio will increase
links between student performance and teaching
programs, but not for principals
Super Sub-criteria
TL4C Extent to which state, in

▪ Currently available performance data is published
Data not available or not Publication of data on Publication of data on all online, including approval status and site visit
collaboration with
published some but not all applicable credentialing profiles
applicable credentialing programs ▪ Once findings for credentialing programs are
programs available, publication would occur via existing
website
annual targets to publicly
report findings for each
credentialing program
TL4D Extent to which state, in ▪ State has full authority to expand programs, but
collaboration with
institutions of higher learning control number and
type of certification programs and faculty
a high-quality plan and No plans or authority to Plans and authority to Plans and authority to ▪ State currently has no method for determining
expand preparation and expand either teacher or expand credentialing which teacher and principal credentialing
annual targets to expand credentialing options principal credentialing options that are programs are successful and should be expanded
options successful at producing ▪ Ongoing PESB redesign of teacher and principal
preparation and
effective teachers and preparation program accreditation will shift
credentialing options and
programs that are principals enrollment money to institutions with best track
records of quality, production, and placement
successful at producing
effective teachers and
principals

TL5 Providing effective support to teachers Projected capabilities once

and principals Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
Principal and teacher Supports are focused on Supports are job- ▪ Student data is available but not linked to teacher
TL5 Providing effective support or principal supports
supports do not exist or improving student embedded, data-
to teachers and principals ▪ Teacher and leader supports tracked and
are not focused on achievement but are not informed, and
improving student job-embedded, data- continuously improved to decisions made at local district level
achievement informed, or improve student ▪ No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating
continuously improved achievement teacher or leader supports
▪ Teacher and Leader supports are administered

Super Sub-criteria

and guided at the local district level
▪ Some districts (Highline) can track student data
and teacher and leader supports, but capability
No effective supports Some, but not all Data is used to inform
collaboration with provided specified supports are application of all varies widely by district
participating districts, has a provided and data is not specified supports ▪ CEDARS collects student performance data for
high-quality plan for its used to inform compliance purposes and only tracks student
participating districts to application of supports performance on annual measures (WASL) that
provide effective, data- have 4-6 month lag
informed professional ▪ School and district-level grades are available
development, coaching, rapidly but currently not standardized
induction, and common ▪ Washington State Leadership Academy provides
planning time to teachers principals with coaching, mentoring, and training
and principals that are,
where appropriate, ongoing
and job-embedded
Extent to which state, in ▪ Currently the state does not link student
TL5B
collaboration with
performance data and professional development
and supports for teachers or principals
Link between student Links between student Links between student ▪ Teachers, schools, and districts are responsible
a high-quality plan for its
performance data and performance data and performance data and for reporting and collecting professional
participating districts to
evaluation of supports evaluation of supports evaluation of supports development data but it is not aggregated or
measure, evaluate, and
does not exist and/or not exist in some but not all exist throughout the tracked
continuously improve the
used in any districts districts state ▪ SKYWARD management system tracks student
effectiveness of those
supports in order to performance and is used by some smaller districts
improve student ▪ No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating
achievement teacher or leader supports

TL1A Washington has four alternate routes to teacher certification
Route Description Details
1 ▪ For currently employed classified instructional employees with ▪ Targets para-educators

transferable associate degree seeking residency teacher certification ▪ Allows candidates to continue working
with endorsements in special education, bilingual education, or ▪ Takes longer to complete as candidates without
English as a second language BAs complete remaining formal coursework
2 ▪ For currently employed classified staff with baccalaureate degree ▪ Targets para-educators with BAs
seeking residency teacher certification in subject matter shortage ▪ Allows candidates to continue working
areas and areas with shortages due to geographic location ▪ Successful in shortage areas like special ed
3 ▪ For individuals with baccalaureate degrees not employed by the ▪ Unpaid route requires candidates to be in
district (career changers), with priority given to those who are situations where income is not essential
“seeking residency teacher certification in a subject matter or ▪ Tends to draw early retirees and recent college
geographic shortage area” graduates with financial support
▪ “Cohorts of candidates for this route shall attend an intensive
summer teaching academy, followed by a full year employed by a
district in a mentored (unpaid) internship, followed, if necessary, by a
second summer teaching academy”
4 ▪ For baccalaureate degree holding career changers who have ▪ Targets BA-holders switching into teaching
received conditional certification to teach ▪ Provides teaching salary and benefits while
▪ Participants earn full salaries and benefits while teaching under candidates transition into teaching
conditional certification
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, New Teacher Project, September, 2009 | 72

TL1B WA share of teachers from alternative routes trails national average

and relies on public and private institutions of higher learning
Sources of Non-shortage area endorsements Sources of Shortage area endorsements
Percent Percent
8,023 1,835
1,688
7,060
6,403
5,937 1,376
48%
1,308 1,312
57% 47% 1,260
▪ Alternative routes
in WA have grown
60% significantly, but
41% still trail national
Out of state 57% 37% 45% average of 20%1
64% 3,823 57%
3,676 ▪ Alternative routes
contribute greater
share to shortage
32% areas than non-
38% 27%
31% shortage areas
29%
34%
27% 31%
In-state public 26% 26%
41% 24%
22% 38%
19%
27% 18% 20% 18%
15% 14%
In-state private 17% 14% 26%
14% 23%
Alternative route 4% 6% 5% 8% 7%
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1 National average share of new teachers from alternative routes; WA does not count Masters in Teaching programs as Alternative routes while other states do | 73
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education; NY Times, October, 2009
TL2A U.S. case example illustrates how student growth data can be used
as a measure of effectiveness and improve instructional practice
Teachers work with coaches

to analyze results, identify For each student, a
student needs and utilize teacher can view
Class List Report for Period 2
data to re-teach effectively incorrect responses by
Exam: Mathematics 3
topic area
Student Performance
GROUP AVERAGE
SOURCE: U.S. School District | 74

TL2A Additional grade and subject-specific analysis identifies trends

and targets opportunities for teachers’ professional training
Each month, students are tested and results
are displayed in six performance bands
• Reports identify individual

topics that were particularly
difficult for students
• Groups of teachers share
best practices and plan for
re-teaching
SOURCE: U.S. School District | 75

TL2B Evaluating teachers and leaders across several dimensions

provides thorough and objective measures of effectiveness
ILLUSTRATIVE
Student achievement data
Peer assessments
Reviewers should
School scorecards be trained in
Teacher review interpreting data
process and conducting
reviews
Parent surveys
Student surveys
Observations

TL2C U.S. case study shows how student performance data can
be used to inform decisions about teacher performance
1 Student performance is monitored ▪ Clarity on which teachers are

in critical subject areas on the performing and which are not:
annual Tennessee Value-Added allows schools to designate “mentor
Assessment System test teachers” and learn from best
2 Changes in student performance practices
relative to the previous year are ▪ Rewards for high performers to
aggregated across the state, teach in highest-need schools:
which serves as an index teachers who show the highest
TVAAS gains are guaranteed an extra
3 Individual students are given an
$5,000 per year in salary for the next
“expected” gain relative to the
three years if they teach in one of the
index based on past years
nine low-performing elementary
4 Students’ “actual” versus schools
“expected” gains are compared, ▪ Consequences: schools that show
and teachers receive a score the lowest gains are “reconstituted” by
(e.g., 100 if “actual” = “expected”) the district, with teachers dismissed
on the basis of their performance
SOURCE: “The Real Value of Teachers,” Education Trust, 2004 | 77

TL2D Other states have funding and policies supporting

performance-based compensation for teachers and leaders
Many states support performance pay Case example

$ millions Texas Educator Excellence Fund
▪ $260M dollars allotted to see if bonuses can improve

Arizona 407 student achievement and teacher retention
Texas 260 ▪ $100M to fund bonuses ($3K-10K) to teachers at lower-
income schools with “exemplary” or “recognized”
Florida 148 performance ratings
– 75%+ of each grant must go to teachers
North Carolina 103 – 25% can go to principals and other school employees
or activities that support teacher improvement
Minnesota 86
▪ $160M to fund local incentive plans devised by school
Ohio 11
districts
– 60%+ to teachers who improve student
South Carolina 8
achievement
– 40% can go to principals, teacher mentors, hard-to-
Alaska 6
staff positions, and other staff
Source: NCTQ, “State Policy Yearbook” (2007); Robin Chait, “Current State Policies that Reform Teacher Pay” (CAP, 2007); Holly Hacker and
Terrence Stutz, “Incentive Pay Enters Classroom” (Dallas Morning News, 2006) | 78
TL2D U.S. case study illustrates how pay-for-performance can

encourage teachers and leaders to set high aspirations
U.S. City Pay-for-Performance (PFP) Pilot1 Impact to date

Main elements Description ▪ Objectives: Over the four year pilot
period, 89-93% of participating teachers
Teacher objectives Principals work with individual teachers to
received bonuses2 for at least one
set with principals set and agree on two annual objectives
objective, and 78% of objectives have
been met
Objectives set using one of three ▪ Student achievement:
Variation/flexibility in
methods: – Teachers who fulfilled both
teacher objectives
▪ Student achievement defined by objectives had higher student gains
nationally normed tests – Higher quality teacher objectives
▪ Student achievement defined by were linked to higher student gains
teacher-developed, criterion- ▪ School-wide improvements:
referenced tests – Greater feelings of teacher
▪ Knowledge or skills attainment cooperation
– Improved quality of interactions
Joint sponsorship ▪ Pilot supported and implemented by between principals and teachers
with union City Public Schools and the city’s ▪ Union and community support:
Teachers Association – Since 1999, > $6.5 million in grants
▪ Four person Design Team included
from foundations
union and district appointees
– In March 2004, the union approved
▪ Third parties (e.g., foundations, district-wide implementation3
Third-party – $25 million levy approved by voters
corporate leaders, technical
involvement in 2005 to fund program expansion
assistance/research providers) provide
accountability for Design Team
1 Started in 1999
2 $500 one-time participation bonus, $500/objective in year 1 and $750/objective in year 2+
3 Pilot was initially implemented in only 16 schools (~13% of city schools)
SOURCE:Sanitized U.S. case example, January 2004 | 79
TL3A U.S. case example reveals how placement processes can lead
to inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers
▪ Research on teacher placement in a U.S. state highlights that teachers with more qualifications are
concentrated in schools serving fewest low-income and high-need students
▪ Since teachers with equal qualifications and experience are paid the same, the study assessed the
difference in overall teacher pay between high-need (high poverty, high minority) and low-need schools
Gap between average teacher salaries in top Gap between average teacher salaries in top
and bottom poverty quintiles1 and bottom minority enrollment quintiles2
$ average pay gap across schools by quintiles $ average pay gap across schools by quintiles
Q1 5,024 Q1 5,531
Q2 3,170 Q2 3,414
Q3 1,773 Q3 2,362
Q4 822 Q4 1,299
Q5 -1,589 Q5 -737
1 Q1 = lowest poverty, Q5 = highest poverty

2 Q1 = lowest minority enrollment, Q5 = highest minority enrollment
SOURCE: Education Trust West, 2005 | 80

TL3A Several states are experimenting with incentives for

hard-to-staff positions
Washington
offers NBCTs Seattle New York City teachers
who teach in who accept a position in a
high-need high-need school can
schools a receive $3,000 if the school
$5,000 also shows evidence of
New York achievement gains
incentive
The federal government has
Denver Washington established two programs:
Los D.C. ▪ Teacher Incentive Fund
Angeles to fund districts imple-
menting innovative com-
pensation alternatives to
encourage highly
Los Angeles qualified teachers to take
gives a $1,020 positions in hard-to-staff
bonus per schools
semester for Denver provides a Charlotte gives $2000 to new ▪ TEACH program to
teachers in its 3 % bonus to hires or re-hires who accept provide students with
Urban Classroom teachers for hard-to- assignments in one of the grants of up to $4,000
Teacher Program staff assignments district’s high-need schools per year if they intend to
teach in a high-need field
While ~25 states are utilizing incentives to fill hard-to-staff positions, at a school that serves
little to no research exists on the efficacy of these programs with regard students from low-
to successful placement, attraction of high-quality candidates, or income families
retention of quality candidates in the position
1 Hard-to-staff positions can include those that are unattractive to many candidates (e.g., poor urban schools with safety issues)
or those that are traditionally high needs (e.g., science, technology, special needs)
SOURCE: Center for American Progress “Addressing the teacher qualification gap” | 81
TL3B Washington relies on district-reported data to identify shortage

subject areas and demand for teachers
District reported availability of teachers Examples of subjects
Percent of teaching subjects in each category
▪ Mathematics
Considerable shortage 12% ▪ Physics
▪ Special education
Potential
Potential issues
issues with
with self-reported
self-reported
shortage area data
shortage area data
▪▪ Needs
Needs are
are self-reported
self-reported by
by districts
districts
and
and not
not based
based onon standardized,
standardized,
objective
objective criteria
criteria
▪ Biology
Some shortage 56% ▪ Music ▪▪ Surveys
Surveys capture
capture subjective
subjective data
data on
on
▪ Foreign languages current needs but do not forecast
current needs but do not forecast
future
future needs
needs
▪▪ Subjects
Subjects that
that are
are shortage
shortage areas
areas inin
some
some districts
districts might
might not
not be
be in
in others
others
▪ English
▪ Social studies
Balance 26% ▪ Health/fitness
Some surplus
Considerable surplus
▪ History
6%
0% ▪ Elementary education
SOURCE: “Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State,” WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006, team analysis | 82
TL3B Washington offers incentives to increase pool of teachers in

shortage areas
Program1 Incentive Description
Alternative Route ▪ $500 ▪ Provides districts with funding for mentor teacher stipends to
Partnership Grant work with teacher interns training through an alternative route
Program program affiliated with both the district and a partner university
Alternative Route ▪ $8,000 ▪ Provides participants in alternative route programs seeking their
Conditional first teaching certificate up to $8,000 to tuition, fees, and
Scholarship Program educational expenses, in the form of a loan that is forgivable
after two years of teaching in Washington
Educator Retooling ▪ $3,000 to ▪ Teachers adding shortage area subject endorsement to existing
Program $6,000 certificates are eligible for up to $3,000 per year, up to two
years, for tuition, fees, and educational expenses
1 Only districts partnering with programs in alternate routes are eligible for Grant Program funding and only participants in
alternate routes are eligible for Conditional Scholarship Programs
SOURCE: New Teacher Project, September, 2009 | 83
TL3B U.K. case example illustrates how changing the value proposition
of teaching can significantly increase quality and size of talent pool
Elements of increased value Impact on teaching

proposition Impact on size and composition of talent pool profession
▪ Career path: ▪ Teaching careers moved

– Fast-track promotions for high Teachers recruited, by teacher type and school year
from the 92nd position of
performers Thousands of teachers
“most desirable next job”
– Options to leave teaching and for 25-35 year olds to first
obtain attractive alternative Career switchers 40 41 place over four years
employment after a fixed period
New to workforce 36 6
6 ▪ Teacher applications
▪ Development and supports: increased by 35% over
– Additional training focused on 33 5 three years
building life skills also useful 29 30 4
outside of teaching
28
0 26 27 2 ▪ Midcareer applicants
0
0 1 tripled over a four-year
▪ Compensation: period and now represent
– Special pay scale for high- 14% of all applicants
caliber recruits
– Signing bonuses for hard-to- 34 34
recruit subjects 31
29 28 28 29
26 26
▪ Purpose and impact:
– Increased status for teachers
focused on social contribution
– Intensive media campaigns
with high-profile public figures
aimed at creating public
recognition of the contribution
of teachers to society 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05
SOURCE: Training and Development Agency (U.K.) | 84

TL3B Case study indicates that value proposition change

can be effective in the U.S.
The Aspire Principal Program, of the New York City Leadership Academy works
to prepare educators to effectively lead high-need schools
Talent pool Improve preparatory programs

Coherent standards-based curriculum Ongoing support
▪ Engages exceptional,
motivated leaders via ▪ The Aspire Principal Program is a 14- ▪ The First Year Support
clear selection criteria month program defined by a curriculum program complements the
(e.g., commitment to rooted in research on effective Aspiring Principals program by
closing achievement gap, leadership and based on the standards providing extensive one-on-
instructional knowledge) outlined in NYC’s leadership model one support from highly
▪ Uses a rigorous ▪ Program includes: trained coaches with
selection process (e.g., – Summer intensive institute – six principal experience,
includes a written weeks leadership workshops, peer
application, – Residency with an experienced collaboration, targeted
recommendations, group principal – ten months technical assistance, and a
and individual interviews, – Planning summer to transition to one-week summer seminar
role plays, and leadership position
submission of writing ▪ Evaluation takes place at each step of
samples) the process and participants must meet
strict performance standards to advance
The NYC Department of
Education provides full
benefits to participants
in exchange for a five
▪ APP principals represent 13% of NYC public school year commitment as an
principals and serve more than 100,000 students NYC principal
▪ Students in APP schools show higher gains in reading,
math, and science than students in other schools

TL3B Another U.S. case study focuses on improving pipeline by

implementing new preparation and licensure strategies
Background: Weak state To improve the quality of its pipeline, the state developed a more rigorous
preparation and licensure preparation and licensure program
Ensure rigorous certification

▪ Large, diverse school
Improve preparatory programs requirements
system creates
communication and ▪ Partnered with the Atlanta-based ▪ State licensing exam compulsory
accountability challenges Southern Regional Education Board to earn the master’s degree
▪ There is a disconnect (experienced in helping states revamp ▪ New “aspiring” license
between the universities programs for school leader preparation) introduced: allows district
preparing school district ▪ Emphasized partnerships between superintendents to identify
leaders and the actual universities and school districts to focus promising talent and place them
school system on developing the selection criteria for into leadership roles as they go
▪ People who want to become candidates through a formal
school leaders can earn ▪ Small pilots were launched (e.g., two preparation program
principal certification and public university test sites) ▪ A new position established for
receive salary increases “exemplary” administrators –
without taking the state
▪ Program selection: candidates for
principal training will no longer be able to leaders identified as mentors to
licensure exam new and aspiring leaders
“self-select” into programs
SOURCE: Factiva, State education web sites, Education Week, team analysis | 86
TL4B Louisiana case study reveals how student achievement

data can be used to assess teacher preparation programs
Teacher Preparation
Programs with positive results
Teacher Preparation Program Coefficient by subject
Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies
New Teacher Project TPP 3 2 1 -0
Univ. of Louisiana - Monroe 1 0 2 3
Northwestern State Univ. 1 1 3 1
Louisiana College Practitioner -3 2 0 3
Univ. of Louisiana - Lafayette -3 -2 -1 -1
Louisiana Resource Center

-3 -6 -1 -3
for Educators Practitioners
Teachers from the top three preparation programs above contributed to student
achievement more than, or at least on par with experienced teachers
SOURCE: Noell, George H, Porter, Bethany, Patt, Maria and Dahir, Amanda. “Value Added Assessment of Teacher
Preparation in Louisiana: 04-05 to 06-07.” Louisiana State University | 87
TL5A Technology exists for monitoring real-time student data to tailor

teaching methodologies
Sample outputs
Bench-mark Real-time
assess- reports monitor
ment progress at the
identifies at- student, school,
risk students and district level
and their (bars indicate
specific students that
instruc-tional moved out of or
needs into risk or
stayed the
same)
Individual
progress
reports can
show parents
where students
are excelling/
struggling
Individual progress charts: this report indicates

that the student needs additional instruction to reach
learning goal
SOURCE: Wireless Generation Solutions | 88

TL5B Washington does not offer teacher supports provided by many

other states
Offered in WA
Not offered in WA
Support Details Available in WA Percentage of states offering support
Professional ▪ Formalized standards ▪ Yes 82%

development standards
Professional ▪ Aligned with local priorities ▪ No 60%

development alignment
Mentoring program ▪ For all new teachers ▪ No 50%

▪ Funded by state
Professional ▪ Financed by state for all ▪ Yes 48%
development funding districts
Induction program ▪ For all new teachers ▪ No 44%

▪ Funded by state
Mentoring program ▪ For selecting, training, ▪ No 40%
standards and/or matching mentors
Time for professional ▪ Districts/schools required to ▪ No 32%

development set aside time for
professional development
Reduced workload ▪ For all first-year teachers ▪ No 4%
SOURCE: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2008 | 89

Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 90
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools
Key issues
Summary: Turning around the lowest-achieving schools current initiatives implemented
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with

No authority to Authority to intervene Full authority to current legislation requiring district cooperation
LS1 Intervening in the lowest-
intervene under certain intervene directly in both ▪ Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are
achieving schools and
circumstance in either schools and districts negotiated at district-level and can be obstacles to
districts
schools or districts elements of some turnaround strategies
▪ Proposed Required Action legislation would allow
Washington to mandate turnaround of persistently
low performing schools
▪ Summit District Initiative and WIIN satisfy several

RTTT requirements, with WIIN launch pending
updated student data
LS2 ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with
Turning around the No plans for turnarounds Plans for identifying Plans for identifying
current legislation requiring district cooperation
lowest-achieving schools in place lowest-achieving schools lowest-achieving schools
▪ Proposed Required Action legislation will increase
exist, but strategies are exist, strategies are
state authority to mandate turnarounds, select
not RTTT-approved or RTTT-approved, and
strategies, and set three year deadline for
take longer than three can be executed in
progress
years to execute under three years
▪ “Other” turnaround most commonly used in
Washington does not align with any of the four
turnaround strategies included in RTTT

LS1 Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools Projected capabilities once

and districts Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with

No authority to Authority to intervene Full authority to current legislation requiring district cooperation
LS1 Intervening in the lowest- ▪ Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are
intervene under certain intervene
achieving schools and negotiated at district-level and can be obstacles to
circumstance and/or
districts elements of some turnaround strategies
with limited scope
▪ Proposed Required Action legislation would allow
Washington to mandate turnaround of persistently
low performing schools
▪ History and tradition of deferring to local authority

Super Sub-criteria in turnaround situations
LS1A Extent to which the state

▪ CBAs vary from district to district and may prohibit
aspects of some turnaround strategies
No authority to Authority to intervene Full authority to ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with
has legal, statutory, or intervene in either under certain intervene in both schools current legislation requiring district cooperation
regulatory authority to schools or districts circumstance in either and districts ▪ Proposed Required Action legislation includes
intervene directly in the schools or districts but SBE authority to:
state’s persistently lowest- not both – Place schools and districts in Required Action
performing schools and status based on specified criteria
districts that are in – Have audit findings addressed through CBA
improvement and
corrective action status

LS2 Turning around the lowest-achieving schools Projected capabilities once

0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Rationale
Sub-criteria
compliant
compliant
▪ Summit District Initiative and WIIN satisfy several
RTTT requirements, with WIIN launch pending
No plans for turnarounds Plans for identifying Plans for identifying
LS2 Turning around the updated student data
in place lowest-achieving schools lowest-achieving schools
lowest-achieving schools ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with current
exist, but strategies are exist, strategies are
not RTTT-approved or RTTT-approved, and legislation requiring district cooperation
take longer than three can be executed in ▪ Proposed Required Action legislation will increase
years to execute under three years state authority to mandate turnarounds, select
strategies, and set three year deadline for progress
▪ “Other” turnaround most commonly used in
Washington does not align with any of the four
turnaround strategies included in RTTT
Super Sub-criteria
LS2A Extent to which state has a
▪ Summit District Initiative and WIIN identify lowest-
achieving schools based on comprehensive,
objective criteria including student performance
high-quality plan and No framework for Framework exists with Framework exists with
identifying persistently subjective, but no objective, quantitative ▪ WIIN focuses on Tier III schools districts in
ambitious yet achievable improvement status
annual targets to identify lowest-performing objective criteria criteria
schools ▪ WIIN implementation delayed pending student
the persistently lowest- performance data update from OSPI
achieving schools and, at ▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with
its discretion, any non-Title I current legislation requiring district cooperation
eligible secondary schools
that would be considered
persistently lowest-
achieving schools if they
were eligible for Title I funds
LS2B Extent to which state has ▪ “Other” strategy most commonly used in WA does
not satisfy RTTT criteria for “Transformation”
approach
annual targets to support No support for any State supports at least State supports all ▪ Current voluntary approach allows local districts to
districts in turning around specified strategies one but not all specified specified federal select turnaround strategies
schools by implementing federal strategies strategies ▪ Proposed Required Action legislation allows
one of the four school districts to select a turnaround strategy from
intervention models: proposed federal, state, and local approaches
▪ Turnaround
▪ Restart
▪ Closure
▪ Transformation
LS1A Proposed legislation for required action will increase Washington’s

ability to mandate turnarounds in lowest-performing districts
Currently, the state’s authority to mandate turnarounds …but proposed legislation will increase the state’s authority to
at low-achieving schools is limited… turn around low-achieving schools
Selection ▪ Districts with schools in “improvement Selection ▪ State identifies worst-performing

approach status” are invited to participate in approach districts and mandates turnaround
turnaround process ▪ Worst-performing districts are
▪ Interested districts make presentation identified by the following criteria:
to apply for assistance – Contain Title I and non Title I
▪ Turnaround process is entirely schools with extremely low overall
voluntary although Title I funds could achievement
be withheld or state can ask – Schools have not demonstrated
legislature for authority to intervene if growth in meeting or exceeding
low-performing districts fail to state average performance gains in
volunteer reading and math for all students in
five years
Obstacles to ▪ State cannot compel districts to Obstacles to ▪ State history of honoring local control
successful participate in turnarounds successful at district level
turnarounds ▪ OSPI has no legal authority to force turnarounds
districts to enter turnaround process
▪ No framework for holding districts or
schools accountable for improvement
▪ Reluctance to apply rigorous
requirements to schools that have
volunteered for turnarounds
SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education, Work Team | 94

LS1A Proposed legislation will give the state the option of identifying
“Required Action” districts for mandatory turnaround
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Step 2: Step 3: Step 4:

Step 1: Examples
Examples of
of required
required action
action
Consider Identify lowest Move Required Action
Perform initial screen elements
elements
additional criteria performers and Districts that decline
invite to Voluntary Voluntary Action into
Action Required Action status
▪▪ Academic
Academic performance
performance audit
audit
including,
including, butbut not
not limited
limited to:to:
–– District
District and school leadership
and school leadership
▪ Based on ▪ Duration of low ▪ Identify persistently low ▪ Required Action –– Use
Use ofof student
student performance
performance data data
federal school achievement and achieving districts Districts: to
to inform decision making
inform decision making
improvement greatest number of ▪ Notify these districts of – Contains Title I and –– Effectiveness
Effectiveness of of management
management
guidelines: students/schools affected: their status as non Title I schools processes
processes in making personnel
in making personnel
– Absolute – Years of performance Voluntary Action or with extremely low decisions
decisions (e.g.,
(e.g., conferral
conferral of of
achievement data on state Required Action overall achievement tenure,
tenure, promotion,
promotion, dismissal)
dismissal)
and assessment Districts – Have not ▪▪ Required
Required Action
Action plan
plan
improvement – Feeder school patterns ▪ Invite districts to demonstrated –– Developed
Developed by by local
local school
school board
board
in reading – Number of district participate as Voluntary growth in five years –– Based on audit findings
Based on audit findings
and math students and schools Action Districts –– Action
Action plan
plan strategy
strategy selected
selected
with low achievement ▪ Voluntary Action from
from federal, state,
federal, state, oror local
local
▪ Details of low Districts: models
models
achievement: – Contains Title I and ▪▪ Implementation
Implementation plan plan
– Extended high school Title I eligible –– How
How to to remedy
remedy audit
audit findings
findings
graduation rate schools with –– Budget
Budget
– Sub-group extremely low –– Metrics
Metrics
performance on state overall achievement ▪▪ SBE
SBE approval
approval andand follow
follow up up
assessments – Schools have not –– Local
Local school board provides
school board provides
– ELL performance on demonstrated regular
regular updates
updates to to SBE,
SBE, OSPI,
OSPI,
WA Language growth in meeting or and community
and community
Performance Test exceeding state –– Requires
Requires significant
significant progress
progress
– District financial and average within
within three years
three years
human resource performance gains
capacity in reading and math
– Number of credits for all students in
earned by 9th graders three years
| 95
SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education
LS2A Approaches to identifying bottom 5% schools vary
Approach Description Examples Potential issues
Absolute ▪ Absolute performance on state ▪ Proposed federal guidelines for ▪ Availability of standardized,
performance and assessments in reading and school improvement comparable test data across all
progress math schools in the state over time
▪ Progress on assessments over
time relative to state average
gains
Aggregate student ▪ Rank all schools on a measure ▪ Pennsylvania uses PSSA ▪ Availability of standardized,
performance of student performance - such scores in math and reading comparable test data across all
as an average of math and ▪ California ranks all its schools schools in the state
reading performance on the using an Academic
state test – and identify lowest Performance Index (API)
performing schools
Select student ▪ Rank schools based on ▪ NCLB requirements for schools ▪ AYP does not necessarily
performance achievement gap between to make AYP identify bottom 5% schools
(achievement gap) student groups on state math
and reading tests
Cross-state ▪ Compare low-performing ▪ AYP ▪ NAEP does not report school-

performance schools across states using level results
national, standardized criteria
like NAEP
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EdSource, 2003, No Child Left Behind Act, team analysis | 96
LS2B Proposed “Required Action” legislation would require turnarounds

to show significant progress within three years
Support
Support Monitoring
Monitoring Consequences
Consequences
▪▪ State
State provides
provides resources
resources ▪▪ Local
Local school
school board
board and
and ▪▪ IfIf sufficient
sufficient progress
progress is is
to
to help
help district
district execute
execute districts
districts are
are required
required toto not
not made
made in in three
three
Required
Required Action
Action provide regular reports
provide regular reports years, SBE
years, SBE requires
requires
Implementation
Implementation PlanPlan to
to SBE,
SBE, OSPI,
OSPI, andand local
local local
local school
school board
board to to
community
community on on progress
progress create
create andand implement
implement aa
▪▪ OSPI
OSPI creates
creates aa list
list of
of in quarterly Required
in quarterly Required new
new Required Action
Required Action
education
education management
management Action
Action District
District reports
reports Plan
Plan and/or
and/or shift
shift to
to aa
organizations
organizations and
and –– Strategies and
Strategies and different turnaround
different turnaround
technical
technical assistance
assistance assets
assets to
to solve
solve model
model
providers
providers that
that could
could help
help problems
problems
Required Action Districts
Required Action Districts –– Evidence
Evidence of of ▪▪ SBE
SBE cancan require
require release
release
implementation
implementation of
of aa Required
Required Action
Action
–– Evidence
Evidence of of impact
impact District
District ifif OSPI
OSPI
–– Progress
Progress monitoring
monitoring determines
determines sufficient
sufficient
data
data progress
progress is is being
being made
made
against the district’s
against the district’s
Required
Required ActionAction Plan
Plan
metrics
metrics
SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education | 97

LS2B Proposed turnaround legislation allows “Required Action” plans to

be based on one of several models
Turnaround models recognized by RTTT
Category Model Description
Federal ▪ Turnaround ▪ Replace principal and at least 50% of staff

▪ Restart ▪ Close school and reopen under one of the following, selected through a rigorous review process
– Charter school operator
– Charter management organization (CMO)
– Education management organization (EMO)
▪ School Closure ▪ Close school and transfer all students to higher performing schools
▪ Destination schools may include charter schools
▪ Transformation ▪ Requires multiple elements, including:
– Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness
– Comprehensive instructional reform strategies
– Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools
– Providing operational flexibility and sustained support
State ▪ SBE Innovation ▪ Not finalized, but will include the same elements as the federal transformation model
Zone ▪ Audit process tailors transformation approach for each district based on the needs assessment
▪ Districts must demonstrate that they meet specified criteria to participate in the Innovation Zone
program
Local ▪ Multiple ▪ Models will vary but do not require state or federal funding

LS2B RTTT specifies required activities for each turnaround model
Additional detail to follow
Model Required activities
Turnaround ▪ Replace principal and grant sufficient operating flexibility to implement a fully comprehensive approach
▪ Use locally adopted competencies to measure effectiveness of staff who can work within turnaround environment
▪ Screen all existing staff, rehire no more than 50%, and select new staff
▪ Implement strategies such as financial incentives and increased opportunities for promotion designed to recruit,
place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school
▪ Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development
▪ Adopt a new governance structure
▪ Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based, vertically aligned, and aligned
with state academic standards
▪ Promote continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction
▪ Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time
▪ Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports
Restart ▪ Convert or close and reopen school under charter school operator, charter management organization (CMO), or
education management organization (EMO)
▪ Select new operator through rigorous review process
▪ Enroll, within grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school
School closure ▪ Close school and enroll students in other schools in the district that are higher achieving
▪ Enroll students in other schools within reasonable proximity to closed school and may include, but not limited to,
charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available
Transformation ▪ Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness

▪ Comprehensive instructional reform strategies
▪ Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools
▪ Providing operational flexibility and sustained support

LS2B RTTT “Transformation” model is much more comprehensive than

the “Other” model most commonly used in WA turnarounds
Element of
Transformation Required activities Permissible activities
Developing and ▪ Replace principal who led school prior to commencement of transformation model ▪ Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff
increasing teacher ▪ Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluations for teachers and principals that: ▪ Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional practices
and school leader – Take into account data on student growth, take into account other factors such as resulting from professional development
effectiveness multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of ▪ Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher without
professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of the
graduation rates teacher’s seniority
– Designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement
▪ Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who have increased
student achievement
▪ Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development
▪ Implement strategies such as financial incentives and increased opportunities for
promotion designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet
the needs of the students in the turnaround school
Comprehensive ▪ Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based, ▪ Conducting periodic reviews to ensure curriculum is being
instructional reform vertically aligned, and aligned with state academic standards implemented with fidelity
strategies ▪ Promote continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction ▪ Implementing school-wide “response-to-intervention” model
▪ Providing additional supports and professional development
▪ Using and integrating technology-based supports and interventions
▪ In secondary schools:
– Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for advanced coursework
– Improving student transition from middle to high school
– Increasing graduation rates through various prescribed strategies
– Establishing early-warning systems to identify students at risk of
failing to achieve high standards or graduate
Increasing learning ▪ Establish schedules and implement strategies that increase learning time ▪ Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and
time and creating ▪ Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement community-based organizations, and others to meet student needs
community- ▪ Extending or restructuring the school day
oriented schools ▪ Implementing approaches to improve school climate and discipline
▪ Expanding school program to offer full-day K or pre-K
Providing ▪ Give the school sufficient operating flexibility to implement a fully comprehensive ▪ Allowing school to be run under a new governance agreement
operational approach to substantially improve student achievement ▪ Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula that is
flexibility and ▪ Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related weighted based on student needs
sustained support support

LS2B Districts select turnaround strategies, leading to frequent use of

“other” approaches that do not meet RTTT criteria
Turnaround strategies used by Washington schools1

Schools Comments
▪ One school replaced all or most of school staff, including principal,

1 Turnaround meeting primary requirements for Turnaround approach
▪ Two schools replaced all or most of school staff but not principal
▪ Three schools undertook major restructuring of school governance
0 Restart ▪ Method requires charter, CMO, or EMO replacement schools

that do not exist in WA
0 Closure ▪ Requires other higher performing schools in the same area, which
are not always available
0 Transformation ▪ WA approaches are most similar to Transformation but do not meet

all of the criteria identified by RTTT
21 "Other" ▪ Approaches identified as “other” strategies by WA SBE are most

commonly applied
1 District responses for schools in Step 3, 4, or 5 of improvement as of November 2008

LS2B U.K. case study indicates that comprehensive turnaround

approaches like those in RTTT can produce rapid improvement
Context Turnaround approach Results
▪ The Office for Standards in ▪ School recruited a new head teacher (principal) with ▪ Fourteen months later
Education, Children's Governance and experience leading improvement in schools and an (May 2004), the school
Services and Skills (Ofsted) leadership experienced governor who had worked with the had made sufficient
used a comprehensive head teacher to turn around another school progress to come out of
approach to tackling the Special Measures
weakness at lowest- ▪ Head teacher was resourceful in recruiting good staff status1
Teaching and and tapping into available programs
achieving schools ▪ School has further
learning ▪ She strengthened teaching and management
▪ Ofsted paid a monitoring visit
structures to prioritize time available to teach
improved its Contextual
to the Heartlands High Value Added (CVA)2
School in March 2003, and ▪ Alternative curriculum was developed indicator between 2004
discovered that the school – ▪ Curriculum helped motivate pupils who had not and 2007
Curriculum
already in Serious engaged well with academic subjects
Weaknesses status – had not
made reasonable progress
▪ Positive vision for the school was shared by teachers
▪ Ofsted applied a series of Behavior and pupils
proven intervention ▪ Vision helped pupils understand the school’s
measures to turn around the expectations, particularly in relation to behavior
school and regularly
monitored progress ▪ Support staff took on more of the administrative tasks
Information and ▪ School introduced a monitoring system to measure
administration progress in all areas
Ofsted experience shows that school recovery requires the following measures:
• Improvement to leadership and management
• Enhancement of teaching and learning (e.g., extensive class observations,
providing teachers with more assessments and coaching)
• Support from other schools and the local community
1 Schools are placed into “Special Measures” by Ofsted if they are judged “inadequate” in one or more areas and the inspectors decided that it does not have the
capacity to improve without additional help
2 CVA measures school effectiveness, taking into consideration prior attainment
SOURCE: “Improving Poorly Performing Schools In England,” National Audit Office, January 2006 | 102
LS2B U.S. case example illustrates successful execution of

restart strategy
Context Turnaround approach Results
▪ Large U.S. public school ▪ All new schools are held accountable for meeting ▪ As of October 2008,
district (~600 schools) Accountability state learning standards and are subject to closure by 75 new schools have
▪ Long history of failed reform the district if they fail been established under
attempts and ▪ Five year performance agreement contract turnaround program
underperformance ▪ New office established to provide oversight and ▪ All ten turnaround high
support schools reported higher
▪ In 2004, launched its most
radical reform to turn around ▪ Offers entrepreneurial freedom to operators to scores on standardized
its struggling schools Autonomy innovate (e.g., develop curriculum) achievement exam in
2007 than comparison
▪ Goal of shutting down 70 neighborhood schools
underperforming schools and
Operating
▪ Transformed schools are shut down and reopened all
opening 100 schools in their grades at once in elementary, and grade by grade in ▪ Majority of program
context change charter high schools
place by 2010 high school
reported higher
▪ Schools can choose among three governance
graduation rates than
structures that provide different levels of freedom from
their peers
the traditional public school system:
– Charter: free to set own policies for curriculum,
school hours and discipline, etc.
– Contract: operated by independent non-profits,
free from school system policies
– Performance: district-run schools, are given some
flexibility above traditional schools
School closure and reopening is a drastic measure that offers the

opportunity to make a clear break from the past, radically transform
culture and institute an entrepreneurial mindset
SOURCE: Sanitized U.S. case example | 103

Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 104
Race to the Top Diagnostic: General
Washington has grown its K-12 education budget
at a bi-annual rate of 8.8% since 2001
XX% CAGR Other Education

Historical and forecasted expenditures in education, 2001-2011
Higher Education
USD billions
Public Schools
28.1 27.2
24.5 0.5 0.5 5.2 %
22.0 0.4 Key takeaways
20.4
0.4 11.7 10.2
0.4 5.7%
10.3 ▪ The Washington state budget
9.2
8.2 for education has been
growing by 7.5% every
15.9 16.5 8.8% 2-year period between 2001
11.8 12.4 13.8 and 2011
7.5% ▪ Growth has been driven

2001-03 2003-05 2005-07 2007-09 2009-11 primarily by spending on
public K-12 schools, which
PK-12 expenditures as a percent of state general fund
has increased at a compound
Percent
bi-annual growth rate of 8.8%
▪ Spending on education has

23.8% 23.2% 22.7% 23.3% 23.8% remained approximately
23% of the state’s general
fund between 2001 and 2011
2001-03 2003-05 2005-07 2007-09 2009-11
Total State
49.53 53.46 60.52 68.13 69.39
budget
USD billions
SOURCE: Washington State Fiscal information – Budget, excluding 2010 budget proposal | 105
WA budget suffered net decreases in teacher salary, support, and

programs regarding general achievement and gap reduction
Washington State K-12 Public Schools Budget
$ millions
Largest reduction in budget came
from ~$40 MM of “funding
supporting additional learning
Large reductions in Student
16,680 improvement days for professional
Achievement Program
development on new math and
(100%) (~$600 MM) and Learning
science curriculum standards and
Improvement Day (~$35 MM)
357 best practices”
cushioned by federal grants in
School Improvement, Special
(2%) Ed, and Title 1
248
12 11 12
(2%) 74
(0.5%)
341
Funding for data systems increases
in difficult times 15,649
(2%)
2009-11 Teachers General Standards Stem Data Other1 Accounting 2009-11

Maintenance achievement Specific (financial adjustments Biennium
Level improvement systems,
or gap safety,
reduction health, etc.)
RTTT priorities
1 Other includes school improvement ARRA funds, 2 Pension Rate Adjustments

SOURCE: Washington State Budget Notes | 106
Summary: Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing Key issues
charter schools and other innovative schools current initiatives implemented
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Criteria ▪ One of ten states with no charter schools

CS1 Ensuring successful No support of charter Charter schools allowed Charter schools allowed ▪ No statutory support for charter schools and
conditions for high- schools or charter but legislation and and legislation and proposed legislation failed three times in 1996,
performing charter schools schools prohibited supports receive grade supports receive grade 2000, and 2004
and other innovative of C or below in Center of B or higher in Center ▪ School of the Arts and other “schools of choice”
schools for Education Reform for Education Reform exhibit some characteristics of charter schools
rankings rankings ▪ Resource and funding constraints limit scalability
of charter-like school initiatives

CS1 Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing Projected capabilities once

charter schools and other innovative schools Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools
▪ No statutory support for charter schools and
No support of charter Charter schools allowed Charter schools allowed
CS1 Ensuring successful proposed legislation failed three times in 1996,
schools or charter but receive grade of C or and receive grade of B
conditions for high- 2000, and 2004
schools prohibited below in Center for or higher in Center for
performing charter schools ▪ School of the Arts and other “schools of choice”
Education Reform Education Reform
and other innovative exhibit some characteristics of charter schools
rankings rankings
schools ▪ Resource and funding constraints limit scalability
Sub-criteria ▪ One of ten states with no charter schools
CS1A Extent to which state has a

▪ No statutory support for charter schools but no
prohibition of charter schools or enrollment caps
State law prohibits State law supports State law supports
charter school law that does charter schools and/or charter schools but limits charter schools and
▪ Several “school of choice” initiatives (e.g., School
not prohibit or effectively of the Arts) could be considered charter
caps enrollment number and/or does not limit number or
inhibit increasing the equivalents
enrollment enrollment
number of high-performing ▪ No cap on schools of choice, but few exist with
charter schools resource and funding constraints limiting scalability
CS1B Extent to which state has ▪ Student performance data exists in CEDARS but
statutes and guidelines
regarding how charter
not linked to school performance
▪ State has no role in running schools of choice -
No statutes or guidelines Statutes or guidelines Statutes or guidelines
school authorizers decisions are made at district level and may or
regarding how charter exist for some charter exist for all charter
approve, monitor, hold may not reflect student performance data
schools are authorized school decisions but school decisions and
accountable, reauthorize, and/or no link to student student academic student achievement is a
and close charter schools, academic achievement achievement is not a factor in decision-making
including the extent to factor in decisions
which student academic
achievement is a factor in
such decisions
CS1C Extent to which
authorizers in the state
have closed or not
▪ State does not operate schools of choice
▪ State has no authority to close schools of choice
Authorizers do not have Authorizers have Authorizers have based on effectiveness assessments
renewed ineffective
authority to close or not authority to close or not authority to close or not
charter schools
renew ineffective charter renew ineffective charter renew ineffective charter
schools schools but do not schools and exercise
exercise that authority that authority when
applicable
CS2 Increasing the supply of high-quality Projected capabilities once

charter schools Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools
No support of charter Charter schools allowed Charter schools allowed ▪ No statutory support for charter schools and
CS1 Ensuring successful
schools or charter but receive grade of C or and receive grade of B proposed legislation failed three times in 1996,
conditions for high-
schools prohibited below in Center for or higher in Center for 2000, and 2004
performing charter schools
Education Reform Education Reform ▪ School of the Arts and other “schools of choice”
and other innovative
rankings rankings exhibit some characteristics of charter schools
schools
▪ Resource and funding constraints limit scalability
Sub-criteria ▪ Schools of choice receive full public school funding
CS1D Extent to which state’s No charter school

Funding at 61% Funding at or above
plus additional funds, resources, support, and
facilities
charter schools receive ▪ Funding is equitable as current distribution of state
funding available (national charter school traditional public school
equitable funding compared funds (flat across state)
average) of traditional funding and other
to traditional public schools, ▪ Education reform bill (House Bill 2261) to develop
public school funding revenue sources
and a commensurate share new, equitable funding model for public schools by
and other revenue
of local, state, and federal 2011 has passed
sources
program and revenue
sources
CS1E Extent to which state ▪ Schools of choice receive full public school funding
provides charter schools
with facilities funding,
plus additional facilities and supports
▪ No legislative support or prohibition on charter
Charter schools receive Charters receive some Charters receive full
assistance, access, and schools and facilities
no facilities support but not full facilities facilities support and
other supports; and the and/or stricter facility- support and facility- facility-related
extent to which the state related requirements related requirements are requirements are
does not impose facility- than traditional public equivalent to traditional equivalent to or less
related requirements schools public schools strict than those applied
stricter than those applied to traditional public
to traditional public schools
schools
CS1F Extent to which state ▪ Schools of choice (e.g., Tacoma School of the
enables districts to
operate innovative,
Arts, Aviation HS, Delta HS) are innovative and
autonomous, but do not possess all characteristics
No alternatives other Alternatives other than Innovative, autonomous
autonomous public typical of charter schools
than traditional or charter schools exist, but public schools other than
schools other than charter charter schools not autonomous charters exist throughout
schools the state
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Reform, team analysis | 109
CS1A Washington is one of only ten states

without charter schools
Charter school legislation
No charter school legislation Charter school law ranking and scorecard
States1 by letter grade
WA
MT VT ME
ND
OR
ID
MN
NH A 3
SD WI NY
WY MI
RI MA
NE IA PA B 11
NV OH CT
UT IL IN
NJ
CO WV
CA KS VA DE
MO
KY MD C 10
TN NC DC
AZ OK
NM AR SC
D 13
AL GA
MS
TX
LA 4
F
FL
AK
No Grade 10
PR
HI
While the 41 states2 with charter schools have policies and laws
with mixed effectiveness in promoting charters schools, they
would all earn charter school points in their RTTT proposals
1 Includes all 50 states and DC

2 Includes DC
SOURCE: Center for Education Reform, “Race to the Top for Charter Schools,” 2009 | 110
CS1A Washington’s schools of choice share many traits

with charter schools ILLUSTRATIVE
Not aligned with charter schools
Non-traditional
Charter school Washington schools of schools2
characteristics National trends choice1 (e.g., Contract-Based)
Accountability ▪ Must meet federal and state regulations for performance ▪ Local district decisions ▪ Local district decisions
▪ Students take state-mandated tests
▪ Must also meet requirements defined in charter with authorizer
Charter ▪ Typically state and/or local district board authorize ▪ Teacher or district ▪ District initiated and
development ▪ Many states ban management by for-profits initiated sponsored
▪ Federal government, few states provide start-up help ▪ Foundation support
▪ Enjoys funding from Gates foundation and other private funders for planning and/or
development
Autonomy ▪ Most states allow some level of legal and operating autonomy, and freedom ▪ Freedom to develop ▪ District driven, but
from many specific curricular requirements (e.g., curriculum, but not standards) curricula, including with exceptions
▪ The “strongest” laws provide automatic waivers from state regulations; in most integrated themes according to school
cases negotiations are required ▪ Operational autonomy themes
Funding ▪ Charter schools have fiscal autonomy but in some states, state retains control ▪ Standard traditional ▪ Standard per-pupil
over funding sources funding
▪ Fewer than half of charter states provide capital support, and therefore receive ▪ Foundation support
less overall funding (~60%-70% of per-pupil funding on average) ▪ Nominal fees
Labor ▪ In most states teacher certification required for all or a portion of teachers, and ▪ In some cases local ▪ CBA with local
can be negotiated in some association waives association applies
▪ Freedom from some elements of collective bargaining can be negotiated in most CBA
states and districts ▪ Some exempt from
involuntary transfers
Enrollment ▪ Charters are public schools, they must be non-sectarian, avoid racial or other ▪ Students outside of ▪ Some service more
discrimination district eligible than one district
▪ Some may serve specific populations, but generally are open admission within ▪ If oversubscribed, ▪ If oversubscribed,
the district or sometimes state students admitted by students admitted by
lottery lottery
1 Including, but not limited to International School, Harrison Prep, Aviation, Renaissance, City School, Environmental Adventure School
2 Including, but not limited to Contract-Based School, Challenger, Havermale, Spokane Valley
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Reform, Education Commission of the States, BERC Group, team analysis | 111
CS1B Even if WA approves charter schools, state would face challenges

in satisfying RTTT requirements for data-driven decision making
WA data systems do not support data-driven decision-making

for authorizing, re-authorizing, and closing charter schools
Step
Step 1:
1: Step
Step 2:
2: Step
Step 3:
3:
Collect
Collect student
student performance
performance Analyze
Analyze student
student performance
performance Authorize,
Authorize, re-authorize,
re-authorize, and
and
data
data data
data to inform Step 33
to inform Step close charter schools
close charter schools
Status ▪ CEDARS rollout currently ▪ Analysis of student performance ▪ Authorization and closure
underway to make school decisions decisions would remain at district
currently performed at district level unless charter school
level, if at all legislation gives state power to
make these decisions
▪ Current state approach to ▪ No state department or staff is

analyzing student performance currently charged with making
data is focused on compliance decisions at school, district, or
rather than performance state levels based on student
assessment at a teacher, school, performance data
or district level

CS2D U.S. case example reveals that access to funding is the primary
issue facing charter school operators
Top challenges cited by charter Percent of new charters

operators citing challenge
Lack of start up funds 54 Significant challenges

remain despite strong
Inadequate operating funds 40 planning and support,
including:
Lack of planning time 37 ▪ Public support from
Mayor and
Inadequate facilities 35
Superintendent
State or local board opposition 20
▪ National recruiting
strategy
District resistance or regulations 19 ▪ Focus on proven
models
Internal processes or conflicts 13
▪ Provision of facilities
School administration and management 12 financing
Health and safety regulations 12 ▪ Creation of school

leader training program
State dept. of education resistance 11
SOURCE: Sanitized case example, 2000, 2007 | 113

CS2D Funding of charter schools across the U.S. suggest that even
if WA approves charter schools, funding will be a challenge
Charter funding as a percentage of conventional public school funding
Percent
Missouri 99
Minnesota 94
Tennessee 94
Idaho 92
North Carolina 86
New Mexico 85
Rhode Island 85
Iowa 77
Arizona 76
New York 73
Texas 72
Utah 72
Wisconsin 72
Connecticut 71
Colorado 70
Nevada 70
California 69 ▪ Charter school funding
Florida 69 relative to conventional
Massachusetts 68 public schools is low
Georgia 67 (national average = 61%)
Louisiana 66
Michigan 65
Arkansas 64 ▪ States without charter
Delaware 64 schools will still receive less
Illinois 63 RTTT recognition for
D.C. 61
NATIONAL AVERAGE 61 charter schools than states
Mississippi 60 with below-average charter
Pennsylvania 60 school funding
Virginia 60
Indiana 58
New Jersey 57
Oklahoma 57
Kansas 56
Hawaii 54
Ohio 53
Wyoming 51
Alaska 49
South Carolina 49
Oregon 48
Maryland 45
New Hampshire 37
SOURCE: Center for Education Reform | 114
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 115
Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM
Key issues
Summary: Washington’s current STEM capabilities current initiatives implemented
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
Washington has a Students do not achieve

Students achieve in the Students achieve in line
▪ Standards in mathematics and science have been
newly adopted during the past two years, but have
ST1
rigorous course of study within the top 25% of top 25% of states in with the top 10% of states not yet been fully implemented
in mathematics, states in science or science and in science and ▪ Districts report shortages of teachers in each
sciences, technology mathematics; the majority mathematics; mathematics; All students STEM subject, including considerable shortages
and engineering of students do not spend Some students spend spend sufficient time in mathematics, physics and chemistry
sufficient time studying sufficient time studying studying mathematics ▪ There is no centralized formative assessment
rigorous mathematics and rigorous mathematics and science from available to teachers
science curriculum, <75% and science curriculum, endorsed teachers ▪ 20% of Washington elementary school teachers
of teachers have 75% of teachers have spend less than an hour a week teaching science
endorsements in their endorsements in their
field field
ST2 Community partners

assist teachers in No community

Some community A coordinated group of
▪ There is a large number of community groups
engaged across a range of STEM issues
integrating STEM content involvement in involvement in STEM, community partners add ▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps in
across grades/ STEM learning insufficient engagement value via teacher community involvement and working to fill them
disciplines, promoting in teacher training, training and student ▪ Most programs focus on improving content
effective instruction, and classroom learning or learning in the knowledge and teaching strategies and less on
offering applied learning applied opportunities, classroom through ensuring that content is relevant to current issues
opportunities for students but there is a lack of applied learning ▪ A portfolio of applied learning opportunities exist,
central coordination opportunities in the however many programs aren’t widely available
community
▪ Washington has fewer students earning science and

ST3 More students are
prepared for advanced

Students are unprepared Some students are All students are
engineering bachelors degrees than 32 other states,
but is in the top four states in term of proportion of
study and careers in jobs in science and engineering
STEM, including for advanced study / prepared for careers prepared for advanced
▪ 46% of Washington students needed remediation in
underrepresented careers in STEM; and advanced study in study and careers in
mathematics in technical and community colleges in
groups and girls underrepresented STEM, but some gaps STEM
07-08
groups and girls exist
▪ There is an increasing achievement gap in STEM
underperform
disciplines between white students and
other groups
underrepresented minorities in AP scores and WASL
passage rates

ST1 Washington’s ability to offer rigorous course of study Projected capabilities once
in math, sciences, technology and engineering (1/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
Students do not

Students achieve in the top Students achieve in line
▪ Standards in mathematics and science have been
newly adopted during the past two years, but have
ST1 Rigorous course of study achieve within the top 25% of states in science with the top 10% of not yet been fully implemented
in mathematics, sciences, 25% of states in and mathematics; states in science and ▪ Districts report shortages of teachers in each STEM
technology and science or Some students spend mathematics; All students subject, including considerable shortages
engineering mathematics; the sufficient time studying spend sufficient time in mathematics, physics and chemistry
majority of students do rigorous mathematics and studying mathematics ▪ There is no centralized formative assessment
not spend sufficient science curriculum, 75% of and science from available to teachers
time studying rigorous teachers have endorsed teachers ▪ 20% of Washington elementary school teachers
mathematics and endorsements in their field spend less than an hour a week teaching science
science curriculum,
<75% of teachers have
endorsements in their
field
Super Sub-criteria
ST1A High achievement in Washington’s students

Washington’s students Washington’s students
▪ Washington’s students achieve in top 20% of
states in mathematics NAEP
mathematics and science perform in the bottom perform in the top 50% perform in the top 25%
▪ Washington’s students achieve in top third of
states in science NAEP
50% of states on the of states on the NAEP in of states on the NAEP in
NAEP in mathematics mathematics and mathematics and
▪ US students lag performance of other countries in
8th grade TIMSS tests
and science science science
▪ 45% of students passed the 10th grade
mathematics WASL and 39% of students passed
the 10th grade science WASL
▪ The number of students taking AP courses in
mathematics and science has increased, but more
students earn low scores
ST1B Washington has rigorous

standards in STEM
Standards have not

Standards are revisited Standards are current
▪ Revised mathematics standards were adopted in
2008 and revised science standards were adopted
disciplines in 2009
been revisited in more at least every five years, and based on domestic ▪ Washington’s standards align with Common Core
than five years, and are and are not tied to and international best in mathematics on 11 of 16 elements
not tied to domestic or domestic or international practice and ▪ New science standards are based on national
international best best practice benchmarks education standards and AAAS benchmarks
practice ▪ There is inadequate alignment between standards,
instructional materials, professional development,
and assessments in science

ST1 Washington’s ability to offer rigorous course of study Projected capabilities once
in math, sciences, technology and engineering (2/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

ST1C Washington elementary

students spend sufficient

Washington has a lower Washington has a Washington has a
▪ 20% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported
teaching less than one hour of science per week
time learning STEM proportion of teachers greater proportion of greater proportion of and only 8% spend more than four hours of
subjects spending more than four teachers spending more teachers spending more science
hours per week on than four hours per week than four hours per week ▪ 34% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported
science and seven hours on science and seven on science and seven teaching more than seven hours of mathematics
per week on hours per week on hours per week on per week
mathematics than 50% mathematics than 50% mathematics than 90%
of other states of other states of other states
ST1D Washington has sufficient

number of effective

Districts report a Districts report some Districts report a balance
▪ District employees report “considerable shortage”
or “some shortage” of teachers in all STEM
teachers to teach STEM considerable shortage of shortage of teachers in or surplus of teachers in subjects
disciplines teachers and less than no more than two STEM all STEM subjects and ▪ Nearly one quarter of high school mathematics
90% of currently serving subjects, and do not all currently serving teachers and one third of high school science
teachers have report a considerable teachers have teachers lack endorsements in their assigned
endorsements in their shortage in any subject endorsements in their subjects
assigned subjects and 90% of currently assigned subjects ▪ The growth in new STEM teachers in Washington
serving teachers have is slowing, but at a lower rate than non-STEM
endorsements in their teachers
assigned subjects ▪ Elementary and middle school teachers lack
instructional skill and knowledge in applying
content to real world situations
ST1E Washington effectively

uses formative Teachers do not
Teachers have access There is a
▪ There is no centralized system for formative
assessment
assessments to improve consistently use to some formative comprehensive ▪ The state is implementing a system for formative
education in STEM formative assessment assessments that are centralized system for assessments
subjects and do not have tied to state standards; formative assessments
professional professional available to teachers
development to best development is not that is tied to curriculum
interpret results and consistently and standards; teachers
adjust lessons implemented have professional
accordingly development necessary
to access tests, interpret
results and alter their
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis lessons accordingly | 118
ST2 Cooperation with STEM-capable community partners Projected capabilities once

to prepare teachers and improve learning (1/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria
ST2 Community partners assist No community

Some community A coordinated group of
▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps in
community involvement and working to fill them
teachers in integrating involvement in involvement in STEM, community partners add ▪ Most programs focus on improving content
STEM content across STEM learning insufficient engagement value via teacher knowledge and teaching strategies and less on
grades / disciplines, in in teacher training, training and student ensuring that content is relevant to current issues
promoting effective classroom learning or learning in the ▪ A portfolio of applied learning opportunities exist,
instruction, and offering applied opportunities, classroom through however many programs aren’t widely available
applied learning but there is a lack of applied learning
opportunities for students central coordination opportunities in the
community
Super Sub-criteria

ST2A Community partners help Community partners are Community partners with A large number of ▪ Community partners work with teachers and
prepare teachers to not involved in developing somewhat varying community partners with schools to help students learn how STEM
integrate STEM content teacher capabilities and backgrounds and diverse backgrounds and disciplines are integrated
across grades and teachers do not applications of STEM applications of STEM ▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps and
disciplines consistently maintain up subjects contribute to subjects are centrally working to fill them
to date knowledge in developing teacher organized to be
STEM disciplines capabilities integrated in developing
teacher capabilities and
ensuring they are up to
date on latest applications
of STEM disciplines
ST2B Community partners Community partners do

Community partners Community partners
▪ Community partners work with teachers and
promote effective and not engage with students engage with students to engage with students to schools to promote effective and relevant
relevant instruction and are not involved in show how STEM subjects show how STEM subjects instruction
▪ Most programs focus on improving content
creating STEM curriculum are integrated and can be are integrated and can be
knowledge and teaching strategies and less on
and curriculum is not applied in real-world applied in real-world
ensuring that content is relevant to current issues
consistently up to date situations for a some situations for the majority
and relevant STEM subject areas; of STEM subject areas; ▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps and
Community partners work Community partners work working to fill them
with teachers to ensure with teachers to ensure
that STEM curriculum that STEM curriculum
remains relevant, up to remains relevant, up to
date and applicable to date and applicable to
students students
ST2 Cooperation with STEM-capable community partners Projected capabilities once

to prepare teachers and improve learning (2/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

ST2C Community partners offer

Community partners are

Community partners A large number of
▪ Community partners work with teachers and
applied learning schools to provide applied learning opportunities
opportunities for students not involved in offering offer applied learning community partners offer
for students
applied learning opportunities to a high number of varied
▪ Rich learning opportunities exist, however most
opportunities to students students, but the applied learning
programs have capacity for only a limited number
opportunity is only opportunities that enable
of students
available to a few students to see direct
students, or there is a application of classroom
low degree of relevance

ST3 Washington’s ability to prepare students for Projected capabilities once

advanced study and careers in STEM (1/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Sub-criteria Rationale
compliant compliant
ST3 More students prepared
for advanced study and

Students are unprepared Some students are All students have to
▪ Washington has fewer students earning science and
engineering bachelors degrees than 37 other states
careers in STEM, for advanced study / prepared for careers opportunity to be ▪ 46% of Washington students needed remediation in
including careers in STEM; and advanced study in prepared for advanced mathematics in technical and community college in
underrepresented groups underrepresented STEM, but some gaps study and careers in 07-08
and girls groups and girls exist STEM ▪ There is an increasing achievement gap in STEM
underperform disciplines between white students and
other groups underrepresented minorities in AP scores and WASL
passage rates
Super Sub-criteria

Washington is in the Washington is in the top Washington is in the top
ST3A Students are drawn to bottom 50% of states in 50% of states in terms of 25% of states in terms of ▪ Washington has fewer students earning science
STEM disciplines in post terms of percent of percent of students percent of students and engineering bachelors degrees than 32 other
secondary education and students pursuing pursuing advanced pursuing advanced states, but is in the top four states in term of
careers advanced degrees in degrees in STEM degrees in STEM proportion of jobs in science and engineering
STEM disciplines disciplines disciplines

ST3B Students are prepared for More than 25% of More than 25% of Fewer than 25% of ▪ 46% of recent high school graduates in community
advanced study in STEM students require students require students require and technical colleges required remedial courses
disciplines mathematics mathematics mathematics in mathematics in the 07-08 school year
remediation in advanced remediation in advanced remediation in advanced
study, and that study, but that proportion study
proportion is increasing is declining

ST3 Washington’s ability to prepare students for Projected capabilities once

advanced study and careers in STEM (2/2) Washington current capability
0% RTTT 100% RTTT

Super Sub-criteria Rationale
compliant compliant
ST3C Students are prepared for ▪ 48% of employers report difficulty finding entry
careers in STEM Washington graduates Washington educated Employers seek out level employees with adequate mathematics skills
secure jobs in STEM candidates considered Washington educated ▪ The quality of CTE1 opportunities in STEM areas
related fields at a lower on equal footing to other employees for their varies considerably across districts and schools
rate than graduates from candidates for jobs in advanced capabilities in
other geographic areas STEM (illustrated by STEM disciplines (as
equal proportion of WA measured by high
graduates in proportion of
STEM positions) Washington graduates
newly employed in
STEM professions)
ST3D STEM program addresses

learning needs of
▪ The ethnic achievement gap tightened on the
mathematics WASL, but remained largely
Members of Members of Members of
underrepresented groups underrepresented underrepresented underrepresented unchanged on the science WASL
(including girls and certain groups have groups have groups have ▪ Both genders’ performance on the mathematics
minority groups) achievement (measured achievement (measured achievement (measured WASL has declined, while girls increasingly
by test scores) more by test scores) 10% by test scores) in line outperform on the science WASL
than 20% below that of below that of historically with that of historically ▪ Minority groups are taking an increasing portion of
historically higher higher achieving groups higher achieving groups AP exams in science and math, but their scores
achieving groups are dropping relative to white peers
ST3E STEM program inspires

underrepresented groups
▪ Minority groups are underrepresented in STEM
advanced degrees
(including girls and certain Underrepresented Underrepresented Underrepresented
minority groups) minorities’ presence in minorities’ presence in minorities’ presence in
STEM advanced degree STEM advanced degree STEM advanced degree
programs is more than programs is no less than programs is proportional
25% lower than their 25% lower than their to their presence in the
proportional presence in proportional presence in state
the state the state
1: CTE stands for Career and Technical Education

| 122
ST1A Washington’s students achieve in top 20% of states in

mathematics tests, but the U.S. lags other countries
Average mathematics TIMSS scores, Average score in NAEP mathematics for
8th grade students by country, 2007 8th grade public school students, 2009
Average Score -15% Average score

-3%
1 Chinese Taipei 598 1Massachusetts 299
2 Korea 597 2Minnesota 294 ▪ The U.S. ranks 9th on
the TIMSS mathematics
3 Singapore 593 3New Jersey 293 test, and is 15% lower
4 Hong Kong SAR1,3 572 3North Dakota 293 than the highest
5 Japan 570 3Vermont 293 scoring country
6 Hungary 517 6 Montana 292 ▪ Washington ranks 9th
7 England3 vs. other states on the
513 6 New Hampshire 292 NAEP, and scores 3%
8 Russian Federation 512 8 South Dakota 291 lower than the leading
9 U.S.3,4 508 9 Connecticut 289 state
10 Lithuania2 506 9 Kansas 289 ▪ Washington performs
11 Czech Republic well vs. other states, but
504 9 Washington 289 performs below
12 Slovenia 501 12 Maryland 288 international best
13 TIMSS Average 500 12 Pennsylvania 288 practice
14 Armenia 499 12 Wisconsin 288
15 Australia 496 15 Colorado 287
16 Sweden 481 16 National average 282
1 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the Peoples Republic of China
2 National Target Population does not include all or the international Target Population defined by the trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
3 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were Included
4 National Defined Population covers 90%-95% of National Target Population
SOURCE: TIMSS, National Center for Education Statistics | 123
ST1A Washington’s students achieve in top third of states in

science tests, but the U.S. lags other countries
Average science TIMSS scores of 8th Average score in NAEP science for 8th
grade students by country, 2007 grade public school students, 2005
Average Score Average score -6%

-8%
1 Singapore 567 1 North Dakota 163
2 Montana 162
2 Chinese Taipei 561
2 New Hampshire 162
▪ The U.S. ranks 11th on
3 Japan 554 the TIMSS science test,
2 Vermont 162
and is 8% lower than the
4 Korea 553 5 Massachusetts 161
highest scoring country
5 England3 542 5 South Dakota 161
7 Wyoming 159 ▪ Washington ranks 15th
6 Hungary 539 8 Idaho 158 vs. other states on the
6 Czeh Republic 539 8 Maine 158 NAEP, and 6% lower
8 Minnesota 158 than the leading state
8 Slovenia 538 ▪ Washington performs
8 Wisconsin 158
9 Hong Kong SAR1,3 530 12 Colorado 155 well vs. other states, but
9 Russian Federation 530 12 Michigan 155 performs below
12 Ohio 155 international best
11 U.S.3,4 520
12 Virginia 155 practice
12 Lithuania2 519 16 Missouri 154
13 Australia 515 16 Utah 154
14 Sweden 511 16 Washington 154
19 Kentucky 153
15 TIMSS Average 500
19 New Jersey 153
16 Scotland3 496 21 National average 147
1 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the Peoples Republic of China
2 National Target Population does not include all or the international Target Population defined by the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
3 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were Included
4 National Defined Population covers 90% to 95% of National Target Population
SOURCE: TIMSS, National Center for Education Statistics | 124
ST1A 45% of students passed the 10th grade mathematics WASL

and 39% of students passed the 10th grade science WASL
Percent of students passing the 10th grade mathematics WASL

Percent
-3% annually.
51 51 50 50 45 ▪ 45% of students passed the
10th grade mathematics
WASL in 2009
▪ 10% fewer students passed
the mathematics WASL in
’04-’05 ’05-’06 ’06-’07 ’07-’08 ’08-’09 2009 than did in 2008
▪ 39% of students passed the
Percent of students passing the 10th grade science WASL 10th grade science WASL in
Percent 2009
▪ The passage rate on the
+3% annually science WASL has been
40 39 increasing at a rate of 3%
35 35 36 per year
’04-’05 ’05-’06 ’06-’07 ’07-’08 ’08-’09
SOURCE: Washington OSPI | 125

ST1A The number of students taking AP courses in mathematics

and science has increased, but more students earn low scores
Total AP exams taken by Change in number of students

students in Washington receiving exam score, 2008 vs. 2003
Exams taken Number of exam scores ▪ The number of students

Math1 Math1 taking mathematics and
+14% annually
science AP classes has
7,699 increased at a CAGR3 of
1,083 14% and 11%,
699 respectively
3,931 657
561 478 ▪ However a larger
proportion of students
received a low score
▪ Increase in overall
2003 2008 1 2 3 4 5 students taking AP
courses is driving the
Science2 Science2
+11% annually. increase in lower
1,634 scores. (i.e., five years
8,639 ago only the top
students elected AP
5,161 classes, whereas now
638 561 more students opt for the
444 491
more rigorous courses)
2003 2008 1 2 3 4 5
1 Math includes Calculus AB, Calculus BC and Statistics
2 Science includes Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Physics B, Physics C Elec & Magnet, and Physics C Mechanics
3 Compound annual growth rate
SOURCE: The College Board | 126
ST1B WA mathematics standards align with Common Core college 1

No alignment
Partial alignment
readiness standards, but K-12 standards are not yet available Full alignment
Alignment of WA standards
to Common Core College
Readiness Standards
▪ Attend to precision
▪ Construct viable arguments
Mathema-
tical ▪ Make sense of complex problems and persevere in solving them
practice ▪ Look for structure
standard
▪ Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
▪ Make strategic decisions about the use of technological tools
▪ Number – Procedural fluency in operations with real numbers and strategic competence in approximation are grounded in
an understanding of place value. The rules of arithmetic govern operations on numbers and extend to operations in algebra
▪ Quantity – A quantity is an attribute of an object or phenomenon that can be specified using a number and a unit, such as
2.7 centimeters, 42 questions or 28 miles per gallon
▪ Expressions – Expressions use numbers, variables and operations to describe computations. The rules of arithmetic, the
use of parentheses and the conventions about order of operations assure that the computation has a well-determined value
▪ Equations – An equation is a statement that two expressions are equal. Solutions to an equation are the values of the
variables in it that make it true
Mathema- ▪ Functions – Functions model situations where one quantity determines another. Because nature and society are full of
tical dependencies, functions are important tools in the construction of mathematical models
content ▪ Modeling – Modeling uses mathematics to help us make sense of the real world – to understand quantitative relationships,
standards make predictions, and propose solutions
▪ Shape – From only a few axioms, the deductive method of Euclid generates a rich body of theorems about geometric
objects, their attributes and relationships
▪ Coordinates – Applying a coordinate system to Euclidean space connects algebra and geometry, resulting in powerful
methods of analysis and problem solving
▪ Probability – Probability assesses the likelihood of an event in a situation that involves randomness. It quantifies the degree
of certainty that an event will happen as a number from 0 through 1
▪ Statistics – Decisions or predictions are often based on data – numbers in context. These decisions or predictions would be
easy if the data always sent a clear message, but the message is often obscured by variability in the data
1 Comparison is only made to College and Career Readiness Standards as at time of diagnostic Common Core K-12 Standards were not yet released | 127
SOURCE: Common Core Standards, OSPI analysis September 2009
ST1C 20% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported teaching

less than one hour of science per week
Percent of teachers giving response to question: About how much time in total do
you spend with this class on science instruction in a typical week? 2005
Percent
Less than one hour More than four hours
Washington 20 Kentucky 82
Hawaii 17 Louisiana 44
Idaho 15 Alabama 39
Oregon 15 Georgia 30
California 13 Texas 29
Minnesota 13 South Carolina 29
Arizona 12 Virginia 28 Kentucky and ▪ 20% of 4th grade
Wyoming 12 Tennessee 27 Louisiana have
Colorado 10 Ohio 25 teachers reported
Nevada 10 Maryland 24 state-wide
Rhode Island 9 Michigan 24
spending less than one
North Carolina
7
8 Delaware 24 science hour per week
Florida Mississippi 22
Indiana 7 Illinois 20 assessments teaching science
Maryland 7 Arkansas 18
Arkansas 6 National Public 18 administered in ▪ Washington had the
National Public 6 Oklahoma 18
Vermont 6 North Dakota 18 4th grade highest proportion of
Mississippi 5 Florida 17
New Mexico 5 New Jersey 17 teachers teaching less
Massachusetts 4 Missouri 14
Missouri 4 Wisconsin 13 than one hour of
Montana 4 Colorado 12 science of all states
New Hampshire 4 South Dakota 12
Oklahoma
Utah
4
4
West Virginia
New Mexico
12
10
▪ Only 8% of teachers
Alabama 3 Utah 10 reported spending more
Connecticut 3 Maine 9
Georgia 3 Washington 8 than four hours per
Ohio 3 Rhode Island 8
Texas 3 Indiana 8 week teaching science
Louisiana 2 New Hampshire 8
Michigan 2 Connecticut 8
Tennessee 2 Minnesota 7
Wisconsin 2 Arizona 7
Delaware 1 North Carolina 6
Illinois 1 Vermont 6
Kentucky 1 Massachusetts 6
Maine 1 Montana 6
New Jersey 1 California 5
North Dakota 1 Nevada 5
South Carolina 1 Hawaii 4
South Dakota 1 Idaho 4
Virginia 1 Oregon 4
West Virginia 1 Wyoming 3
SOURCE: NAEP, 4th grade teachers | 128

ST1C 34% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported teaching

more than seven hours of mathematics per week
Percent of teachers giving response to question: About how much time in total do
you spend with this class on mathematics instruction in a typical week? 2009
Percent
Less than three hours More than seven hours
District of Columbia 5 Texas 57
Alabama 4 Arkansas 49
Arizona 4 New Mexico 45
California 4 Mississippi 43
Georgia 4 District of Columbia 42 ▪ 2% of 4th grade
Iowa 4 Hawaii
New Mexico 4 Georgia 39 42 teachers reported
Utah 4 Kansas 39
Arkansas 3 Massachusetts spending less than
Florida 3 North Carolina 36 38
Louisiana 3
3
Nevada 35 three hours per week
Mississippi Washington
New York 3 Maryland 33 34 teaching mathematics
North Carolina 3 Wyoming 32
Oklahoma
Oregon
3
3
Montana
California 30 32
▪ 34% of teachers
Texas
Wyoming
3 West Virginia
Oklahoma 28 29 reported spending
Alaska 2 3
Utah 27 more than seven hours
Colorado 2 Louisiana 27
Delaware 2 Alaska per week teaching
Illinois 2 New York 26 27
Kansas 2 Pennsylvania 26 mathematics
Kentucky 2 New Jersey
Minnesota 2 Alabama 24 26 ▪ Washington had a
Missouri 2 Arizona 24 24
Montana 2 Colorado
Nebraska 2 Ohio 24 greater proportion of
Pennsylvania 2 Rhode Island 22
Virginia 2 Maine 21 teachers teaching more
Washington 2 Florida 20
Connecticut 1 Missouri 20 than seven hours of
Hawaii 1 Vermont
Idaho 1 Idaho 19 20 mathematics than 37
Indiana 1 South Dakota
Maine 1 Tennessee 18 19 other states
Maryland 1 South Carolina
Nevada 1 Minnesota 15 18
New Hampshire 1 Kentucky 14
New Jersey 1 New Hampshire 14
Ohio 1 Iowa 13
Rhode Island 1 Delaware 13
South Carolina 1 Virginia 13
South Dakota 1 Connecticut 13
Vermont 1 Wisconsin
West Virginia 1 Nebraska 12 13
Wisconsin 1 Michigan 11
Massachusetts 0 Oregon 11
Michigan 0 Illinois 11
North Dakota 0 Indiana 11
Tennessee 0 North Dakota 10
SOURCE: NAEP, 4th grade teachers | 129

ST1D District employees report “considerable shortage” or

“some shortage” of teachers in all STEM subjects
Perceptions1 of shortages of teachers in various subjects, 2006 STEM
Mean score2 Non-STEM
Elementary 2.37 Considerable shortage
Health/Fitness 2.67 Some shortage
Social Studies 2.70
English/Language 3.08
Mid-level Humanities 3.08
Traffic safety 3.19 ▪ District officials indicated
Reading 3.30 there is at least some
Library 3.47 shortage of teachers in
French 3.55 each STEM discipline
German 3.61 ▪ Three STEM subject were
Arts 3.62 identified as having
CTE 3.68 “considerable shortages” of
Spanish 3.84
4.00 teachers, while five
Earth science
English 4.02 subjects were identified as
Bilingual 4.03 having “some shortages”
Japanese 4.05 ▪ Shortages for STEM
Biology 4.08 teachers are higher than
Science 4.16 all other category
Mid-level Math/Science 4.19 teachers excluding special
Science 4.20
4.25 education and speech
Chemistry
Physics 4.26
Mathematics 4.51
Special Education 4.52
Speech 4.63
1 Based on survey which asks district officials to indicate shortage on a scale of 1-5 where 5.00-4.21 = Considerable shortage; 4.20-3.41 = Some
shortage; 3.40-2.61= Balance 2.60-1.81 = Some surplus; 1.80-1-00; Score based on both quantity and quality of applicants
2 Mean score is the average score given by officials in each district
SOURCE: OSPI, Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State 2006 | 130
ST1D Nearly one quarter of high school mathematics teachers and one third of
high school science teachers lack endorsements in their subjects
Not Endorsed Pre-endorsed
Proportion of mathematics teachers with endorsements K-8 Endorsed Subject Endorsed
in math Related Endorsed
Percent
High school 76 8 7 9
▪ Nearly a quarter of
mathematics teachers and
Middle school 34 12 6 44 4 a third of science teachers
at the high school level lack
assigned subject
▪ More than two thirds of
Proportion of science teachers with endorsements in science mathematics and science
Percent teachers at the middle
school level lack
High school 67 5 12 16 assigned subjects
Middle school 32 11 44 14
SOURCE: Professional Educator Standards Board, December 2008 | 131

ST1D The growth in new STEM teachers in Washington is slowing,

but at a lower rate than non-STEM teachers
Number of new endorsement per subject earned by

teachers in Washington
Total endorsements1
01-02
318 -2%
Mathematics 05-’06 ▪ The number of new STEM
312
teachers endorsed in
279 -37% Washington has decreased
Biology across all disciplines
175 between 01-06
105 -35%
▪ However, the number of
Chemistry new endorsements in
68 mathematics, physics and
science has fallen by a
47 -6% lower percent than the
Physics
44 number of total new
endorsements of teachers
183 -16% in Washington
Science
153
Total 9,275 -18%

Endorsements 7,578
1 Includes endorsements earned by teachers in Washington from in-state and out-of-state institutions
SOURCE: OSPI, Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State 2006 | 132
ST3A WA employers demand a high proportion of computer scientists and

engineers, but WA institutions produce few bachelors degrees in those areas
Percent of workforce in science and Percent of bachelors degrees conferred in

engineering occupations, 2006 computer science and engineering , 06-07
Percent Percent
Rank Rank
1 Virginia 6.5 1 Arizona 11.3 • Washington has a

higher proportion of
2 Massachusetts 6.1 2 South Dakota 11.3 its workforce in
science and
3 Maryland 5.5 3 Colorado 11.0 engineering than
46 other states
4 Wyoming 10.8
4 Washington 5.4 • Washington produces
5 Indiana 10.8 fewer graduates in
5 Colorado 5.3 computer science and
6 Maryland 10.7 engineering than
6 Delaware 5.1 32 other states
7 Michigan 10.6 • Washington demands
7 Connecticut 4.5 more graduates in
8 Montana 10.1 science and
8 Minnesota 4.5 engineering than the
9 New Mexico 10.0 state produces in its
9 Michigan 4.4 institutions of higher
10 Utah 9.9
education
10 California 4.3
33 Washington 7.3
49 Mississippi 2.0 49 Connecticut 5.0
50 Arkansas 1.9 50 Hawaii 4.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce 2004 state Science and Technology indicators | 133
ST3B 46% of recent high school graduates in community and technical

colleges required remedial courses in mathematics in 07-08
Percent of recent Washington high school graduates

enrolled in remedial mathematics courses at community
and technical colleges
Percent
55 ▪ 46% of recent high

school graduates
required remedial
mathematics courses
50 in community or
technical colleges
▪ The proportion of
students requiring
45 remediation has been
declining
40
’02-’03 ’04-’05 ’05-’06 ’06-’07 ’07-’08
SOURCE: Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges | 134
ST3C 48% of employers report difficulty finding entry level

employees with adequate math skills
Percent of employers experiencing difficulty with entry level
workers demonstrating skills
Percent
STEM related
Solve problems &

63
make decisions
Take responsibility
62 ▪ Among employers attempting to
for learning
hire in Washington state in the
Resolve conflict 58 six months prior to the survey,
& negotiate 48% reported difficulty finding
Observe critically 55 employees who are able to use
math to solve problems and
communicate
Cooperate with others 49
▪ 39% of employers reported
Use math to solve difficulty finding employees able
48 to use information and
problems & communicate
communications technology
Listen actively 47
Read with understanding 42
Use information & 39

communications technology
Speak so others
37
can understand
SOURCE: 2007 Washington State Employers Workforce Needs and Practices Survey Statewide report | 135
ST3D The ethnic achievement gap tightened on the mathematics WASL,

but remained largely unchanged on the science WASL
Difference between percent of ethic group passing the 10th grade
WASL and percent of white students passing 10th grade WASL
Percentage points
05-06
Math 6.1
3.2 3.9 08-09
-23.8 -21.7
-26.4 -26.6
-24.4 ▪ All measured ethnic groups
-31.1 tightened the achievement gap
-33.3
relative to white students on the
mathematics WASL between
2005-2008
Science 3.3 ▪ Ethnic minority students
0.7 1.4
continued to underperform white
students on the science WASL
-21.4
-25.2 -25.4 -25.6 -25.6
-27.5 -26.8
American Asian1 Asian/ Black Hispanic Pacific

Indian Pacific Islander
Islander1
1 In the 05-06 data Asian/Pacific Islander and Pacific Islander were grouped into the “Asian” category

ST3D Both genders’ performance on the 10th grade mathematics WASL has
declined, while girls increasingly outperform on the science WASL
Percent of students passing the 10th grade WASL in mathematics

and science by gender
Percent
Math Girls
55 Boys
50
45
▪ The achievement gap between
40 girls and boys on the 10th grade
35 mathematics WASL has not
changed, but both genders have
30 passed with decreasing
frequency
Science ▪ Girls are increasingly
42 outperforming boys on the
science WASL
40
38
36
34
32
30
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

ST3D Minority groups are taking an increasing proportion of AP exams in

science and math, but their scores are dropping relative to white peers
Growth in exams taken by white and minority students in Washington

between 2003 and 2008
Annualized percentage growth
Minority
18.9
White
+50% 15.2
+16% 12.6
12.1 11.4
10.4
+33%
▪ The number of minority students

taking AP exams is growing
33% faster than the number of
Math Science Total white students taking AP exams
Difference between average AP exam score of white vs. minority ▪ However, the achievement gap
students in Washington in mathematics and science subjects has increased overall, with the
Grade points widest gap in science
0.3 2003
2008
0.2
+116%
0.2 +71%
0.1 0.1
0.1
-11%
Math Science Total
SOURCE: The College Board | 138

ST3E Minority groups are underrepresented in STEM certificates
Degrees awarded in Washington State in 2006-2007 in

STEM related fields by race/ethnicity1
Percent
17.4 Bachelors
Asian 10.4 Masters
8.1
6.0 Doctoral
Population average2
2.3
Black 2.6 ▪ Most minority groups are
1.6 underrepresented in STEM
3.5
advanced study
3.5 ▪ The underrepresentation
Hispanic 2.6 increases in masters and
1.6 doctoral degrees
8.3
1.2
Native American 0 1.3
1.6
75.6
White 83.1
88.7
77.2
1 Excludes non-resident aliens
2 Calculated as percent of Washington State population in race category as of 2003; does not include multi-racial
SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Partnership For Learning, Washington Office of Financial Management | 139
Contents
Content Page
▪ Introduction 2

▪ Appendix 142
| 140
Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix
WA starts off at a disadvantage compared to other states, mostly due to a

lack of policy reform…
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
Estimated score in criteria where there is limited leverage to gain points
Points
Policy Historical
reform performance
CO 85 72 157
MA 71 76 147
WI 76 67 143
DE 63 76 139
LA 62 77 139
PA 67 71 138
MN 66 69 135
RI 56 74 130 Possible additional

WA 33 68 101 46 147 points with policy
changes
Washington’s challenges:
▪ No laws supporting charter schools
▪ No law allowing state to intervene in low-achieving
schools
▪ Moderate student achievement gains
Note: Policy changes could earn the state 36 points for charter schools, 15 points for evaluation systems and ten points for intervening in
schools/districts | 141
SOURCE: Team analysis
…and should therefore focus in areas where it has the
chance to score maximum points
RTTT Criteria, ranked by gap between full points and WA current score Current score
Opportunity (gap
Securing district commitment 0 45 between full points
and WA current
Turning around the persistently lowest achieving schools 5 30
score)
Using evaluations to inform key decisions 0 28
Providing effective support to teachers and principals 2 18
Developing evaluation systems 0 15
Ensuring capacity to implement 5 15
Translating district participation into statewide impact 0 15
STEM 0 15
Using data to improve instruction 5 13
Ensuring equitable teacher distribution to high poverty schools 5 10
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 4 10
Supporting transition to enhanced standards / high-quality assessments 10 10
Conducting annual evaluations 3 7
Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects/specialty areas 3 7
Using broad stakeholder support 5 5
Measuring student growth 32
Accessing and using State data 41
Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda 41
Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools 41
| 142
SOURCE: Team analysis based on diagnostic
Policy barriers exist that prevent Washington from achieving

maximum points
Possible Legislation required to
Criteria points Policy barrier remove barrier
▪ LS1 – Intervening at 10 ▪ Current turnarounds are strictly ▪ “Required Action” gives state
Turning the lowest-achieving voluntary and require district the authority to compel districts
around low- schools and districts cooperation with persistently low-achieving
achieving ▪ LS2B – 35 schools to participate in
schools Implementing one of ▪ Districts are free to select any turnarounds
four intervention turnaround strategy, not limited ▪ “Required Action” provides
models to the four recommended by state with recourse should
RTTT districts choose strategies that
do not sufficiently address
audit findings
▪ TL2B-TL2D – 53 ▪ State cannot implement ▪ Legislation that supersedes

Great Improving teacher performance-based decisions CBAs prohibiting performance-
teachers and and principal or effectiveness assessments based personnel decisions
leaders effectiveness based in districts where prohibited by and/or effectiveness
on performance CBAs assessments
▪ CS1 – Ensuring 40 ▪ No legislative support for ▪ Legislation that expressly

successful charter schools or other encourages the development
Priorities conditions for high- innovative schools of innovation schools.
performing charter Legislations that encourages
schools and other the development of charter
innovative schools schools and permits, supports
with facilities and funding
comparable to traditional public
schools, and does not put a
SOURCE: Team analysis cap charter schools. | 143
Students in Washington State receive fewer hours of

instruction each year than students in high-performing systems
Hours of instruction each year for 15-year olds
KIPP1 1,500
High school in Korea 1,190
WA - minimum hours of instruction

1,000
in grades 1-12
OECD average 921
WA average number of hours

648
of instruction
1 KIPP is a chain of high-performing charter schools in the United States which has been successful in getting strong results from students from
disadvantaged backgrounds
SOURCE: OECD Education at a Glance, 2009 | 144

Activities in other states (1/4)

State Headline Details
California Schwarzenegger OKs School California removed the legal ban on using the results from student
Bill to Pave Way for Federal tests to evaluate teachers
Funds More legislation is needed however, including a lift on the charter
school limit
Special legislative session called by Gov. Schwarzenegger to discuss
reform
Colorado Compromise to get the Race Allow parents with special-need students to use vouchers to
to the Top money purchase services from private schools
Committee debated new legislation that aims to encourage the
creation of new charter schools
Connecticut Talk of linking teacher Board meeting held that discussed linking merit pay to student
performance to pay in RTTT achievement
application Faced opposition from Teacher’s Union
New Haven, CT Teachers Move would allow CT to compete for RTTT funds
Union Approves RTTT New four year union contract includes provision which allows test
Friendly Contract scores to be included in teacher evaluations
Board of Aldermen still have to approve contract
Indiana State Superintendent All educators would need to have bachelors degree with a major or
Proposes New Licensing minor in subject they’re teaching
Requirements New test on content and teaching methods
Districts would have the ability to hire superintendent and principals
without traditional educational backgrounds
Kentucky Proposal Seek to Bring Two bills have been proposed which would allow charter schools
Charter Schools to Kentucky Various unions are lobbying against the bill


Louisiana Commission backs graduation LSU must increase its graduation rate to 75% by 2018 and all other
rates public universities in the state must hit at least a 50% plateau,
according to a recommendation approved Tuesday by a statewide
college review commission.
Schools that achieve their goals would receive financial rewards for
hitting their marks.
State plans for school Outlines options on proposed plan for RTTT
innovation
Local schools urged to earn a Describes more details on the proposed plan, including amount of
share of $4.3 billion from feds money to go to turnaround/charter schools
Maine Maine Risks Losing Funds Message delivered at a forum by Scott Pearson, Associate Assistant
because of Charter Schools Deputy Secretary at DOE
Prohibition Maine 1 of 11 states that have yet to allow charter schools
Massachusetts Coalition formed to Push State Race to the Top Coalition formed to lobby the state to apply for
to Raise Charter School Limits federal funds
Made up of business, political and community leaders
Core effort now is to lobby legislature to raise limits on charter
schools; Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick appeared with
Secretary Arne Duncan to announce a big expansion (27,000 new
seats) of charter schools
State refines how it tracks Some districts use new measuring tool that is based on students’ rate
MCAS scores of improvement
It uncovers mid- and low-performing schools that are demonstrating
high rates of improvement, as well as high-scoring schools that have
not been pushing their students ahead as quickly as they could

New York State charting new course for State officials are seeking to dismantle as many as a dozen large city
old HSs high schools and turn many of the newly created smaller schools that
will occupy their buildings into charters, The Post has learned.
Officials said they're also looking to partner with outside managers,
such as City University of New York (CUNY) and New Visions for
Public Schools, to help run some of the newly formed schools
Ohio RTTT Legislation Proposed Proposal embraces alternative pathways for teachers
Would remove certain moratoriums for Ohio community schools, such
as virtual and e-schools
Oklahoma Governor Appoints New State Former mayor appointed to be chief of education innovation and strategy
Education Official to Oversee OK has hired consultants and other strategists to raise money and
RTTT Process compete for the grant
Oregon State Plans on Writing RTTT Committee has been formed to draft application
Application Union engaged in process, but draws the line with strong links of
student performance and pay
Committee has drafted a list of initiatives including:
– Develop performance pay for teachers and principals based on
whether the school wide team raises student achievement
– Shake up the entire faculties at the 60 worst performing schools in
Oregon
– Ensure students are constantly informed how individual classroom
performance stacks up against grade level benchmarks
Rhode Island Rhode Island Enters Race for Ed Commissioner assembled a 23-member committee
Grant “We have very few barriers and we have a lot to put forward,” she said
1: CUNY: City University of New York | 147

SOURCE: Team analysis

Tennessee Tennessee Education Chief Tennessee is an actively pursuing the grant; stands to get $400M
Says Innovation is Key to Ed Commissioner Webb opined that the state is one of the
Gaining $400M Grant top contenders
Tennessee an attractive choice because of recent changes to the
curriculum and a long-term data tracking system that shows student
improvements from year to year
Utah Utah Seeks Part of RTTT State Board of Ed convened summit to ascertain how to involved with
Grant RTTT process
State is already fulfilling many of the grant requirements
Wisconsin State education chief may get An effort has been launched in the state Capitol to legislative
new intervention powers changes that would allow the superintendent of public instruction to
order curriculum and personnel changes in chronically failing schools.
Governor Doyle Pushes Details specific initiatives around all four assurances that governor
Reforms to Help Wisconsin plans to see through to prep state to win RTTT, including:
Students Achieve Success – Create a mayor-appointed superintendent in the Milwaukee
Public School District to set a clear line of accountability
– Allow districts to increase their spending if they meet specific
guidelines to improve education
– Raise standards by making a third year of math and a third year
of science mandatory for high school graduation
Education reform on the fast The Senate Education Committee is expected to approve a package
track of bills that would:
– Allow standardized test scores to be used to evaluate teacher
performance
– Set new standards for establishing charter schools, allow the
state to pursue new grants, and foster more cooperation between
DPI and the state’s higher education systems
State teacher’s union has signed on the measures

Washington Race To The Top Diagnostic Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Washington Race To The Top Diagnostic Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Washington’s “Race to the Top” Proposal

▪ Review of Washington State’s initial position 9

▪ Detail on each requirement area 13

– Criteria A. State success factors 14

Race to the Top will be judged based on an extensive point system

Requirement areas Points

▪ Criteria A: State success factors 125

SOURCE: Department of Education RTTT Guidelines | 2

RTTT Scoring Rubric from U.S. ED (1/2)

Selection Criteria Points Percent

Standards and Assessments 70 14

Data Systems to Support Instruction 47 9

Note: “LEA” terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to “District”

RTTT Scoring Rubric from U.S. ED (2/2)

Selection Criteria Points Percent

Note: “LEA” terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to “District”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis | 5

Little Points in these sub-criteria are directly a

Limited Points in these sub-criteria depend on

High Points in these sub-criteria depend on the

Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing Securing district commitment 45

Demonstrating other significant reform conditions 5 Using data to improve instruction 18

Total 94 Total 310

Grand Total 500

▪ Review of Washington State’s initial position 9

▪ Detail on each requirement area 13

– Criteria A. State success factors 14

Type of requirement for which

▪ Non-thematic requirements ▪ Relevant data and charts will be shown

Overview of types of review by requirement area:

Requirement areas Type of review

▪ Criteria A: State success factors Data review

How to read a detailed assessment

Where WA will be once current

SA1 Washington has ▪ Washington is part of the Common Core

Details of findings that led to

SOURCE: Team analysis | 10

Criteria B, C, D, E: The “Four Assurances”1

Standards and Assessments 0% 100% Great teachers and leaders 0% 100%

This assessment translates to an estimated 169 out of 500 points, with

▪ Review of Washington State’s initial position 9

▪ Detail on each requirement area 13

– Criteria A. State success factors 14

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003 2005 2007 2009

1 Most recent available test data

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics | 14

Eight Grade White-Hispanic

15 15 The achievement gap in 8th

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP | 15

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP | 17

Eight Grade White-Hispanic

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP | 18

1 Females outperform males in both grades

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP | 20

05-06 06-07 07-08

Asian/Pacific Islander 15.3

▪ Review of Washington State’s initial position 9

▪ Detail on each requirement area 13

– Criteria A. State success factors 14

Standards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria current initiatives implemented

Washington current capability

0% RTTT 100% RTTT