Washington’s “Race to the Top” Proposal

Detailed Diagnostic January 2010

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, 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 125 70 47 138 50 55 15

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Criteria A: State success factors Criteria B: Standards and assessments Criteria C: Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D: Great teachers and leaders Criteria E: Turning around the lowest achieving schools Criteria F: General criteria Competitive priority: STEM

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

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

Selection Criteria State Success Factors ▪ Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEAs’ participation in it – Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda – Securing LEA commitment – Translating LEA participation into statewide impact ▪ Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans – Ensuring the capacity to implement – Using broad stakeholder support ▪ Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps – Making progress in each reform area – Improving student outcomes Standards and Assessments ▪ Developing and adopting common standards – Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards – Adopting standards ▪ Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments ▪ Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments Data Systems to Support Instruction ▪ Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system ▪ Accessing and using State data ▪ Using data to improve instruction

Points 125 65 5 45 15 30 20 10 30 5 25 70 40 20 20 10 20 47 24 5 18

Percent 25

14

9

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

| 3

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

RTTT Scoring Rubric from U.S. ED (2/2)
Selection Criteria Great Teachers and Leaders Eligibility Requirement ▪ Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals ▪ Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance – Measuring student growth – Developing evaluation systems – Conducting annual evaluations – Using evaluations to inform key decisions ▪ Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals – Ensuring equitable distribution in high-poverty or high-minority schools – Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas ▪ Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs ▪ Providing effective support to teachers and principals Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools ▪ Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs ▪ Turning around the lowest-achieving schools – Identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools – Turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools General Eligibility Requirement ▪ Making education funding a priority ▪ Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools ▪ Demonstrating other significant reform conditions Competitive Preference Priority: Emphasis on STEM Total
Note: “LEA” terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to “District” SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

Points 138 Eligibility 21 58 5 15 10 28 25 15 10 14 20 50 10 40 5 35 55 Eligibility 10 40 5 15 500

Percent 28

10

11

3 100

| 4

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

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 Points
Securing district commitment Improving student outcomes 125 Supporting transition to standards/assmt Adopting standards Participation in standards consortium 70
25 20 15 10 10 20 20 20

Top five criteria

Ensuring capacity to implement Use of evaluations to improve instruction 138 28
21

Conditions for charter schools

Turning around schools

45

Providing high-quality pathways Providing teacher/principal support 5

20 15 15 14 10

Fully implementing State Longitudinal Data System (SLDA) 50 35 47 24
10 18 15

55 40
10

STEM – all or nothing

5

5

10

5

5 E. Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 10%

5 C. Data Systems STEM

D. Great Teachers and Leaders Percent of total (500 pts)

A. State Success B. Standards and F. General Factors Assessments

28%

25%

14%

11%

9%

3%

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

| 5

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

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 involving Historical performance Level of influence Little

Description Points in these sub-criteria are directly a result of what WA has already accomplished

Limited Policy barriers

Points in these sub-criteria depend on legislation being passed

Future plan actions

High

Points in these sub-criteria depend on the quality of the application and district support

| 6

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

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 for 190 pts (~40% of the total)…
Sub-criteria involving policy barriers Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals Adopting standards Intervening in lowest-achieving schools and districts Demonstrating other significant reform conditions Points

…leaving 310 points for criteria that states can impact with their reform plans
Sub-criteria involving future plan actions Securing district commitment Total 45 35 28 20 20 20 18 15 15 15 15 14 10 10 10 5 5 5 5

Biggest levers

40 21 20 10 5

Turning around the lowest achieving schools Using evaluations to inform key decisions Ensuring capacity to implement Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts Providing effective support to teachers and principals Using data to improve instruction Translating district participation into statewide impact STEM Developing evaluation systems Ensuring equitable distribution to high-need students Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prep programs Using broad stakeholder support Conducting annual evaluations Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects Accessing and using State data Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda Measuring student growth Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools

Total
Sub-criteria depending on historical performance Improving student outcomes Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards Making education funding a priority Developing and implementing high-quality assessments Making progress in each reform area

96
Points 25 24 20 10 10 5

Total Grand Total
SOURCE: Department of Education

94

Total

310 500 | 7

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

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 review Type of requirement for which review was performed Format and content


Data review

Non-thematic requirements

Relevant data and charts will be shown

Detailed assessment

Education-themed requirements (e.g., Teachers and Leaders, STEM)

▪ ▪

Every thematic criteria will begin with a Summary page that shows rankings on each of the sub-criteria. 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 Data review Detailed assessment Detailed assessment Detailed assessment Detailed assessment Data review/Detailed assessment Detailed assessment

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Criteria A: State success factors Criteria B: Standards and Assessments Criteria C: Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D: Great Teachers and Leaders Criteria E: Turning around the Lowest Achieving Schools Criteria F: General Criteria1 Competitive Priority: STEM

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. | 9 SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Review of Washington State’s initiatl position

How to read a detailed assessment

Where WA will be once current initiatives are complete (excluding new plans via RTTT)

Results format
0% RTTT compliant

Where WA current stands

Sub-criteria
SA1

100% RTTT compliant Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by December 31, 2010

ILLUSTRATIVE
Rationale Washington is part of the Common Core standards which are internationally benchmarked and build toward college readiness

Washington has demonstrated commitment to developing and adopting common highquality standards

Washington has not committed to adopting the Common Core standards

▪ Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by August 2, 2010

A description and labeling of the subcriteria

A description of what it means to be at different levels of RTTT compliance

Details of findings that led to this judgment

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 10

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Review of Washington State’s initiatl position

Summary of Washington’s performance: The state has opportunity for improvement in nearly all sub-criteria
Criteria B, C, D, E: The “Four Assurances”1 Compliant with RTTT criteria 0% 100%

Washington current capability

Compliant with RTTT criteria Great teachers and leaders • TL1 Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and principals TL2 Differentiation of teachers and principals based • on performance • TL3 Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals • TL4 Reporting the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs TL5 Providing effective support to teachers and • principals Turning around lowest-achieving schools • LS1 Intervening at the lowest-performing schools and districts LS3 Turning around lowest-achieving schools • 0% 100%

Standards and Assessments SA1 Washington is committed to developing and • adopting common standards

SA2 Washington is committed to developing and • implementing common high-quality assessments SA3 Washington is supporting transition to enhanced • standards and high-quality assessments

Data systems to drive instruction • DS1 Washington has fully implemented a statewide longitudinal data system DS2 Key stakeholders have access to and use • State Data DS3 Stakeholders use data to improve instruction •

Criteria A, E, F State Success Factors 1. 2. 3. Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, and sustain proposed plans Enlisting statewide support and commitment Raising achievement and closing gaps STEM • ST1 Rigorous course of study in mathematics, sciences, technology and engineering ST2 Community partners assist teachers in integrating • STEM content across grades / disciplines, promoting effective instruction, and offering applied learning opportunities for students ST3 More students prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM, including underrepresented groups and women

General 1. 2. Making education funding a priority Demonstrating significant progress

CS2 Ensuring successful conditions for highperforming charter and other innovative schools

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 | 11 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Review of Washington State’s initiatl position

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 regarding policy barriers and historical performance Sub-criteria involving policy barriers Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals Adopting common core standards Intervening in lowest-achieving schools and districts Demonstrating other significant reform conditions Total Sub-criteria depending on historical performance Improving student outcomes Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system Participation in consortium of states developing high-quality standards State’s demonstration of education funding priority Developing and implementing high-quality student assessments Making progress in each reform area Total Potential WA1 points points 40 21 20 10 5 96 0 10 20 0 3 33 The greatest six opportunities amount to 168 points, of which WA potentially has 27 today Sub-criteria involving future plan actions

ESTIMATES ONLY
Potential points 45 35 28 20 20 20 18 15 15 15 15 14 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 310 WA1 points 0 5 0 5 15 2 5 0 0 0 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 3 4 68

Biggest levers

Securing district commitment Turning around the lowest achieving schools Using evaluations to inform key decisions Ensuring capacity to implement Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts Providing effective support to teachers and principals Using data to improve instruction Translating district participation into statewide impact STEM Developing teacher and principal evaluation systems Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers to highneed students Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prep programs Using broad stakeholder support Conducting annual evaluations Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers in hard-tostaff subjects Accessing and using State data Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda Measuring student growth Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools Total

Potential WA1 Points points 25 24 20 10 10 5 94 18 22 20 5 0 3 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
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

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
33 30 30

8th Grade Reading, 2003 to 2007
24 25 23

-3%

-1%

Key insights • The percent of students performing at below basic decreased in each category and each year from 2003 to 2007 • The percent of 8th graders reading at below basic decreased at a slower rate as compared to other categories

2003

2005

2007

2003

2005

2007

4th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009
19 16 16 16

8th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009
28

-3%

25

25

22

-6%

2003

2005

2007

2009

2003

2005

2007

2009

1 Most recent available test data SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics

| 14

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

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 Fourth Grade
35

Eight Grade
35

White-Hispanic

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

The achievement gap in 8th grade math has increased significantly for Hispanics, even though both Hispanic and White groups have improved

5

5

0 2003

2005

2007

2009

0 2003

2005

2007

2009

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 15

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

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 (Not Eligible vs. Eligible for free lunch program) Percentage point difference between the two groups 35
30 25 20

Gender gap (Male vs. Female)1 Percentage point difference between the two groups 30
25 20 15

15

10
10 5 0 -5 2003

5 0 -5 2003

2005

2007

2009

2005

2007

2009

1 In 4th grade, females outperform males; in 8th grade males outperform females SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 16

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

Achievement Gaps in Math: The English proficiency gap has increased while the disability gap has largely remained constant
Gap between majority and minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment Fourth grade Eighth grade English proficiency gap (Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs. ELL students) Percentage point difference between the two groups
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 2003

Disability gap (Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES) vs. Having SES) Percentage point difference between the two groups
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

2005

2007

2009

0 2003

2005

2007

2009

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 17

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

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 Fourth Grade
35

Eight Grade
30

White-Hispanic

30

25

25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5

5

0 2003

2005

2007

0 2003

2005

2007

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 18

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

Achievement Gaps in Reading: Both income and gender gaps have remained relatively constant
Gap between majority and minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment Fourth grade Eighth grade Income gap (Not Eligible vs. Eligible for free lunch program) Percentage point difference between the two groups 35
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 2003

Gender gap (Male vs. Female)1 Percentage point difference between the two groups 35
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 2003

2005

2007

2005

2007

1 Females outperform males in both grades SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 19

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

Achievement Gaps in Reading: The English proficiency and disability gaps have largely increased
Gap between majority and minority groups in terms of percentage of students “below basic” on NAEP assessment Fourth grade Eighth grade English Proficiency gap (Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs. ELL students) Percentage point difference between the two groups
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 2003

Disability gap (Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES) vs. Having SES) Percentage point difference between the two groups
55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 2003

2005

2007

2005

2007

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

| 20

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors

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 On-time graduation rate Extended graduation rate Annual dropout 4-year dropout rate 70.4% 75.1 5.7 21.4

06-07 72.5% 77.5 5.5 21.0

07-08 72.0%

Native American African-American/Black 32.5 29.6 26.7 21.4 18.7 15.3 14.7

40.8

77.0 Hispanic 5.6 Pacific Islander 21.4 All students Caucasian Asian/Pacific Islander Asian

| 21

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

Appendix

142

| 22

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

Summary: Washington’s current status of Standards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria
Sub-criteria
SA1

Key issues Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant Washington has not committed to adopting the Common Core standards Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by December 31, 2010

100% RTTT compliant Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by August 2, 2010

Rationale

Washington has demonstrated commitment to developing and adopting common highquality standards

▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards ▪ ▪
which are internationally benchmarked and build toward college readiness The Common Core includes all but three states Washington is able to adopt the Common Core standards by August 2, 2010

SA2

Washington has demonstrated its commitment to developing and implementing common high-quality assessments

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

SA3

Washington is supporting transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments

▪ Recent implementation of new mathematics
Washington does not have a plan to implement standards and assessments or translate standards and information from assessments into classroom practice Washington has highquality plan to implement enhanced standards and assessments but does not have a plan to translate standards and information from assessments into classroom practice Washington has highquality plan to implement enhanced standards and assessments and translate standards and information from assessments into classroom practice

standards can be leveraged as a plan to implement Common Core standards There was a reduction in the number of professional development days included in districts’ budgets during most recent legislative session Assessments were adjusted based on new mathematics and science standards and contracts with vendors allow for additional changes

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

| 23

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA1 Summary: Washington’s current status of Standards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria
Sub-criteria 0% RTTT compliant 100% RTTT compliant Rationale

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

SA1

Washington has demonstrated commitment to developing and adopting common highquality standards

Washington has not committed to adopting the Common Core standards

Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by December 31, 2010

Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by August 2, 2010

▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards ▪ ▪
which are internationally benchmarked and build toward college readiness The Common Core includes all but three states Washington is able to adopt the Common Core standards by August 2, 2010

Super Sub-criteria
SA1A Washington is part of a

▪ Washington is part of the Common Core standards
Washington is not part of a consortium of states that is working toward developing and adopting K-12 standards Washington is part of a consortium of <25 states that is working toward developing and adopting K-12 standards that are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness Washington is part of a consortium of >25 states that is working toward developing and adopting K-12 standards that are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness which are internationally benchmarked and build toward college readiness

consortium of states working to develop highquality standards

SA1B Washington will adopt the

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

standards by August 2, 2010

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

| 24

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA3 Washington’s current status of Standards relative to RTTT criteria
Sub-criteria
SA3

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

Washington is supporting transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments

Washington has not committed to adopting the Common Core standards

Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by December 31, 2010

Washington has committed to participating in Common Core and will adopt standards by August 2, 2010

▪ Recent implementation of new mathematics ▪

standards can be leveraged as a plan to implement Common Core standards There was a reduction in the number of professional development days included in districts’ budgets during most recent legislative 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

▪ Recent implementation of new mathematics
Washington meets fewer than four of the criteria for high-quality implementation plan for standards Washington meets at least four of the criteria for high-quality implementation plan for standards Washington meets all criteria for a high-quality implementation plan for standards

▪ ▪

standards can be leveraged as a plan to implement Common Core standards The state has a method of developing centralized professional development materials and curricular 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

▪ Assessments were adjusted based on new
Washington meets fewer than three criteria for high-quality implementation plan for assessments Washington meets at least three of the criteria for high-quality implementation plan for assessments Washington meets all criteria for a high-quality implementation plan for assessments

implement new assessments

mathematics and science standards and contracts with vendors allow for additional changes Professional development plan and communication plan are incomplete

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

| 25

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA1 Washington standards show some alignment to areas of Common Core College and Career Readiness Standards
Subject area Reading Alignment between WA & Common Core1 (Scale of 1-5) 3
5 = Strong alignment

Key differences

1 = Weak Alignment

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 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 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 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

Writing

4

Communication

3-4

Mathematics

4

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA2A Washington’s summative assessments, meet five of ten of the required elements outlined by Department of Education
Assessments must measure Required characteristics 1. Reflect and support good instructional practice by eliciting complex responses and demonstrations of knowledge and skills consistent with the goal of being college and career ready by the time of high school completion Be accessible to the broadest possible range of students with appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities and English learners Contain varied and unpredictable item types and content sampling so as not to create incentives for inappropriate test preparation and curriculum narrowing Produce results that can be aggregated at the classroom, school, district and State levels Produce reports that are relevant, actionable, timely, accurate, and displayed in ways that are clear and understandable for target audiences, including teachers, students and their families, schools, districts, … etc. Make effective and appropriate use of technology Be valid, reliable and fair Be appropriately secure for the intended purposes Have the fastest possible turnaround time on scoring without forcing the use of lower quality assessment items WA Status Rationale

Requirement met Requirement partially met Requirement not met

Additional detail provided

Individual student achievement as measured against standards that build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school completion Individual student growth (data showing change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time) The extent to which each individual student is on track, at each grade level tested, toward college or career readiness by the time of high school completion

More constructed response than most states but less than international best practice Thorough set of accommodations available as necessary Varying test items selected from broad pool; items not repeated >3x Not available at classroom level Available on Washington Query and Teacher Tool

2.

3.

4. 5.

▪ ▪

6. 7. 8. 9.

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Online testing coming in 2010 Approved by ED Confirmed by independent audit 53 day turnaround Funding and budget maintainable through 2013

10. Be able to be maintained, administered and scored at a cost that is sustainable over time

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

| 27

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA2A Washington has a greater proportion of selected response than international best practice, but less than other states
1 Testbased Selected response Constructed response Product Performance Process Performancebased

Product Extended Short Answer Short Answer Selected Response

0 21

15

0
27
34

3
16

42

64
31

66

81

Washington

Singapore Primary School Leaving Exam1

Percent questions from “most rigorous” types4

U.S. - Natl. Assessment of Educational Progress (Grade)2 29%

U.S. - Subset of state assessments (composite)3 15%

• Washington utilizes fewer selected response questions than U.S. peers, but more than international best practice • Washington uses product questions (written assessment based on prompt whereas other U.S. assessments use extended short answer)

25-40%

44%

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

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 class-level report for teachers to see the aggregate results of their class

• Stakeholders can see how individual school performance compares to the state and district on each WASL strand • Strand breakdown enables stakeholders to identify which standards within a subject are sources of struggle

SOURCE: Washington Query

| 29

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

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

SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, Council of Chief State School Officers

| 30

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA2A A selection of U.S. scorecards provide examples of how to display assessment data in an easily understood format
5
Synthesis and explanations New York City School reports simplify communication by calculating an easyto-understand (albeit contentious1) summary grade and by providing explanation on each evaluation criteria Performance comparison Chicago Public Elementary School reports include trends over time on key metrics to enable comparison (e.g., highlight improvement or challenges)

Clarity Chicago Public Middle School reports are clearly structured along four key metrics (student outcome, academic progress, student connection and school characteristics) in an easyto-read manner and provide rationale on why these metrics are important

Comprehensiveness Boston school reports provide information beyond student performance metrics such as: • Overview of staff and teachers • Details on community partnerships

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA2A A sample scorecard shows an example of how to link assessments directly to content standards
5 Sample school report
Exam: Grade 3 Science standards Time: Oct 2008 Sample assessment report # of students: 500 Summary %of students at basic or above: Average score: Performance by band Band Advanced Mastery Basic Approaching basic Dissatisfactory Poor Range 26.10 - 29.0 23.20 - 26.09 18.85 - 23.19 14.50 - 18.84 11.60 - 14.49 00.00 - 11.59 # of students 25 25 50 110 150 200 % of students 5% 5% 10% 22% 30% 40% 8% 12.3

DISGUISED U.S. DISTRICT

Performance by band enables teachers to track number of students achieving proficiency

Performance by content standard (# of students) Standard SI–ASI: S SI–ASI: 7 PS–POM: 19 PS–POM: 22 PS–PMO: 24 PS–PMO: 26 PS–FOE: 3 ESS–PEM: 48 Content standards LAGLE–Science–Grade 3–SI–ASI – ASI: 5 Use a variety of methods and materials and multiple trials to investigate ideas (observe, measure, accurately record data) Section 1: Multiple choice: 1, 2, 3, 4 – 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 Low 100 50 10 100 100 50 100 60 Middle 150 200 290 150 150 100 150 90 High 250 250 200 250 250 350 250 350

Assessment results are reported by individual standard to enable teachers to identify gaps in student learning

Tested content standards are listed in detail

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 32

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA2A Washington is increasingly implementing new technologies in its assessment systems
6 Percent of grade level assessments projected to be online Percent Reading High school proficiency1
100 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0
2010 2011 2012

Mathematics

Writing
100

Science


50

8th Grade2

100 80 25 25 80

100 80

100 80 25 0 0

4th Grade3

80

25 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0

25

Washington is increasingly using technology in administering its summative assessments By 2012: ▪ The high school proficiency test will have 100% of its reading and writing portions and 50% of its science portion administered online ▪ The 8th grade test will have 100% of reading, writing and mathematics and 80% of science administered online ▪ The 4th grade test will continue to be largely paper and pencil

1 Mathematics retest is projected to be 100% online in 2011 and 2012 2 Writing assessment is 7th grade 3 Science assessment is 5th grade SOURCE: Assessment Update: Redesign of State Assessments for 2010, 10/16/09

Districts also use various assessment technology for formative assessments (e.g., DIBELS, TeachScape, MAP and others) | 33

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA3A The state used a high-quality plan to implement new mathematics standards
Elements of high-quality implementation plan
1 The state has allocated resources to developing new ▪ curricular and professional development materials

Element not in place Element partially in place Element fully in place Additional details follow

WA current Status

Rationale


2 Districts have a plan to efficiently approve and purchase new ▪ curricular and professional development materials

State provides centralized professional development 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 The state has provided reviews of curricular materials and common professional development materials, but adoption and purchase plans vary across districts Review cycles vary by district Districts have been provided state financial support for professional development through Learning Improvement Days (LID); LID was reduced last year; Districts often use local funds for professional development; Districts are varied in delivery of professional development Standards are used to create the college readiness mathematics test used for placement but are not explicitly tied to entrance requirements The state used a high-quality communication plan to implement new mathematics standards and has a highquality plan for Common Core Teachers will likely be more open to new curriculum in areas that have not had recent adoptions

▪ ▪

▪ 3 Districts have the time and resources to provide high-quality professional development in the new standards to all instructional staff

▪ 4 The state has obtained support from colleges and universities to align their entrance requirements with the new standards
5 The state has a communication plan to create buy-in among ▪ teachers, parents and students for the new standards

▪ 6 State teachers and principal programs will modify their curriculum to align with new standards
SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, The New Teacher Project, team analysis

| 34

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

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? (3) Label the intersection of FG and CD as H. What special segment in this triangle is the segment DH? (4) If the radius of the circle is r, what is the length of the side of triangle FDG?

State provided facilitator notes to ensure training is consistent with standards and thorough in locally administered sessions

11/1/2009

Geometry

15

SOURCE: OSPI Mathematics Professional Development Facilitator documentation

| 35

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

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 assessed ▪ Measure student growth and competency at multiple points throughout the year in a manner that allows instructors to monitor student progress and have the necessary trend data with which to improve instruction ▪ Provide rapid feedback ▪ Link student growth with instructional elements in order to gauge the effectiveness of educators and curricula ▪ Provide tests that are appropriate to the skill level of the student ▪ Support instruction for students of all abilities, including highly capable students and students with learning disabilities ▪ Be culturally, linguistically, and cognitively relevant, appropriate, understandable to each student taking the 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 | 36

SB 5414 mandates

Use of both formative and summative assessments to provide information to improve instruction and inform accountability Enables collection of data that allows statewide and nationwide comparisons of learning and achievement Balance of effort so that decisions are made based on many data points, not a single assessment

SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA3A Washington has developed rigorous review process for curriculum materials
2
Washington has a rigorous process for reviewing curriculum materials… …which yields support to school districts in selecting curriculum materials

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 37

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

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.)
SOURCE: Team analysis

| 38

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA3B The state has made progress in developing a high-quality plan to implement new assessments
Elements of high-quality implementation plan WA current Status Rationale

Element not in place Element partially in place Element fully in place

1▪ State has allocated resources to modify existing summative assessments to align with new standards

▪ ▪

SB 5414 mandates that assessments be updated to reflect standards Contracts with service providers allow changes in assessments to match standards SB 5414 created a mandate for the creation of centralized formative assessments which will be tied to new standards Washington has implemented Assessment Leadership Teams that provide training of trainers who then provide 1-2 day professional development sessions to discuss the nature of assessments and scoring student responses The state sponsors webinars with principals to communicate plans for 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 Many districts have implemented their own systems for formative assessments, indicating they are open to using formative assessment systems

2▪ The state has allocated resources to developing a bank of formative assessments tied to new standards 3▪ The state has a plan to provide high-quality professional development to instructional staff regarding access, interpretation, and usage of assessments

4▪ The state has a communication plan to create buy-in among parents, students teachers, and principals for the new assessments

▪ ▪ ▪

5▪ Teachers are willing to incorporate formative assessments into their curriculum and adjust teaching plans based on assessment outcomes

SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, team analysis

| 39

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

Appendix

142

| 40

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

Summary: Washington’s current status of data systems to support instruction
Sub-criteria
DS1

Key issues Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant

100% RTTT Rationale compliant

Washington has fully implemented a statewide longitudinal data system


The state complies with fewer than four of 12 elements of America COMPETES Act The state complies with at least six of 12 elements of America COMPETES Act The state complies with all aspects of the America COMPETES Act

Washington fully meets 11 of the 12 components of America COMPETES Act

DS2

The state has a highquality plan to ensure that data is accessible to and used to inform and engage key stakeholders


Data is not accessible to key stakeholders and the state has no plan to make data available The state has a plan to make data accessible to key stakeholders but no plan to ensure data are used to engage key stakeholders The state has a plan to make data accessible and has a plan to ensure data are used to engage key stakeholders

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

OSPI currently provides data through its website including school and district report cards, demographic data and statewide assessment results Publicly available data is not presented in a way that is conducive to driving insight and engaging stakeholders After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261, 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 There is no plan to support districts in acquiring instructional improvement systems There is no plan to support districts in providing professional development to enable district level personnel to use instructional improvement systems Elements of statewide longitudinal data are currently available District level data is not consistent across districts and is available only by request

The state has a highDS3 quality plan to help districts access and use instructional improvement systems and provide data from those systems to researchers


The state has no plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems and does not provide researchers with access to information from existing systems The state has a plan to provide some instructional improvement systems to districts, but does not support professional development regarding use of those systems The state has a highquality plan to increase use of local instructional improvement systems, provide professional development regarding use of those systems and to share data with researchers

▪ ▪

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

| 41

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS1 Statewide longitudinal data system’s compliance with America COMPETES Act
America COMPETES Act elements1 include 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

Element implemented Partially implemented No plan to implement element

Status1

1 Status is based on OSPI analysis additionally Data Quality Campaign is considered where DQC criteria match America COMPETES Act criteria SOURCE: Data Quality Campaign, Data Systems Overview 2008, OSPI analysis

| 42

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS2 Key stakeholders access to and use of State data
Sub-criteria
DS2 The state has a highquality plan to ensure that data is accessible to and used to inform and engage key stakeholders

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

▪ OSPI currently provides data through its website
Data is not accessible to key stakeholders and the state has no plan to make data available The state has a plan to make data accessible to key stakeholders but no plan to ensure data are used to engage key stakeholders The state has a plan to make data accessible and has a plan to ensure data are used to engage key stakeholders

▪ ▪ ▪

including school and district report cards, demographic data and statewide assessment results Publicly available data is not presented in a way that is conducive to driving insight and engaging stakeholders After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261, additional education data will be available 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 data from the statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to key stakeholders

▪ OSPI currently provides data through its website
The state has no plan to ensure that data from the statewide longitudinal data system will be made available to key stakeholders The state has a plan in place to ensure the some elements of data from the statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to key stakeholders The state has a highquality plan in place to ensure all relevant data from statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to key stakeholders

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

including school and district report cards, demographic data and statewide assessment results Stakeholders report key data is not always accessible After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261, additional education data will be available 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-

▪ Available data is used by principals and others to
The state has no plan to provide data in a way that will be used to engage and inform stakeholders The state has a plan to ensure that data will be used to engage key stakeholders by ensuring that some useful analyses and reports are available to key stakeholders The state has a highquality plan to ensure that data will be used to engage key stakeholders by ensuring that a comprehensive set of useful analyses and reports are available to all key stakeholders in a timely manner

quality plan to ensure that data from the statewide longitudinal data system are used to inform and engage key stakeholders

▪ ▪ ▪

inform and motivate staff, community and school district board Publicly available data is not presented in a way that is conducive to driving insight and engaging stakeholders Implementation of Education Data Improvement System of HB 2261 will enable stakeholders to engage on many key questions There is state of education report card to engage stakeholders

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

| 43

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS3 Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction
Sub-criteria
DS3

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant The state has no plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems and does not provide researchers with access to information from existing systems The state has a plan to provide some instructional improvement systems to districts, but does not support professional development regarding use of those systems

100% RTTT compliant The state has a highquality plan to increase use of local instructional improvement systems, provide professional development regarding use of those systems and to share data with researchers

Rationale

The state has a highquality plan to help districts access and use instructional improvement systems and provide data from those systems to researchers

▪ There is no plan to support districts in acquiring
instructional improvement systems

▪ There is no plan to support districts in providing
professional development to enable district level personnel to use instructional improvement systems Elements of statewide longitudinal data are currently available District level data is not consistent across districts and is available only by request

▪ ▪

Super Sub-criteria
DS3A The state has a high-

▪ There is no plan to support districts in acquiring
The state has no plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems The state has in place some elements of a plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems The state has a highquality plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems instructional improvement systems

quality plan to increase acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems

▪ Data systems to improve instruction vary across
school districts in WA, and some districts lack systems to improve instruction (especially formative assessment and lesson planning 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-

▪ There is no plan to support districts in proving
Districts are entirely responsible for providing their own professional development to support personnel in use of systems to support continuous instructional improvement The state has some elements of plan to support districts in providing professional development to support personnel in use of systems to support continuous instructional improvement The state has a comprehensive plan to support districts in providing professional development to support personnel in use of systems to support continuous instructional improvement

quality plan to support districts that are using instructional improvement systems in providing effective professional development regarding the use of these systems

professional development to enable district level personnel to use instructional improvement systems

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

| 44

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS3 Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction
0% RTTT compliant 100% RTTT compliant

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

Super Sub-criteria
DS3C State longitudinal data and

Rationale

instructional improvement systems are available and accessible to researchers

▪ Elements of statewide longitudinal data are
The state has no plan to provide researchers with access to state or local data The state has a plan to ensure data from statewide longitudinal data system are readily accessible to researchers but not data from district level instructional improvement systems The state has a plan to ensure data from statewide longitudinal data system and district level instructional improvement systems are readily accessible to researchers currently available

▪ District level data is not consistent across districts
and is available only by request

▪ After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261,
additional education data will be available

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

| 45

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction Fully complies

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

Partially complies Does not comply

Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act 1. A unique statewide student identifier (ID) that does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system

Status

– 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction Fully complies

DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (2/5)
Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act 3. Student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education programs

Partially complies Does not comply

Status

– – – – – – –
4.

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

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

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

| 47

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction Fully complies

DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (3/5)
Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act 5. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability

Partially complies Does not comply

Status

– – – –

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
| 48

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction Fully complies

DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (4/5)
Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act 8. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students

Partially complies Does not comply

Status

– – – –

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

– The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in – The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in
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

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

| 49

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction Fully complies

DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (5/5)
Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act 10. Student-level college readiness test scores

Partially complies Does not comply

Status

– 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

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

| 50

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS2A After implementation of initiatives in HB 2261, additional education data will be available1

Student progress Systems must include student information including: – 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: – Grade level and courses taught, students taught, building or location, program, job 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: – The costs of programs at the school and district level with a focus on the cost of services 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: – The magnitude of spending per student, by student, district and state estimated based on a 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 | 53

Quality of the educator workforce

Cost effectiveness of programs

Financial integrity and accountability

1 Certain data elements will be removed to ensure that student data is unidentifiable SOURCE: Certification of Enrollment for Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2261, team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS2B Implementation of Education Data Improvement System of HB 2261 will enable stakeholders to engage on many key questions
Key questions How are our students performing? Answerable after HB 2261 implementation Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 Yes In some cases Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes1

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

What proportion of the students who enter elementary school maintain continuous enrollment and complete 8th grade in a timely manner? Do our teachers know how their students’ academic growth compares, by subject and grade, to other students with similar backgrounds? How about principals? To what degree does participation in early childhood programs increase kindergarten readiness? Are students who earn college credit in high school more likely to go on to college? Are they more likely to graduate from college on-time? Which teacher preparation programs produce the graduates whose students have the strongest academic growth? What programs reduce dropout rates among at risk students? How cost effective are existing programs? Which teachers are most effective? Which elementary and middle schools in the state consistently perform best in preparing different student populations for high school ? Which high schools are doing the best job of graduating students on-time, based on those students’ economic level? What achievement levels indicate that a student is well prepared to succeed in challenging courses in high school? What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous courses or performance on state tests) are the best predictors of students’ success in college or the workplace? What are leading indicators of dropout risk for students? What percentage of high school graduates go on to college and take remedial courses? How much do our high school and college graduates earn in the workforce over time? What about the dropouts? Which industries employ the majority of our state’s high school and college graduates?

How effective are existing programs ?

Which schools and teachers are most effective at preparing students? What are leading indicators for success in students?

How do our students perform in higher education and the workforce?

Yes Yes1 Yes1 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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 Includes School Master, Power School and 40 districts which have no data system Other
20

Functionality varies by district, but many district data systems track and report: – Attendance – Enrollment – Participation in special programs – Report cards – Grade books (varies by district and grade level) – Schedules – 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 performance on formative assessments – 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

eSIS1 20

60

WSIPC1

1 Washington School Information Processing Cooperative (WSIPC) and electronic Student Information Systems (eSIS) are providers of educational data systems SOURCE: District interviews

| 56

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS3A Information systems should enable teachers and administrators to solve problems and answer questions to improve instruction
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Teacher tools Curriculum selection Student achievement tracking

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

How do my lesson plans compare with standards in this subject? What materials can I access to make sure I teach all relevant standards? How are individual students performing? How is the class performing relative to expectations? 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 assessments

What assessments can I use to test students learning that are aligned with the 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? What professional development modules are necessary to enable me to have 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 ? 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?

Professional development

▪ ▪ ▪

Administrator tools

Program evaluation

▪ ▪ ▪

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 57

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS3A Best practice: Louisiana monitors student level data to evaluate progress and improve instructional practice
Class List Report for Period 2 Exam: Mathematics 3 Student Performance
Teachers work with coaches to analyze results, identify student needs and utilize data to re-teach effectively

GROUP AVERAGE

For each student, a teacher can view incorrect responses by topic area

SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District

| 60

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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 and plan for re-teaching were Reports identify individual topics that

particularly difficult for students • Groups of teachers share best practices and plan for re-teaching

SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District

| 61

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

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 assessment report students : 500 Summary % of students at basic or above: Average score: Performance by band Band Advanced Mastery Basic Approaching basic Dissatisfactory Poor Range 26.10 - 29.0 23.20 - 26.09 18.85 - 23.19 14.50 - 18.84 11.60 - 14.49 00.00 - 11.59 # of students 25 25 50 110 150 200 % of students 8% 12.3

▪ ▪
5 5 10 22 30 40

Short (30 minutes) multiple choice test administered each month to all students within the district Test questions cover selected gradespecific content standards in each subject Test results are reported back to schools and evaluated in order to plan intervention at the student level (if necessary) Results can be cut at various granularity levels to fit target audience (e.g., by school, by classroom, by student) Tests are designed to support teaching and learning, there is no link to the accountability systems. However, transparency of results naturally creates some peer pressure among teachers and principals

Performance by content standard (# of students) Standard SI–ASI: S SI–ASI: 7 PS–POM: 19 PS–POM: 22 PS–PMO: 24 PS–PMO: 26 PS–FOE: 3 ESS–PEM: 48 Content standards Low 100 50 10 100 100 50 100 60 Middle 150 200 290 150 150 100 150 90 High 250 250 200 250 250 350 250 350


Assessment results are reported by individual standard

Tested content LAGLE–Science–Grade 3–SI–ASI – ASI: 5 Use a variety of methods and materials and multiple trials to investigate ideas standards are (observe, measure, accurately record data) listed in detail Section 1: Multiple choice: 1, 2, 3, 4 – 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
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

Appendix

142

| 63

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders
Key issues

Summary: Washington’s current teachers and leaders
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Alternate routes contribute less than national average share of teachers and leaders Alternate routes contribute national average or greater share of teachers and leaders

Rationale

▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
No alternate routes available none for principals

Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and principals

▪ District perceptions of alternate route teachers and
CBAs1 may be obstacles to placement

▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely
TL2

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

Effectiveness data not available or not used to differentiate performance

Available data used to drive one or more key decisions

Effectiveness data used to differentiate performance and drive all key decisions

▪ ▪

accepted methods for mapping student outcomes to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist Data analysis focused on compliance rather than performance assessment Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent is unknown

▪ State has implemented $5,000 bonus for NBCTs2
who teach in high-need schools
TL3

Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals

No plans for increasing supply or effectiveness of teachers or leaders in high-need schools and shortage subjects

Local plans or Successful state-wide unimplemented and/or initiatives exist unsuccessful state plans exist

▪ Data on shortage areas is self-reported by districts
but not through objective, standardized criteria no mechanisms to forecast demand or control supply preparation programs

▪ State sets preparatory program standards but has ▪ No link between student achievement and teacher

TL4

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs

▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
Student achievement data not available, not linked to programs, or links not published Student achievement linked to teachers or leaders but not to preparation programs Student achievement linked to preparation programs and published this year, linked to teachers but not to principals

▪ PACT 2.0 and ProTeach Portfolio will increase

links between student performance and teaching programs, but not for principals

▪ Student data is available but not linked to teacher
or principal supports
TL5

Providing effective support to teachers and principals

Principal and teacher supports do not exist or are not focused on improving student achievement

1 CBA = Collective bargaining agreement 2 NBCT = National board certified teachers SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

Supports are focused on improving student achievement but are not job-embedded, datainformed, or continuously improved

Supports are jobembedded, datainformed, and continuously improved to improve student achievement

▪ Teacher and leader supports tracked and
decisions made at local district level

▪ No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating
teacher or leader supports

▪ State supports for principals exist but currently
underfunded or not funded

| 64

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL1 Availability of alternate routes to teacher certification
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Alternate routes contribute less than national average share of teachers and leaders Alternate routes contribute national average or greater share of teachers and leaders

Rationale

Providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and principals

No alternate routes available

▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
none for principals

▪ District perceptions of alternate route teachers and
CBAs may be obstacles to placement

Super Sub-criteria
TL1A Extent to which the state

▪ WA supports four alternate routes for teachers but
none for principals State does not permit providers independent of institutions of higher education or include fewer than two of five elements of alternate routes State allows providers independent of institutions of higher education and include at least two of five elements of definition of alternate routes State allows providers independent of institutions of higher education and include at least four of five elements of definition of alternate routes

▪ Alternate routes for principals explored in 2007 but ▪
no interest from Association of WA School Principals (AWSP) Collective bargaining agreements allow tenured teachers without shortage area endorsements to fill openings ahead of alternate route candidates with shortage area endorsements WA alternate routes rely on existing in-state and out-of-state public and private institutions of higher learning

has legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions of higher education

▪ WA alternate routes supply less than 5% of
TL1B Extent to which the state

has alternative routes to certification that are in use

Alternate routes do not exist or contribute less than 10% share of teachers and principals

Alternate routes contribute 10-20% share of teachers and principals

Alternate routes contribute greater than 20% share of teachers and principals

endorsements, compared to 20% of all new teachers nationally State working to get districts to view alternate routes as viable professional and workforce development tools and adjust hiring policies accordingly on shortage areas is self-reported by districts and not through objective, standardized criteria

TL1C Extent to which the state

▪ Supply and demand are difficult to forecast as data
No statewide process for monitoring, evaluating, identifying, or filling areas of teacher and principal shortage Some but not all processes exist at statewide level for either teacher or principal shortages Statewide processes exist for monitoring, evaluating, identifying, and filling areas of teacher and principal shortage

has a process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and filling these needs

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NY Times, October, 2009

| 65

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2 Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL2

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Available data used to drive one or more key decisions Effectiveness data used to differentiate performance and drive all key decisions

Rationale

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

Effectiveness data not available or not used to differentiate performance

▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely ▪ ▪
accepted methods for mapping student outcomes to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist Data analysis focused on compliance rather than performance assessment Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent is unknown for some grade levels and subjects students

Super Sub-criteria
TL2A Extent to which state, in

▪ Student-level data (e.g., WASL) exists in CEDARS
Student growth data available for some students in some measurable subjects Student growth data available for all students in all measurable subjects

Student growth data collaboration with not available participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure participating districts establish clear approaches to measuring student growth for each individual student collaboration with participating districts, has a No process for high-quality plan and differentiating teacher ambitious yet achievable and leader effectiveness annual targets to ensure participating districts design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories including student growth and are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement

▪ CEDARS rollout underway, eventually covering all ▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in
2010

▪ Some districts (e.g., Vancouver) have data
available and analyzed beyond the state level

TL2B Extent to which state, in

▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in
2010 Process for differentiating effectiveness exists, but does not use multiple rating categories, does not include student growth and/or was not designed with teacher or principal involvement Process exists for both teachers and principals, applies multiple rating categories including student growth, and was designed with both teacher and principal involvement

▪ No framework or mechanism exists to link student
performance data to teacher effectiveness

▪ Data analysis is focused on compliance rather ▪ No consensus on how to measure teacher ▪ ▪

than teacher or leader performance assessment effectiveness based on test scores or whether or not WASL is sensitive to instruction Effectiveness differentiation determined by districts and local CBAs may regulate processes State statutes determine how principals and superintendents are evaluated and currently do not include student achievement

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

| 66

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2 Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL2

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Available data used to drive one or more key decisions Effectiveness data used to differentiate performance and drive all key decisions

Rationale

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

Effectiveness data not available or not used to differentiate performance

▪ Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widely ▪ ▪
accepted methods for mapping student outcomes to teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist Data analysis focused on compliance rather than performance assessment Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent is unknown

Super Sub-criteria
TL2C Extent to which state, in

▪ Annual review processes determined at district
level and vary by district and CBA until 2010 Annual reviews not conducted, or do not include feedback of student data Annual reviews conducted and include either feedback or student data Annual reviews conducted and include both feedback and student data

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure 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

▪ Student data in CEDARS not linked to teachers

▪ Decisions such as continuing contracts,
Annual evaluations used in some but not all districts to make some but not all key teacher and leader decisions Annual evaluations used throughout the state to inform all key teacher and leader decisions

collaboration with participating districts, has a Annual evaluations not used for key teacher and high-quality plan and leader decisions ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that participating districts use annual evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding developing, compensating, promoting, retaining, granting tenure, and removing teachers and principals SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

▪ ▪ ▪

compensation, promotion, and dismissal are determined at the district level Currently no widely accepted methods for mapping student-level results to teacher effectiveness No statutory prohibitions to using effectiveness data to drive key personnel decisions Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extent is unknown

| 67

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL3 Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL3

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Local plans or Successful state-wide unimplemented and/or initiatives exist unsuccessful state plans exist

Rationale

Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals

No plans for increasing supply or effectiveness of teachers or leaders in high-need schools and shortage subjects

▪ State has implemented $5,000 bonus for NBCTs who
teach in high-need schools

▪ Data on shortage areas is self-reported by districts but
not through objective, standardized criteria

▪ State sets preparatory program standards but has no
mechanisms to forecast demand or control supply

Super Sub-criteria
TL3A Extent to which state, in

▪ State has already implemented $5,000 bonus
NBCTs who teach in high-need schools

▪ Local associations have generally been in favor of
No plans for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers and leaders in high-poverty schools Local plans or unimplemented state plans exists for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers and leaders in high-poverty schools Successful state-wide initiatives exist for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers and leaders in high-poverty schools initiatives that offer additional incentives

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure the equitable distribution of highly effective teachers and principals in highpoverty and/or highminority schools
TL3B Extent to which state, in

▪ No statutory or policy prohibitions against ▪ ▪ ▪
instituting incentives for teachers and leaders to teach in high-need schools or districts Individual districts have provided incentives (e.g., Seattle Public Schools’ flight schools) Currently no reliable measures of teacher or leader effectiveness No incentives currently exist to attract principals to high-need schools

▪ Supply and demand are difficult to forecast as data
No plans for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers in shortage areas Local plans or unimplemented state plans exists for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers in shortage areas Successful state-wide initiatives exist for increasing number and percentage of effective teachers in shortage areas

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to increase the number and percentage of effective teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas

▪ ▪


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

on shortage areas is self-reported by districts and not through objective, standardized criteria Alternate routes account for only 1% of non-shortage area endorsements, but nearly 7% of shortage area endorsements State has full regulatory control over teacher and leader certification providers in revised code of WA – State preparatory programs cannot add new programs without state approval – State funds enrollment slots at public institutions – 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

| 68

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL4 Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL4

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs

Student achievement data not available, not linked to programs, or links not published

Student achievement linked to teachers or leaders but not to preparation programs

Student achievement linked to preparation programs and published

▪ No link between student achievement and teacher
preparation programs

▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
this year, linked to teachers but not to principals

▪ PACT 2.0 and ProTeach Portfolio will increase
links between student performance and teaching programs, but not for principals

Super Sub-criteria
TL4A Ability to link a student’s

▪ Student-level data (e.g., WASL) exists in CEDARS ▪ Student-teacher links available in CEDARS in
2010 Student achievement data available but not linked to teachers or principals Student achievement data linked to either teachers or principals Student achievement data linked to teachers and principals

achievement data to the student’s teachers and principals
TL4B Extent to which state, in

▪ No plans or frameworks for linking student
achievement data to principals

▪ Student data linked to teachers in CEDARS
starting 2010

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to link student achievement and student growth data to programs where teachers and principals were prepared for credentialing

▪ No link between OSPI student data and PESB
No link between student data and preparation programs Student achievement data linked to either teacher or principal preparation programs Student achievement data linked to both teacher and principal preparation programs teacher preparation data

▪ Currently no reliable measures of effectiveness ▪ State is adopting PACT 2.0 (Performance ▪ ▪ ▪

Assessment for California Teachers) to evaluate teacher effectiveness by 2011-2012 “Proteach Portfolio” initiative will correlate student performance to teacher assessments during 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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

| 69

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL4 Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL4

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs

Student achievement data not available, not linked to programs, or links not published

Student achievement linked to teachers or leaders but not to preparation programs

Student achievement linked to preparation programs and published

▪ No link between student achievement and teacher
preparation programs

▪ Student data available in CEDARS and, starting
this year, linked to teachers but not to principals

▪ 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 published Publication of data on some but not all applicable credentialing programs Publication of data on all applicable credentialing programs

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to publicly report findings for each credentialing program
TL4D Extent to which state, in

online, including approval status and site visit profiles Once findings for credentialing programs are available, publication would occur via existing website

▪ State has full authority to expand programs, but
No plans or authority to expand preparation and credentialing options Plans and authority to expand either teacher or principal credentialing options Plans and authority to expand credentialing options that are successful at producing effective teachers and principals

collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to expand preparation and credentialing options and programs that are successful at producing effective teachers and principals

▪ ▪

institutions of higher learning control number and type of certification programs and faculty State currently has no method for determining which teacher and principal credentialing programs are successful and should be expanded Ongoing PESB redesign of teacher and principal preparation program accreditation will shift enrollment money to institutions with best track records of quality, production, and placement

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

| 70

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL5 Providing effective support to teachers and principals
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
TL5

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Supports are focused on improving student achievement but are not job-embedded, datainformed, or continuously improved Supports are jobembedded, datainformed, and continuously improved to improve student achievement

Rationale

Providing effective support to teachers and principals

Principal and teacher supports do not exist or are not focused on improving student achievement

▪ Student data is available but not linked to teacher
or principal supports

▪ Teacher and leader supports tracked and
decisions made at local district level

▪ No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating
teacher or leader supports

Super Sub-criteria
TL5A Extent to which state, in

▪ Teacher and Leader supports are administered
and guided at the local district level

▪ Some districts (Highline) can track student data
Some, but not all specified supports are provided and data is not used to inform application of supports Data is used to inform application of all specified supports

No effective supports collaboration with provided participating districts, has a high-quality plan for its participating districts to provide effective, datainformed professional development, coaching, induction, and common planning time to teachers and principals that are, where appropriate, ongoing and job-embedded

▪ ▪

and teacher and leader supports, but capability varies widely by district CEDARS collects student performance data for compliance purposes and only tracks student performance on annual measures (WASL) that have 4-6 month lag School and district-level grades are available rapidly but currently not standardized Washington State Leadership Academy provides principals with coaching, mentoring, and training

TL5B

Extent to which state, in collaboration with participating districts, has a high-quality plan for its participating districts to measure, evaluate, and continuously improve the effectiveness of those supports in order to improve student achievement

▪ Currently the state does not link student
Link between student performance data and evaluation of supports does not exist and/or not used in any districts Links between student performance data and evaluation of supports exist in some but not all districts Links between student performance data and evaluation of supports exist throughout the state

▪ ▪

performance data and professional development and supports for teachers or principals Teachers, schools, and districts are responsible for reporting and collecting professional development data but it is not aggregated or tracked SKYWARD management system tracks student performance and is used by some smaller districts No statewide frameworks in place for evaluating teacher or leader supports

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

| 71

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL1A Washington has four alternate routes to teacher certification

Route 1

Description

Details

▪ For currently employed classified instructional employees with

transferable associate degree seeking residency teacher certification with endorsements in special education, bilingual education, or English as a second language

▪ Targets para-educators ▪ Allows candidates to continue working ▪ Takes longer to complete as candidates without
BAs complete remaining formal coursework

2

▪ For currently employed classified staff with baccalaureate degree
seeking residency teacher certification in subject matter shortage areas and areas with shortages due to geographic location

▪ Targets para-educators with BAs ▪ Allows candidates to continue working ▪ Successful in shortage areas like special ed ▪ Unpaid route requires candidates to be in ▪
situations where income is not essential Tends to draw early retirees and recent college graduates with financial support

3

▪ For individuals with baccalaureate degrees not employed by the

district (career changers), with priority given to those who are “seeking residency teacher certification in a subject matter or geographic shortage area” “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 ▪

received conditional certification to teach Participants earn full salaries and benefits while teaching under conditional certification

▪ Targets BA-holders switching into teaching ▪ Provides teaching salary and benefits while
candidates transition into teaching

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, New Teacher Project, September, 2009

| 72

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 Percent 8,023 Sources of Shortage area endorsements Percent 1,835 1,688 7,060 6,403 5,937 57% 1,376 47% 48% 1,308 1,312 1,260

60% Out of state 57% 64% 3,823

41% 37% 57% 3,676 45%

Alternative routes in WA have grown significantly, but still trail national average of 20%1 Alternative routes contribute greater share to shortage areas than nonshortage areas

32% 38% 29% 27% In-state public 26% 26% 22% 41% 38% 31%

27% 34% 24% 19% 27% 18% 14% 6% 2004 20% 18% 7% 2007

31%

In-state private Alternative route

17% 0% 2002

14% 0% 2003

15% 0% 2004

14% 0% 2005

26% 1% 2006

23% 1% 2007 3% 2002 4% 2003 5% 2005 8% 2006

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 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education; NY Times, October, 2009

| 73

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 student needs and utilize data to re-teach effectively For each student, a teacher can view incorrect responses by topic area

Class List Report for Period 2 Exam: Mathematics 3 Student Performance

GROUP AVERAGE

SOURCE: U.S. School District

| 74

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2B Evaluating teachers and leaders across several dimensions provides thorough and objective measures of effectiveness
ILLUSTRATIVE

Student achievement data

Peer assessments
Reviewers should be trained in interpreting data and conducting reviews

Teacher review process

School scorecards

Parent surveys

Student surveys

Observations
| 76

SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2C U.S. case study shows how student performance data can be used to inform decisions about teacher performance

1 Student performance is monitored in critical subject areas on the annual Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System test 2 Changes in student performance relative to the previous year are aggregated across the state, which serves as an index 3 Individual students are given an “expected” gain relative to the index based on past years 4 Students’ “actual” versus “expected” gains are compared, and teachers receive a score (e.g., 100 if “actual” = “expected”)

Clarity on which teachers are performing and which are not: allows schools to designate “mentor teachers” and learn from best practices Rewards for high performers to teach in highest-need schools: teachers who show the highest TVAAS gains are guaranteed an extra $5,000 per year in salary for the next three years if they teach in one of the nine low-performing elementary schools Consequences: schools that show the lowest gains are “reconstituted” by the district, with teachers dismissed on the basis of their performance

SOURCE: “The Real Value of Teachers,” Education Trust, 2004

| 77

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2D Other states have funding and policies supporting performance-based compensation for teachers and leaders

Many states support performance pay $ millions Arizona Texas Florida North Carolina Minnesota Ohio South Carolina Alaska
11 8 6

Case example Texas Educator Excellence Fund 407

▪ $260M dollars allotted to see if bonuses can improve
student achievement and teacher retention

260 148 103
86

▪ $100M to fund bonuses ($3K-10K) to teachers at lowerincome schools with “exemplary” or “recognized” performance ratings – 75%+ of each grant must go to teachers – 25% can go to principals and other school employees or activities that support teacher improvement

▪ $160M to fund local incentive plans devised by school
districts – 60%+ to teachers who improve student achievement – 40% can go to principals, teacher mentors, hard-tostaff 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 Main elements Teacher objectives set with principals Variation/flexibility in teacher objectives Description Principals work with individual teachers to set and agree on two annual objectives Objectives set using one of three methods: ▪ Student achievement defined by nationally normed tests ▪ Student achievement defined by teacher-developed, criterionreferenced tests ▪ Knowledge or skills attainment Impact to date ▪ Objectives: Over the four year pilot period, 89-93% of participating teachers received bonuses2 for at least one objective, and 78% of objectives have been met ▪ Student achievement: – Teachers who fulfilled both objectives had higher student gains – Higher quality teacher objectives were linked to higher student gains ▪ School-wide improvements: – Greater feelings of teacher cooperation – Improved quality of interactions between principals and teachers ▪ Union and community support: – Since 1999, > $6.5 million in grants from foundations – In March 2004, the union approved district-wide implementation3 – $25 million levy approved by voters in 2005 to fund program expansion

Joint sponsorship with union

▪ ▪

Pilot supported and implemented by City Public Schools and the city’s Teachers Association Four person Design Team included union and district appointees Third parties (e.g., foundations, corporate leaders, technical assistance/research providers) provide accountability for Design Team

Third-party involvement

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 and bottom minority enrollment quintiles2 $ average pay gap across schools by quintiles Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 -737 3,414 2,362 1,299 5,531

Gap between average teacher salaries in top and bottom poverty quintiles1 $ average pay gap across schools by quintiles Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 -1,589 3,170 1,773
822

5,024

1 Q1 = lowest poverty, Q5 = highest poverty 2 Q1 = lowest minority enrollment, Q5 = highest minority enrollment SOURCE: Education Trust West, 2005

| 80

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL3A Several states are experimenting with incentives for hard-to-staff positions
Washington offers NBCTs who teach in high-need schools a $5,000 incentive Seattle New York City teachers who accept a position in a high-need school can receive $3,000 if the school also shows evidence of achievement gains The federal government has established two programs: ▪ Teacher Incentive Fund to fund districts implementing innovative compensation alternatives to encourage highly qualified teachers to take positions in hard-to-staff schools ▪ TEACH program to provide students with grants of up to $4,000 per year if they intend to teach in a high-need field at a school that serves students from lowincome families

New York Denver Los Angeles Washington D.C.

Los Angeles gives a $1,020 bonus per semester for teachers in its Urban Classroom Teacher Program

Denver provides a 3 % bonus to teachers for hard-tostaff assignments

Charlotte gives $2000 to new hires or re-hires who accept assignments in one of the district’s high-need schools

While ~25 states are utilizing incentives to fill hard-to-staff positions, little to no research exists on the efficacy of these programs with regard to successful placement, attraction of high-quality candidates, or 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL3B Washington relies on district-reported data to identify shortage subject areas and demand for teachers
District reported availability of teachers Percent of teaching subjects Examples of subjects in each category

Considerable shortage

12%

▪ ▪ ▪

Mathematics Physics Special education

Potential issues with self-reported Potential issues with self-reported shortage area data shortage area data

▪ ▪
Some shortage 56%

▪ ▪ ▪

Biology Music Foreign languages

Needs are self-reported by districts Needs are self-reported by districts and not based on standardized, and not based on standardized, objective criteria objective criteria Surveys capture subjective data on Surveys capture subjective data on current needs but do not forecast current needs but do not forecast future needs future needs Subjects that are shortage areas in Subjects that are shortage areas in some districts might not be in others some districts might not be in others

▪ ▪

▪ ▪

Balance Some surplus Considerable surplus

26%

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

English Social studies Health/fitness

0%

6%

History Elementary education | 82

SOURCE: “Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State,” WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006, team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL3B Washington offers incentives to increase pool of teachers in shortage areas
Program1 Alternative Route Partnership Grant Program Incentive Description

▪ $500

▪ Provides districts with funding for mentor teacher stipends to

work with teacher interns training through an alternative route program affiliated with both the district and a partner university

Alternative Route Conditional Scholarship Program

▪ $8,000

▪ Provides participants in alternative route programs seeking their
first teaching certificate up to $8,000 to tuition, fees, and educational expenses, in the form of a loan that is forgivable after two years of teaching in Washington

Educator Retooling Program

▪ $3,000 to
$6,000

▪ Teachers adding shortage area subject endorsement to existing
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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 proposition Impact on teaching profession

Impact on size and composition of talent pool

Career path: – Fast-track promotions for high performers – Options to leave teaching and obtain attractive alternative employment after a fixed period Development and supports: – Additional training focused on building life skills also useful outside of teaching Compensation: – Special pay scale for highcaliber recruits – Signing bonuses for hard-torecruit subjects 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

Teachers recruited, by teacher type and school year Thousands of teachers Career switchers New to workforce


41 6

40 36 33 5 30 2 4 6

Teaching careers moved from the 92nd position of “most desirable next job” for 25-35 year olds to first place over four years Teacher applications increased by 35% over three years Midcareer applicants tripled over a four-year period and now represent 14% of all applicants

29 0

28 0

26 0

27 1

29

28

26

26

28

29

31

34

34

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 clear selection criteria (e.g., commitment to closing achievement gap, instructional knowledge) Uses a rigorous selection process (e.g., includes a written application, recommendations, group and individual interviews, role plays, and submission of writing samples)

The Aspire Principal Program is a 14month program defined by a curriculum rooted in research on effective leadership and based on the standards outlined in NYC’s leadership model Program includes: – Summer intensive institute – six weeks – Residency with an experienced principal – ten months – Planning summer to transition to leadership position Evaluation takes place at each step of the process and participants must meet strict performance standards to advance

The First Year Support program complements the Aspiring Principals program by providing extensive one-onone support from highly trained coaches with principal experience, leadership workshops, peer collaboration, targeted technical assistance, and a one-week summer seminar

▪ ▪
SOURCE: Team analysis

APP principals represent 13% of NYC public school principals and serve more than 100,000 students Students in APP schools show higher gains in reading, math, and science than students in other schools

The NYC Department of Education provides full benefits to participants in exchange for a five year commitment as an NYC principal

| 85

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL3B Another U.S. case study focuses on improving pipeline by implementing new preparation and licensure strategies

Background: Weak state preparation and licensure

To improve the quality of its pipeline, the state developed a more rigorous preparation and licensure program

▪ Large, diverse school

system creates communication and accountability challenges between the universities preparing school district leaders and the actual school system school leaders can earn principal certification and receive salary increases without taking the state licensure exam

Improve preparatory programs

Ensure rigorous certification requirements

▪ Partnered with the Atlanta-based

▪ There is a disconnect

Southern Regional Education Board (experienced in helping states revamp programs for school leader preparation) universities and school districts to focus on developing the selection criteria for candidates public university test sites)

▪ State licensing exam compulsory
to earn the master’s degree

▪ New “aspiring” license

▪ Emphasized partnerships between

▪ People who want to become

▪ Small pilots were launched (e.g., two ▪ Program selection: candidates for
principal training will no longer be able to “self-select” into programs

introduced: allows district superintendents to identify promising talent and place them into leadership roles as they go through a formal preparation program “exemplary” administrators – leaders identified as mentors to new and aspiring leaders

▪ A new position established for

SOURCE: Factiva, State education web sites, Education Week, team analysis

| 86

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

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 New Teacher Project TPP Univ. of Louisiana - Monroe Northwestern State Univ. Louisiana College Practitioner Univ. of Louisiana - Lafayette Louisiana Resource Center for Educators Practitioners
-3 -3 -3 -6 -2 1 1 3 0 1 2 -1 -1 -3 0 -1

Reading
2

Science
1 2 3

Social Studies
-0 3 1 3

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL5A Technology exists for monitoring real-time student data to tailor teaching methodologies
Sample outputs
Bench-mark assessment identifies atrisk students and their specific instruc-tional needs Real-time reports monitor 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 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL5B Washington does not offer teacher supports provided by many other states
Offered in WA Not offered in WA Support Professional development standards Professional development alignment Mentoring program Details Available in WA Percentage of states offering support 82%

▪ Formalized standards ▪ Aligned with local priorities ▪ For all new teachers ▪ Funded by state ▪ Financed by state for all
districts

▪ Yes ▪ No ▪ No ▪ Yes ▪ No ▪ No ▪ No
60%

50%

Professional development funding Induction program

48%

▪ For all new teachers ▪ Funded by state ▪ For selecting, training,
and/or matching mentors

44%

Mentoring program standards Time for professional development

40%

▪ Districts/schools required to
set aside time for professional development

32%

Reduced workload

▪ For all first-year teachers

▪ No

4%

SOURCE: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2008

| 89

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders

Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools 91 Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) 105 116

Appendix

142

| 90

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools
Key issues

Summary: Turning around the lowest-achieving schools
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
LS1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with
No authority to intervene Authority to intervene under certain circumstance in either schools or districts Full authority to intervene directly in both schools and districts current legislation requiring district cooperation

Intervening in the lowestachieving schools and districts

▪ Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are ▪
negotiated at district-level and can be obstacles to 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
LS2

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools

No plans for turnarounds Plans for identifying in place lowest-achieving schools exist, but strategies are not RTTT-approved or take longer than three years to execute

Plans for identifying lowest-achieving schools exist, strategies are RTTT-approved, and can be executed in under three years

▪ ▪

RTTT requirements, with WIIN launch pending updated student data Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with current legislation requiring district cooperation Proposed Required Action legislation will increase 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

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

| 91

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS1 Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and districts
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
LS1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with
No authority to intervene Authority to intervene under certain circumstance and/or with limited scope Full authority to intervene

Intervening in the lowestachieving schools and districts

current legislation requiring district cooperation negotiated at district-level and can be obstacles to elements of some turnaround strategies Proposed Required Action legislation would allow Washington to mandate turnaround of persistently low performing schools

▪ Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are ▪

▪ History and tradition of deferring to local authority
Super Sub-criteria
LS1A Extent to which the state

in turnaround situations

▪ CBAs vary from district to district and may prohibit
aspects of some turnaround strategies No authority to intervene in either schools or districts Authority to intervene under certain circumstance in either schools or districts but not both Full authority to intervene in both schools and districts

has legal, statutory, or regulatory authority to intervene directly in the state’s persistently lowestperforming schools and districts that are in improvement and corrective action status

▪ Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with

current legislation requiring district cooperation SBE authority to: – Place schools and districts in Required Action status based on specified criteria – Have audit findings addressed through CBA

▪ Proposed Required Action legislation includes

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

| 92

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2 Turning around the lowest-achieving schools
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
LS2

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Plans for identifying lowest-achieving schools exist, strategies are RTTT-approved, and can be executed in under three years

Rationale

▪ Summit District Initiative and WIIN satisfy several
No plans for turnarounds Plans for identifying in place lowest-achieving schools exist, but strategies are not RTTT-approved or take longer than three years to execute

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools

▪ ▪ ▪

RTTT requirements, with WIIN launch pending updated student data Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with current legislation requiring district cooperation Proposed Required Action legislation will increase 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 achieving schools based on comprehensive, objective criteria including student performance WIIN focuses on Tier III schools districts in improvement status WIIN implementation delayed pending student performance data update from OSPI Turnarounds in WA are strictly voluntary with current legislation requiring district cooperation

Super Sub-criteria
LS2A Extent to which state has a

▪ Summit District Initiative and WIIN identify lowestNo framework for identifying persistently lowest-performing schools Framework exists with subjective, but no objective criteria Framework exists with objective, quantitative criteria

high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to identify the persistently lowestachieving schools and, at its discretion, any non-Title I eligible secondary schools that would be considered persistently lowestachieving schools if they were eligible for Title I funds
LS2B Extent to which state has

▪ ▪ ▪

▪ “Other” strategy most commonly used in WA does
No support for any specified strategies State supports at least one but not all specified federal strategies State supports all specified federal strategies

a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to support districts in turning around schools by implementing one of the four school intervention models: ▪ Turnaround ▪ Restart ▪ Closure ▪ Transformation

▪ ▪

not satisfy RTTT criteria for “Transformation” approach Current voluntary approach allows local districts to select turnaround strategies Proposed Required Action legislation allows districts to select a turnaround strategy from proposed federal, state, and local approaches

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

| 93

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

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 at low-achieving schools is limited… …but proposed legislation will increase the state’s authority to turn around low-achieving schools

Selection approach

▪ Districts with schools in “improvement ▪ ▪
status” are invited to participate in turnaround process Interested districts make presentation to apply for assistance Turnaround process is entirely voluntary although Title I funds could be withheld or state can ask legislature for authority to intervene if low-performing districts fail to volunteer

Selection approach

▪ State identifies worst-performing ▪ Worst-performing districts are

districts and mandates turnaround identified by the following criteria: – Contain Title I and non Title I schools with extremely low overall achievement – Schools have not demonstrated growth in meeting or exceeding state average performance gains in reading and math for all students in five years

Obstacles to successful turnarounds

▪ State cannot compel districts to ▪ ▪ ▪

participate in turnarounds OSPI has no legal authority to force 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

Obstacles to successful turnarounds

▪ State history of honoring local control
at district level

SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education, Work Team

| 94

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS1A Proposed legislation will give the state the option of identifying “Required Action” districts for mandatory turnaround
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Step 2: Consider additional criteria Step 3: Identify lowest performers and invite to Voluntary Action Step 4: Move Required Action Districts that decline Voluntary Action into Required Action status

Step 1: Perform initial screen

Examples of required action Examples of required action elements elements

▪▪ Academic performance audit Academic performance audit

Based on federal school improvement guidelines: – Absolute achievement and improvement in reading and math

Duration of low achievement and greatest number of students/schools affected: – Years of performance data on state assessment – Feeder school patterns – Number of district students and schools with low achievement Details of low achievement: – Extended high school graduation rate – Sub-group performance on state assessments – ELL performance on WA Language Performance Test – District financial and human resource capacity – Number of credits earned by 9th graders

▪ ▪

▪ ▪

Identify persistently low achieving districts Notify these districts of their status as Voluntary Action or Required Action Districts Invite districts to participate as Voluntary Action Districts Voluntary Action Districts: – Contains Title I and Title I eligible schools with extremely low overall achievement – Schools have not demonstrated growth in meeting or exceeding state average performance gains in reading and math for all students in three years

Required Action Districts: – Contains Title I and non Title I schools with extremely low overall achievement – Have not demonstrated growth in five years

including, but not limited to: including, but not limited to: – District and school leadership – District and school leadership – Use of student performance data – Use of student performance data to inform decision making to inform decision making – Effectiveness of management – Effectiveness of management processes in making personnel processes in making personnel decisions (e.g., conferral of decisions (e.g., conferral of tenure, promotion, dismissal) tenure, promotion, dismissal) ▪▪ Required Action plan Required Action plan – Developed by local school board – Developed by local school board – Based on audit findings – Based on audit findings – Action plan strategy selected – Action plan strategy selected from federal, state, or local from federal, state, or local models models ▪▪ Implementation plan Implementation plan – How to remedy audit findings – How to remedy audit findings – Budget – Budget – Metrics – Metrics ▪▪ SBE approval and follow up SBE approval and follow up – Local school board provides – Local school board provides regular updates to SBE, OSPI, regular updates to SBE, OSPI, and community and community – Requires significant progress – Requires significant progress within three years within three years

SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education

| 95

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2A Approaches to identifying bottom 5% schools vary

Approach Absolute performance and progress

Description

Examples

Potential issues

▪ Absolute performance on state ▪

assessments in reading and math Progress on assessments over time relative to state average gains

▪ Proposed federal guidelines for
school improvement

▪ Availability of standardized,

comparable test data across all schools in the state over time

Aggregate student performance

▪ Rank all schools on a measure
of student performance - such as an average of math and reading performance on the state test – and identify lowest performing schools

▪ Pennsylvania uses PSSA ▪

scores in math and reading California ranks all its schools using an Academic Performance Index (API)

▪ Availability of standardized,

comparable test data across all schools in the state

Select student performance (achievement gap) Cross-state performance

▪ Rank schools based on

achievement gap between student groups on state math and reading tests

▪ NCLB requirements for schools
to make AYP

▪ AYP does not necessarily

identify bottom 5% schools

▪ Compare low-performing

schools across states using national, standardized criteria like NAEP

▪ AYP

▪ NAEP does not report schoollevel results

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, EdSource, 2003, No Child Left Behind Act, team analysis

| 96

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2B Proposed “Required Action” legislation would require turnarounds to show significant progress within three years

Support Support

Monitoring Monitoring

Consequences Consequences

▪ ▪

State provides resources State provides resources to help district execute to help district execute Required Action Required Action Implementation Plan Implementation Plan OSPI creates a list of OSPI creates a list of education management education management organizations and organizations and technical assistance technical assistance providers that could help providers that could help Required Action Districts Required Action Districts

▪ ▪

▪ ▪

Local school board and Local school board and districts are required to districts are required to provide regular reports provide regular reports to SBE, OSPI, and local to SBE, OSPI, and local community on progress community on progress in quarterly Required in quarterly Required Action District reports Action District reports – Strategies and – Strategies and assets to solve assets to solve problems problems – Evidence of – Evidence of implementation implementation – Evidence of impact – Evidence of impact – Progress monitoring – Progress monitoring data data

▪ ▪

If sufficient progress is If sufficient progress is not made in three not made in three years, SBE requires years, SBE requires local school board to local school board to create and implement a create and implement a new Required Action new Required Action Plan and/or shift to a Plan and/or shift to a different turnaround different turnaround model model SBE can require release SBE can require release of a Required Action of a Required Action District if OSPI District if OSPI determines sufficient determines sufficient progress is being made progress is being made against the district’s against the district’s Required Action Plan Required Action Plan metrics metrics

▪ ▪

SOURCE: Washington State Board of Education

| 97

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2B Proposed turnaround legislation allows “Required Action” plans to be based on one of several models
Category Federal Model Description
Turnaround models recognized by RTTT

▪ Turnaround ▪ Restart

▪ Replace principal and at least 50% of staff ▪ 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 ▪ Transformation

▪ Close school and transfer all students to higher performing schools ▪ Destination schools may include charter schools ▪ 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

Zone

▪ Not finalized, but will include the same elements as the federal transformation model ▪ 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

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 98

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2B RTTT specifies required activities for each turnaround model
Additional detail to follow

Model Turnaround

Required activities

▪ 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

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 99

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2B RTTT “Transformation” model is much more comprehensive than the “Other” model most commonly used in WA turnarounds
Element of Transformation Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness Required activities Permissible activities

▪ Replace principal who led school prior to commencement of transformation model ▪ Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluations for teachers and principals that: – Take into account data on student growth, take into account other factors such as
multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school graduation rates – 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

▪ Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff ▪ Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional practices
resulting from professional development

▪ Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher without
mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of the teacher’s seniority

▪ ▪ ▪

Comprehensive instructional reform strategies

▪ 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

▪ Conducting periodic reviews to ensure curriculum is being ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
implemented with fidelity 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 time and creating communityoriented schools

▪ Establish schedules and implement strategies that increase learning time ▪ Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement

▪ Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and

community-based organizations, and others to meet student needs

▪ Extending or restructuring the school day ▪ Implementing approaches to improve school climate and discipline ▪ Expanding school program to offer full-day K or pre-K ▪ Allowing school to be run under a new governance agreement ▪ Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula that is
weighted based on student needs

Providing operational flexibility and sustained support

▪ Give the school sufficient operating flexibility to implement a fully comprehensive ▪
approach to substantially improve student achievement Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support

SOURCE: Team analysis

| 100

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

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

1

Turnaround

▪ ▪ ▪

One school replaced all or most of school staff, including principal, 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 Method requires charter, CMO, or EMO replacement schools that do not exist in WA

0 Restart

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

| 101

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

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 Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) used a comprehensive approach to tackling weakness at lowestachieving schools Ofsted paid a monitoring visit to the Heartlands High School in March 2003, and discovered that the school – already in Serious Weaknesses status – had not made reasonable progress Ofsted applied a series of proven intervention measures to turn around the school and regularly monitored progress

Governance and leadership

School recruited a new head teacher (principal) with experience leading improvement in schools and an experienced governor who had worked with the head teacher to turn around another school Head teacher was resourceful in recruiting good staff and tapping into available programs She strengthened teaching and management structures to prioritize time available to teach Alternative curriculum was developed Curriculum helped motivate pupils who had not engaged well with academic subjects Positive vision for the school was shared by teachers and pupils Vision helped pupils understand the school’s expectations, particularly in relation to behavior Support staff took on more of the administrative tasks School introduced a monitoring system to measure progress in all areas

Teaching and learning

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Fourteen months later (May 2004), the school had made sufficient progress to come out of the Special Measures status1 School has further improved its Contextual Value Added (CVA)2 indicator between 2004 and 2007

Curriculum

Behavior

▪ ▪ ▪

Information and administration

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Turning around lowest-achieving schools

LS2B U.S. case example illustrates successful execution of restart strategy
Context Turnaround approach Results

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Large U.S. public school district (~600 schools) Long history of failed reform attempts and underperformance In 2004, launched its most radical reform to turn around its struggling schools Goal of shutting down 70 underperforming schools and opening 100 schools in their place by 2010

Accountability

▪ ▪ ▪

All new schools are held accountable for meeting state learning standards and are subject to closure by the district if they fail Five year performance agreement contract New office established to provide oversight and support Offers entrepreneurial freedom to operators to innovate (e.g., develop curriculum) Transformed schools are shut down and reopened all grades at once in elementary, and grade by grade in high school Schools can choose among three governance structures that provide different levels of freedom from 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

As of October 2008, 75 new schools have been established under turnaround program All ten turnaround high schools reported higher scores on standardized achievement exam in 2007 than comparison neighborhood schools Majority of program charter high schools reported higher graduation rates than their peers

Autonomy

▪ ▪ ▪

Operating context change

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
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

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 Higher Education Public Schools 27.2 0.5 10.2 5.2 % 5.7%

Historical and forecasted expenditures in education, 2001-2011 USD billions
24.5 0.4 10.3 28.1 0.5 11.7

20.4 0.4 8.2

22.0 0.4 9.2

Key takeaways

11.8

12.4

13.8

15.9

16.5

8.8%

The Washington state budget for education has been growing by 7.5% every 2-year period between 2001 and 2011 Growth has been driven primarily by spending on public K-12 schools, which has increased at a compound bi-annual growth rate of 8.8% Spending on education has remained approximately 23% of the state’s general fund between 2001 and 2011

7.5%
2001-03 2003-05 2005-07 2007-09 2009-11

PK-12 expenditures as a percent of state general fund Percent


23.8% 23.2% 22.7% 23.3% 23.8%

2001-03 Total State budget USD billions 49.53

2003-05 53.46

2005-07 60.52

2007-09 68.13

2009-11 69.39

SOURCE: Washington State Fiscal information – Budget, excluding 2010 budget proposal

| 105

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

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 improvement days for professional development on new math and science curriculum standards and best practices”

16,680 (100%) 357

(2%)

Large reductions in Student Achievement Program (~$600 MM) and Learning Improvement Day (~$35 MM) cushioned by federal grants in School Improvement, Special Ed, and Title 1 12

248 (2%) 12 11 74 (0.5%) Funding for data systems increases in difficult times 341 15,649 (2%)

2009-11 Teachers Maintenance Level

General Standards achievement improvement or gap reduction

Stem Specific

Data

Other1 Accounting 2009-11 (financial adjustments Biennium systems, safety, health, etc.)

RTTT priorities
1 Other includes school improvement ARRA funds, 2 Pension Rate Adjustments SOURCE: Washington State Budget Notes

| 106

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

Summary: Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools
0% RTTT compliant Criteria
CS1 Ensuring successful conditions for highperforming charter schools and other innovative schools

Key issues Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant

Rationale

No support of charter schools or charter schools prohibited

Charter schools allowed but legislation and supports receive grade of C or below in Center for Education Reform rankings

Charter schools allowed and legislation and supports receive grade of B or higher in Center for Education Reform rankings

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools ▪ No statutory support for charter schools and ▪ ▪

proposed legislation failed three times in 1996, 2000, and 2004 School of the Arts and other “schools of choice” exhibit some characteristics of charter schools Resource and funding constraints limit scalability of charter-like school initiatives

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

| 107

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

CS1 Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools
0% RTTT compliant Ensuring successful conditions for highperforming charter schools and other innovative schools No support of charter schools or charter schools prohibited Charter schools allowed but receive grade of C or below in Center for Education Reform rankings 100% RTTT compliant Charter schools allowed and receive grade of B or higher in Center for Education Reform rankings Rationale

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

CS1

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools ▪ No statutory support for charter schools and ▪ ▪

proposed legislation failed three times in 1996, 2000, and 2004 School of the Arts and other “schools of choice” exhibit some characteristics of charter schools Resource and funding constraints limit scalability of charter-like school initiatives

Sub-criteria
CS1A Extent to which state has a

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools ▪ No statutory support for charter schools but no
State law supports charter schools but limits number and/or enrollment State law supports charter schools and does not limit number or enrollment prohibition of charter schools or enrollment caps

State law prohibits charter school law that does charter schools and/or not prohibit or effectively caps enrollment inhibit increasing the number of high-performing charter schools statutes and guidelines regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools, including the extent to which student academic achievement is a factor in such decisions

▪ Several “school of choice” initiatives (e.g., School ▪
of the Arts) could be considered charter equivalents No cap on schools of choice, but few exist with resource and funding constraints limiting scalability

CS1B Extent to which state has

▪ Student performance data exists in CEDARS but
not linked to school performance No statutes or guidelines regarding how charter schools are authorized and/or no link to student academic achievement Statutes or guidelines exist for some charter school decisions but student academic achievement is not a factor in decisions Statutes or guidelines exist for all charter school decisions and student achievement is a factor in decision-making

▪ State has no role in running schools of choice decisions are made at district level and may or may not reflect student performance data

CS1C Extent to which

authorizers in the state have closed or not renewed ineffective charter schools

Authorizers do not have authority to close or not renew ineffective charter schools

Authorizers have authority to close or not renew ineffective charter schools but do not exercise that authority

Authorizers have authority to close or not renew ineffective charter schools and exercise that authority when applicable

▪ State does not operate schools of choice ▪ State has no authority to close schools of choice
based on effectiveness assessments

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

| 108

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

CS2 Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools
0% RTTT compliant Ensuring successful conditions for highperforming charter schools and other innovative schools No support of charter schools or charter schools prohibited Charter schools allowed but receive grade of C or below in Center for Education Reform rankings 100% RTTT compliant Charter schools allowed and receive grade of B or higher in Center for Education Reform rankings Rationale

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

CS1

▪ One of ten states with no charter schools ▪ No statutory support for charter schools and ▪ ▪

proposed legislation failed three times in 1996, 2000, and 2004 School of the Arts and other “schools of choice” exhibit some characteristics of charter schools Resource and funding constraints limit scalability of charter-like school initiatives plus additional funds, resources, support, and facilities Funding is equitable as current distribution of state funds (flat across state) Education reform bill (House Bill 2261) to develop new, equitable funding model for public schools by 2011 has passed

Sub-criteria
CS1D Extent to which state’s

▪ Schools of choice receive full public school funding
No charter school funding available Funding at 61% (national charter school average) of traditional public school funding and other revenue sources Funding at or above traditional public school funding and other revenue sources

charter schools receive equitable funding compared to traditional public schools, and a commensurate share of local, state, and federal program and revenue sources
CS1E Extent to which state

▪ ▪

▪ Schools of choice receive full public school funding
plus additional facilities and supports Charter schools receive no facilities support and/or stricter facilityrelated requirements than traditional public schools Charters receive some but not full facilities support and facilityrelated requirements are equivalent to traditional public schools Charters receive full facilities support and facility-related requirements are equivalent to or less strict than those applied to traditional public schools

provides charter schools with facilities funding, assistance, access, and other supports; and the extent to which the state does not impose facilityrelated requirements stricter than those applied to traditional public schools
CS1F Extent to which state

▪ No legislative support or prohibition on charter
schools and facilities

▪ Schools of choice (e.g., Tacoma School of the
No alternatives other than traditional or charter schools Alternatives other than Innovative, autonomous charter schools exist, but public schools other than not autonomous charters exist throughout the state Arts, Aviation HS, Delta HS) are innovative and autonomous, but do not possess all characteristics typical of charter schools

enables districts to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than charter schools

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education Reform, team analysis

| 109

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

CS1A Washington is one of only ten states without charter schools
Charter school legislation No charter school legislation
WA MT OR ID WY NV CA UT CO KS OK MO SD NE IA IL IN KY TN AR MS TX LA FL AL GA SC OH WV VA NC ND MN WI MI PA NY RI MA CT NJ DE MD DC VT ME NH

Charter school law ranking and scorecard States1 by letter grade A B C D F No Grade
4 10 10 13 3 11

AZ

NM

AK 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

CS1A Washington’s schools of choice share many traits with charter schools
Charter school characteristics Accountability National trends Washington schools of choice1

ILLUSTRATIVE
Not aligned with charter schools

Non-traditional schools2 (e.g., Contract-Based)

▪ Must meet federal and state regulations for performance ▪ Students take state-mandated tests ▪ Must also meet requirements defined in charter with authorizer ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Typically state and/or local district board authorize Many states ban management by for-profits Federal government, few states provide start-up help Enjoys funding from Gates foundation and other private funders

▪ Local district decisions

▪ Local district decisions

Charter development

▪ Teacher or district ▪
initiated Foundation support for planning and/or development

▪ District initiated and
sponsored

Autonomy

▪ Most states allow some level of legal and operating autonomy, and freedom ▪
from many specific curricular requirements (e.g., curriculum, but not standards) The “strongest” laws provide automatic waivers from state regulations; in most cases negotiations are required

▪ Freedom to develop ▪
curricula, including integrated themes Operational autonomy

▪ District driven, but
with exceptions according to school themes

Funding

▪ Charter schools have fiscal autonomy but in some states, state retains control ▪
over funding Fewer than half of charter states provide capital support, and therefore receive less overall funding (~60%-70% of per-pupil funding on average)

▪ Standard traditional ▪ ▪
sources Foundation support Nominal fees

▪ Standard per-pupil
funding

Labor

▪ In most states teacher certification required for all or a portion of teachers, and ▪
can be negotiated in some Freedom from some elements of collective bargaining can be negotiated in most states and districts

▪ In some cases local ▪
association waives CBA Some exempt from involuntary transfers

▪ CBA with local
association applies

Enrollment

▪ Charters are public schools, they must be non-sectarian, avoid racial or other ▪
discrimination Some may serve specific populations, but generally are open admission within the district or sometimes state

▪ Students outside of ▪
district eligible If oversubscribed, students admitted by lottery

▪ Some service more
than one district

▪ If oversubscribed,
students admitted by 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

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 1: Step 1: Collect student performance Collect student performance data data

Step 2: Step 2: Analyze student performance Analyze student performance data to inform Step 3 data to inform Step 3

Step 3: Step 3: Authorize, re-authorize, and Authorize, re-authorize, and close charter schools close charter schools

Status

CEDARS rollout currently underway

Analysis of student performance to make school decisions currently performed at district level, if at all

Authorization and closure decisions would remain at district level unless charter school legislation gives state power to make these decisions No state department or staff is currently charged with making decisions at school, district, or state levels based on student performance data

Current state approach to analyzing student performance data is focused on compliance rather than performance assessment at a teacher, school, or district level

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

| 112

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

CS2D U.S. case example reveals that access to funding is the primary issue facing charter school operators
Top challenges cited by charter operators Lack of start up funds Inadequate operating funds Lack of planning time Inadequate facilities State or local board opposition District resistance or regulations Internal processes or conflicts School administration and management Health and safety regulations State dept. of education resistance Percent of new charters citing challenge

54 40 37 35 20 19 13

Significant challenges remain despite strong planning and support, including:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Public support from Mayor and Superintendent National recruiting strategy Focus on proven models Provision of facilities financing Creation of school leader training program

12 12 11

SOURCE: Sanitized case example, 2000, 2007

| 113

Race to the Top Diagnostic: General

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 Minnesota Tennessee Idaho North Carolina New Mexico Rhode Island Iowa Arizona New York Texas Utah Wisconsin Connecticut Colorado Nevada California Florida Massachusetts Georgia Louisiana Michigan Arkansas Delaware Illinois D.C. NATIONAL AVERAGE Mississippi Pennsylvania Virginia Indiana New Jersey Oklahoma Kansas Hawaii Ohio Wyoming Alaska South Carolina Oregon Maryland New Hampshire
SOURCE: Center for Education Reform

99 94 94 92 86 85 85

77 76 73 72 72 72 71 70 70 69 69 68 67 66 65 64 64 63 61 61 60 60 60 58 57 57 56 54 53 51 49 49 48 45 37

Charter school funding relative to conventional public schools is low (national average = 61%) States without charter schools will still receive less RTTT recognition for charter schools than states with below-average charter school funding

| 114

Contents
Content Page
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

Appendix

142

| 115

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM
Key issues

Summary: Washington’s current STEM capabilities
Sub-criteria
ST1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant Students do not achieve within the top 25% of states in science or mathematics; the majority of students do not spend sufficient time studying rigorous mathematics and science curriculum, <75% of teachers have endorsements in their field Students achieve in the top 25% of states in science and mathematics; Some students spend sufficient time studying rigorous mathematics and science curriculum, 75% of teachers have endorsements in their field

100% RTTT Rationale compliant Students achieve in line with the top 10% of states in science and mathematics; All students spend sufficient time studying mathematics and science from endorsed teachers

Washington has a rigorous course of study in mathematics, sciences, technology and engineering

▪ Standards in mathematics and science have been ▪ ▪ ▪

newly adopted during the past two years, but have not yet been fully implemented Districts report shortages of teachers in each STEM subject, including considerable shortages in mathematics, physics and chemistry There is no centralized formative assessment available to teachers 20% of Washington elementary school teachers spend less than an hour a week teaching science

ST2

Community partners assist teachers in integrating STEM content across grades/ disciplines, promoting effective instruction, and offering applied learning opportunities for students

▪ There is a large number of community groups
No community involvement in STEM learning Some community involvement in STEM, insufficient engagement in teacher training, classroom learning or applied opportunities, but there is a lack of central coordination A coordinated group of community partners add value via teacher training and student learning in the classroom through applied learning opportunities in the community engaged across a range of STEM issues

▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps in
community involvement and working to fill them

▪ Most programs focus on improving content ▪

knowledge and teaching strategies and less on ensuring that content is relevant to current issues A portfolio of applied learning opportunities exist, however many programs aren’t widely available

ST3

More students are prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM, including underrepresented groups and girls

▪ Washington has fewer students earning science and
Students are unprepared for advanced study / careers in STEM; underrepresented groups and girls underperform other groups Some students are prepared for careers and advanced study in STEM, but some gaps exist All students are prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM

▪ ▪

engineering bachelors degrees than 32 other states, but is in the top four states in term of proportion of jobs in science and engineering 46% of Washington students needed remediation in mathematics in technical and community colleges in 07-08 There is an increasing achievement gap in STEM disciplines between white students and underrepresented minorities in AP scores and WASL passage rates

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

| 116

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1 Washington’s ability to offer rigorous course of study in math, sciences, technology and engineering (1/2)
0% RTTT compliant Sub-criteria
ST1

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

100% RTTT compliant Students achieve in the top 25% of states in science and mathematics; Some students spend sufficient time studying rigorous mathematics and science curriculum, 75% of teachers have endorsements in their field Students achieve in line with the top 10% of states in science and mathematics; All students spend sufficient time studying mathematics and science from endorsed teachers

Rationale

Rigorous course of study in mathematics, sciences, technology and engineering

Students do not achieve within the top 25% of states in science or mathematics; the majority of students do not spend sufficient time studying rigorous mathematics and science curriculum, <75% of teachers have endorsements in their field

▪ Standards in mathematics and science have been ▪ ▪ ▪

newly adopted during the past two years, but have not yet been fully implemented Districts report shortages of teachers in each STEM subject, including considerable shortages in mathematics, physics and chemistry There is no centralized formative assessment available to teachers 20% of Washington elementary school teachers spend less than an hour a week teaching science

Super Sub-criteria
ST1A High achievement in

▪ Washington’s students achieve in top 20% of
Washington’s students perform in the bottom 50% of states on the NAEP in mathematics and science Washington’s students perform in the top 50% of states on the NAEP in mathematics and science Washington’s students perform in the top 25% of states on the NAEP in mathematics and science states in mathematics NAEP states in science NAEP 8th grade TIMSS tests

mathematics and science

▪ Washington’s students achieve in top third of ▪ US students lag performance of other countries in ▪ 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 disciplines

▪ Revised mathematics standards were adopted in
Standards have not been revisited in more than five years, and are not tied to domestic or international best practice Standards are revisited at least every five years, and are not tied to domestic or international best practice Standards are current and based on domestic and international best practice and benchmarks

▪ ▪ ▪

2008 and revised science standards were adopted in 2009 Washington’s standards align with Common Core in mathematics on 11 of 16 elements New science standards are based on national education standards and AAAS benchmarks There is inadequate alignment between standards, instructional materials, professional development, and assessments in science

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

| 117

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1 Washington’s ability to offer rigorous course of study in math, sciences, technology and engineering (2/2)
Super Sub-criteria
ST1C Washington elementary

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant Washington has a lower proportion of teachers spending more than four hours per week on science and seven hours per week on mathematics than 50% of other states Washington has a greater proportion of teachers spending more than four hours per week on science and seven hours per week on mathematics than 50% of other states

100% RTTT Rationale compliant Washington has a greater proportion of teachers spending more than four hours per week on science and seven hours per week on mathematics than 90% of other states

students spend sufficient time learning STEM subjects

▪ 20% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported

teaching less than one hour of science per week and only 8% spend more than four hours of science 34% of Washington 4th grade teachers reported teaching more than seven hours of mathematics per week

ST1D Washington has sufficient

number of effective teachers to teach STEM disciplines

▪ District employees report “considerable shortage”
Districts report a considerable shortage of teachers and less than 90% of currently serving teachers have endorsements in their assigned subjects Districts report some shortage of teachers in no more than two STEM subjects, and do not report a considerable shortage in any subject and 90% of currently serving teachers have endorsements in their assigned subjects Districts report a balance or surplus of teachers in all STEM subjects and all currently serving teachers have endorsements in their assigned subjects

▪ ▪

or “some shortage” of teachers in all STEM subjects Nearly one quarter of high school mathematics teachers and one third of high school science teachers lack endorsements in their assigned subjects The growth in new STEM teachers in Washington is slowing, but at a lower rate than non-STEM teachers Elementary and middle school teachers lack instructional skill and knowledge in applying content to real world situations

ST1E Washington effectively

uses formative assessments to improve education in STEM subjects

▪ There is no centralized system for formative
Teachers do not consistently use formative assessment and do not have professional development to best interpret results and adjust lessons accordingly Teachers have access to some formative assessments that are tied to state standards; professional development is not consistently implemented There is a comprehensive centralized system for formative assessments available to teachers that is tied to curriculum and standards; teachers have professional development necessary to access tests, interpret results and alter their lessons accordingly assessment

▪ The state is implementing a system for formative
assessments

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

| 118

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST2 Cooperation with STEM-capable community partners to prepare teachers and improve learning (1/2)
Sub-criteria
ST2

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant No community involvement in STEM learning Some community involvement in STEM, insufficient engagement in teacher training, classroom learning or applied opportunities, but there is a lack of central coordination

100% RTTT Rationale compliant A coordinated group of community partners add value via teacher training and student learning in the classroom through applied learning opportunities in the community

Community partners assist teachers in integrating STEM content across grades / disciplines, in promoting effective instruction, and offering applied learning opportunities for students

▪ There is no central organizer identifying gaps in
community involvement and working to fill them

▪ Most programs focus on improving content ▪

knowledge and teaching strategies and less on ensuring that content is relevant to current issues A portfolio of applied learning opportunities exist, however many programs aren’t widely available

Super Sub-criteria
ST2A Community partners help

prepare teachers to integrate STEM content across grades and disciplines

Community partners are not involved in developing teacher capabilities and teachers do not consistently maintain up to date knowledge in STEM disciplines

Community partners with somewhat varying backgrounds and applications of STEM subjects contribute to developing teacher capabilities

A large number of ▪ community partners with diverse backgrounds and applications of STEM ▪ subjects are centrally organized to be integrated in developing teacher capabilities and ensuring they are up to date on latest applications of STEM disciplines

Community partners work with teachers and schools to help students learn how STEM disciplines are integrated There is no central organizer identifying gaps and working to fill them

ST2B Community partners

promote effective and relevant instruction

Community partners do not engage with students and are not involved in creating STEM curriculum and curriculum is not consistently up to date and relevant

Community partners engage with students to show how STEM subjects are integrated and can be applied in real-world situations for a some STEM subject areas; Community partners work with teachers to ensure that STEM curriculum remains relevant, up to date and applicable to students

Community partners engage with students to show how STEM subjects are integrated and can be applied in real-world situations for the majority of STEM subject areas; Community partners work with teachers to ensure that STEM curriculum remains relevant, up to date and applicable to students

▪ Community partners work with teachers and ▪ ▪

schools to promote effective and relevant instruction Most programs focus on improving content knowledge and teaching strategies and less on ensuring that content is relevant to current issues There is no central organizer identifying gaps and working to fill them

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

| 119

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST2 Cooperation with STEM-capable community partners to prepare teachers and improve learning (2/2)
Super Sub-criteria
ST2C Community partners offer

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant

100% RTTT Rationale compliant

applied learning opportunities for students

Community partners are not involved in offering applied learning opportunities to students

Community partners offer applied learning opportunities to students, but the opportunity is only available to a few students, or there is a low degree of relevance

A large number of community partners offer a high number of varied applied learning opportunities that enable students to see direct application of classroom

▪ Community partners work with teachers and ▪

schools to provide applied learning opportunities for students Rich learning opportunities exist, however most programs have capacity for only a limited number of students

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

| 120

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST3 Washington’s ability to prepare students for advanced study and careers in STEM (1/2)
Sub-criteria
ST3

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant Students are unprepared for advanced study / careers in STEM; underrepresented groups and girls underperform other groups Some students are prepared for careers and advanced study in STEM, but some gaps exist

100% RTTT Rationale compliant All students have to opportunity to be prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM

More students prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM, including underrepresented groups and girls

▪ Washington has fewer students earning science and
engineering bachelors degrees than 37 other states

▪ 46% of Washington students needed remediation in ▪

mathematics in technical and community college in 07-08 There is an increasing achievement gap in STEM disciplines between white students and underrepresented minorities in AP scores and WASL passage rates

Super Sub-criteria Washington is in the bottom 50% of states in terms of percent of students pursuing advanced degrees in STEM disciplines Washington is in the top 50% of states in terms of percent of students pursuing advanced degrees in STEM disciplines Washington is in the top 25% of states in terms of percent of students pursuing advanced degrees in STEM disciplines

ST3A Students are drawn to STEM disciplines in post secondary education and careers

▪ Washington has fewer students earning science

and engineering bachelors degrees than 32 other states, but is in the top four states in term of proportion of jobs in science and engineering

ST3B Students are prepared for advanced study in STEM disciplines

More than 25% of students require mathematics remediation in advanced study, and that proportion is increasing

More than 25% of students require mathematics remediation in advanced study, but that proportion is declining

Fewer than 25% of students require mathematics remediation in advanced study

▪ 46% of recent high school graduates in community
and technical colleges required remedial courses in mathematics in the 07-08 school year

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

| 121

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST3 Washington’s ability to prepare students for advanced study and careers in STEM (2/2)
Super Sub-criteria
ST3C Students are prepared for

Projected capabilities once current initiatives implemented Washington current capability

0% RTTT compliant Washington graduates secure jobs in STEM related fields at a lower rate than graduates from other geographic areas Washington educated candidates considered on equal footing to other candidates for jobs in STEM (illustrated by equal proportion of WA graduates in STEM positions)

100% RTTT Rationale compliant Employers seek out Washington educated employees for their advanced capabilities in STEM disciplines (as measured by high proportion of Washington graduates newly employed in STEM professions)

careers in STEM

▪ 48% of employers report difficulty finding entry
level employees with adequate mathematics skills

▪ The quality of CTE1 opportunities in STEM areas
varies considerably across districts and schools

ST3D STEM program addresses

learning needs of underrepresented groups (including girls and certain minority groups)

▪ The ethnic achievement gap tightened on the
Members of underrepresented groups have achievement (measured by test scores) more than 20% below that of historically higher achieving groups Members of underrepresented groups have achievement (measured by test scores) 10% below that of historically higher achieving groups Members of underrepresented groups have achievement (measured by test scores) in line with that of historically higher achieving groups

▪ ▪

mathematics WASL, but remained largely unchanged on the science WASL Both genders’ performance on the mathematics WASL has declined, while girls increasingly outperform on the science WASL Minority groups are taking an increasing portion of AP exams in science and math, but their scores are dropping relative to white peers

ST3E STEM program inspires

▪ Minority groups are underrepresented in STEM
Underrepresented minorities’ presence in STEM advanced degree programs is more than 25% lower than their proportional presence in the state Underrepresented minorities’ presence in STEM advanced degree programs is no less than 25% lower than their proportional presence in the state Underrepresented minorities’ presence in STEM advanced degree programs is proportional to their presence in the state advanced degrees

underrepresented groups (including girls and certain minority groups)

1: CTE stands for Career and Technical Education SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, team analysis

| 122

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1A Washington’s students achieve in top 20% of states in mathematics tests, but the U.S. lags other countries
Average mathematics TIMSS scores, 8th grade students by country, 2007 Average Score 1 Chinese Taipei 2 Korea 3 Singapore 4 Hong Kong SAR1,3 5 Japan 6 Hungary 7 England3 8 Russian Federation 9 U.S.3,4 10 Lithuania2 11 Czech Republic 12 Slovenia 13 TIMSS Average 14 Armenia 15 Australia 16 Sweden -15% 598 597 593 572 570 517 513 512 508 506 504 501 500 499 496 481 Average score in NAEP mathematics for 8th grade public school students, 2009 Average score -3% Massachusetts Minnesota New Jersey North Dakota Vermont 6 Montana 6 New Hampshire 8 South Dakota 9 Connecticut 9 Kansas 9 Washington 12 Maryland 12 Pennsylvania 12 Wisconsin 15 Colorado 16 National average 1 2 3 3 3 299 294 293 293 293 292 292 291 289 289 289 288 288 288 287 282

The U.S. ranks 9th on the TIMSS mathematics test, and is 15% lower than the highest scoring country Washington ranks 9th vs. other states on the NAEP, and scores 3% lower than the leading state Washington performs well vs. other states, but performs below international best practice

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 grade students by country, 2007 Average Score 1 Singapore 2 Chinese Taipei 3 Japan 4 Korea 5 England3 6 Hungary 6 Czeh Republic 8 Slovenia 9 Hong Kong 11 U.S.3,4 12 Lithuania2 13 Australia 14 Sweden 15 TIMSS Average 16 Scotland3 SAR1,3 9 Russian Federation -8% 567 561 554 553 542 539 539 538 530 530 520 519 515 511 500 496 Average score in NAEP science for 8th grade public school students, 2005 Average score 1 2 2 2 5 5 7 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 16 16 16 19 19 21 North Dakota Montana New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts South Dakota Wyoming Idaho Maine Minnesota Wisconsin Colorado Michigan Ohio Virginia Missouri Utah Washington Kentucky New Jersey National average -6% 163 162 162 162 161 161 159 158 158 158 158 155 155 155 155 154 154 154 153 153 147

The U.S. ranks 11th on the TIMSS science test, and is 8% lower than the highest scoring country Washington ranks 15th vs. other states on the NAEP, and 6% lower than the leading state Washington performs well vs. other states, but performs below international best practice

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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

▪ ▪

’04-’05

’05-’06

’06-’07 10th

’07-’08

’08-’09

Percent of students passing the Percent

grade science WASL

▪ ▪

+3% annually

35

35

36

40

39

45% of students passed the 10th grade mathematics WASL in 2009 10% fewer students passed the mathematics WASL in 2009 than did in 2008 39% of students passed the 10th grade science WASL in 2009 The passage rate on the science WASL has been increasing at a rate of 3% per year

’04-’05
SOURCE: Washington OSPI

’05-’06

’06-’07

’07-’08

’08-’09
| 125

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 students in Washington Exams taken Math1 Change in number of students receiving exam score, 2008 vs. 2003 Number of exam scores +14% annually
7,699 3,931

Math1
1,083 561 478 657 699

▪ ▪

2003 Science2

2008

1 Science2 1,634

2

3

4

5

+11% annually.
8,639 5,161

444

638

561

491

The number of students taking mathematics and science AP classes has increased at a CAGR3 of 14% and 11%, respectively However a larger proportion of students received a low score Increase in overall students taking AP courses is driving the increase in lower scores. (i.e., five years ago only the top students elected AP classes, whereas now more students opt for the 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1B WA mathematics standards align with Common Core college 1 readiness standards, but K-12 standards are not yet available
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Mathematical content standards Attend to precision Construct viable arguments Make sense of complex problems and persevere in solving them Look for structure Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning Make strategic decisions about the use of technological tools

No alignment Partial alignment Full alignment

Alignment of WA standards to Common Core College Readiness Standards

Mathematical practice standard

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 Functions – Functions model situations where one quantity determines another. Because nature and society are full of dependencies, functions are important tools in the construction of mathematical models Modeling – Modeling uses mathematics to help us make sense of the real world – to understand quantitative relationships, 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 SOURCE: Common Core Standards, OSPI analysis September 2009

| 127

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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
Washington Hawaii Idaho Oregon California Minnesota Arizona Wyoming Colorado Nevada Rhode Island North Carolina Florida Indiana Maryland Arkansas National Public Vermont Mississippi New Mexico Massachusetts Missouri Montana New Hampshire Oklahoma Utah Alabama Connecticut Georgia Ohio Texas Louisiana Michigan Tennessee Wisconsin Delaware Illinois Kentucky Maine New Jersey North Dakota South Carolina South Dakota Virginia West Virginia
15 15 17 20

More than four hours
Kentucky Louisiana Alabama Georgia Texas South Carolina Virginia Tennessee Ohio Maryland Michigan Delaware Mississippi Illinois Arkansas National Public Oklahoma North Dakota Florida New Jersey Missouri Wisconsin Colorado South Dakota West Virginia New Mexico Utah Maine Washington Rhode Island Indiana New Hampshire Connecticut Minnesota Arizona North Carolina Vermont Massachusetts Montana California Nevada Hawaii Idaho Oregon Wyoming
30 29 29 28 27 25 24 24 24 22 20 18 18 18 18 17 17 14 13 12 12 12 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 44 39 82

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

8

9

10 10

13 13 12 12

Kentucky and Louisiana have state-wide science assessments administered in 4th grade

20% of 4th grade teachers reported spending less than one hour per week teaching science Washington had the highest proportion of teachers teaching less than one hour of science of all states Only 8% of teachers reported spending more than four hours per week teaching science

SOURCE: NAEP, 4th grade teachers

| 128

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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
District of Columbia Alabama Arizona California Georgia Iowa New Mexico Utah Arkansas Florida Louisiana Mississippi New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Texas Wyoming Alaska Colorado Delaware Illinois Kansas Kentucky Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Pennsylvania Virginia Washington Connecticut Hawaii Idaho Indiana Maine Maryland Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey Ohio Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Massachusetts Michigan North Dakota Tennessee
4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4

More than seven hours
Texas Arkansas New Mexico Mississippi District of Columbia Hawaii Georgia Kansas Massachusetts North Carolina Nevada Washington Maryland Wyoming Montana California West Virginia Oklahoma Utah Louisiana Alaska New York Pennsylvania New Jersey Alabama Arizona Colorado Ohio Rhode Island Maine Florida Missouri Vermont Idaho South Dakota Tennessee South Carolina Minnesota Kentucky New Hampshire Iowa Delaware Virginia Connecticut Wisconsin Nebraska Michigan Oregon Illinois Indiana North Dakota
45 43 42 39 42 39 36 38 35 33 34 32 30 32 28 29 27 27 26 27 26 24 26 24 24 24 22 21 20 20 19 20 18 19 15 18 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 13 11 11 11 11 10 57 49

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2% of 4th grade teachers reported spending less than three hours per week teaching mathematics 34% of teachers reported spending more than seven hours per week teaching mathematics Washington had a greater proportion of teachers teaching more than seven hours of mathematics than 37 other states

SOURCE: NAEP, 4th grade teachers

| 129

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1D District employees report “considerable shortage” or “some shortage” of teachers in all STEM subjects
Perceptions1 of shortages of teachers in various subjects, 2006 Mean score2 Elementary Health/Fitness Social Studies English/Language Mid-level Humanities Traffic safety Reading Library French German Arts CTE Spanish Earth science English Bilingual Japanese Biology Science Mid-level Math/Science Science Chemistry Physics Mathematics Special Education Speech
2.37 2.67 2.70 3.08 3.08 3.19 3.30 3.47 3.55 3.61 3.62 3.68 3.84 4.00 4.02 4.03 4.05 4.08 4.16 4.19 4.20 4.25 4.26 4.51 4.52 4.63
STEM Non-STEM Considerable shortage Some shortage

District officials indicated there is at least some shortage of teachers in each STEM discipline Three STEM subject were identified as having “considerable shortages” of teachers, while five subjects were identified as having “some shortages” Shortages for STEM teachers are higher than all other category teachers excluding special education and speech

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST1D Nearly one quarter of high school mathematics teachers and one third of
high school science teachers lack endorsements in their subjects
Not Endorsed K-8 Endorsed Related Endorsed Pre-endorsed Subject Endorsed

Proportion of mathematics teachers with endorsements in math Percent High school

76

8 7 9


Middle school

34

12 6

44

4


Proportion of science teachers with endorsements in science Percent

High school

67

5 12

16

Nearly a quarter of mathematics teachers and a third of science teachers at the high school level lack endorsements in their assigned subject More than two thirds of mathematics and science teachers at the middle school level lack endorsements in their assigned subjects

Middle school

32

11

44

14

SOURCE: Professional Educator Standards Board, December 2008

| 131

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 Mathematics

318 -2% 312 279 -37% 175 105 -35% 68 47 -6% 44 183 -16% 153

01-02 05-’06

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Science Total Endorsements

The number of new STEM teachers endorsed in Washington has decreased across all disciplines between 01-06 However, the number of new endorsements in mathematics, physics and science has fallen by a lower percent than the number of total new endorsements of teachers in Washington

9,275 -18% 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST3A WA employers demand a high proportion of computer scientists and
Percent of workforce in science and engineering occupations, 2006 Percent Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Virginia Massachusetts Maryland Washington Colorado Delaware Connecticut Minnesota Michigan
6.5 6.1 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.5

engineers, but WA institutions produce few bachelors degrees in those areas
Percent of bachelors degrees conferred in computer science and engineering , 06-07 Percent Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.5 4.4 4.3 2.0 1.9

Arizona South Dakota Colorado Wyoming Indiana Maryland Michigan Montana New Mexico

11.3 11.3 11.0 10.8 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.1 10.0 9.9 7.3 5.0 4.0

9

10 Utah 33 Washington 49 Connecticut 50 Hawaii

• Washington has a higher proportion of its workforce in science and engineering than 46 other states • Washington produces fewer graduates in computer science and engineering than 32 other states • Washington demands more graduates in science and engineering than the state produces in its institutions of higher education

10 California 49 Mississippi 50 Arkansas

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce 2004 state Science and Technology indicators

| 133

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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

50


45

46% of recent high school graduates required remedial mathematics courses in community or technical colleges The proportion of students requiring 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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 & make decisions Take responsibility for learning Resolve conflict & negotiate Observe critically Cooperate with others Use math to solve problems & communicate Listen actively Read with understanding Use information & communications technology Speak so others can understand
42 39 37 49 48 47 63 62 58 55

Among employers attempting to hire in Washington state in the six months prior to the survey, 48% reported difficulty finding employees who are able to use math to solve problems and communicate 39% of employers reported difficulty finding employees able to use information and communications technology

SOURCE: 2007 Washington State Employers Workforce Needs and Practices Survey Statewide report

| 135

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 Math
3.2 6.1

05-06
3.9

08-09

-26.4

-23.8 -33.3

-26.6 -31.1

-24.4

-21.7

Science
0.7

3.3

1.4

All measured ethnic groups tightened the achievement gap relative to white students on the mathematics WASL between 2005-2008 Ethnic minority students continued to underperform white students on the science WASL

-21.4 -25.2 -27.5 -26.8 -25.4 -25.6 -25.6

American Indian

Asian1

Asian/ Pacific Islander1

Black

Hispanic

Pacific Islander

1 In the 05-06 data Asian/Pacific Islander and Pacific Islander were grouped into the “Asian” category SOURCE: Washington OSPI

| 136

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

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 55
50 45 40 35 30
Girls Boys

Science
42 40 38 36 34 32 30 2005-06

The achievement gap between girls and boys on the 10th grade mathematics WASL has not changed, but both genders have passed with decreasing frequency Girls are increasingly outperforming boys on the science WASL

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

SOURCE: Washington OSPI

| 137

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST3D Minority groups are taking an increasing proportion of AP exams in
Growth in exams taken by white and minority students in Washington between 2003 and 2008 Annualized percentage growth
Minority

science and math, but their scores are dropping relative to white peers

18.9

+50%
12.1

White

+16% 10.4

15.2 11.4

12.6

+33%


Math Science Total

Difference between average AP exam score of white vs. minority students in Washington in mathematics and science subjects Grade points
0.3
2003 2008

The number of minority students taking AP exams is growing 33% faster than the number of white students taking AP exams However, the achievement gap has increased overall, with the widest gap in science

+116%
0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

0.2

+71%

-11%

Math
SOURCE: The College Board

Science

Total | 138

Race to the Top Diagnostic: STEM

ST3E Minority groups are underrepresented in STEM certificates
Degrees awarded in Washington State in 2006-2007 in STEM related fields by race/ethnicity1 Percent

Asian

10.4 8.1 6.0 2.3 2.6 1.6 3.5 3.5 2.6 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.6

17.4

Bachelors Masters Doctoral Population average2

Black

▪ ▪
8.3

Hispanic

Most minority groups are underrepresented in STEM advanced study The underrepresentation increases in masters and doctoral degrees

Native American 0

75.6 White 77.2

83.1

88.7

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
2 9 13 14 23 41 64 91 105 116

▪ ▪ ▪

Introduction Review of Washington State’s initial position Detail on each requirement area

– – – – – – –

Criteria A. State success factors Criteria B. Standards and assessments Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders Criteria E. Turning around lowest-achieving schools Criteria F. General Competitive Priority: STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)

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…
Estimated score in criteria where there is limited leverage to gain points Points Policy reform CO MA WI DE LA PA MN RI WA 33 56
68

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES

Historical performance
72 76 67 76 77 71 69 74

85 71 76 63 62 67 66

157 147 143 139 139 138 135 130 Possible additional points with policy changes

101

46

147

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 SOURCE: Team analysis

| 141

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

…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 Securing district commitment Turning around the persistently lowest achieving schools Using evaluations to inform key decisions Providing effective support to teachers and principals Developing evaluation systems Ensuring capacity to implement Translating district participation into statewide impact STEM Using data to improve instruction Ensuring equitable teacher distribution to high poverty schools 0 0
5 5
Current score

0
5

45 30 28 18 15 5 15 15 13 10 10 10 10 15

Opportunity (gap between full points and WA current score)

0
2

0

Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 4 Supporting transition to enhanced standards / high-quality assessments Conducting annual evaluations Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects/specialty areas Using broad stakeholder support Measuring student growth Accessing and using State data Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools
SOURCE: Team analysis based on diagnostic

3 3 5 32 41 41 41

7 7 5

| 142

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

Policy barriers exist that prevent Washington from achieving maximum points
Criteria


Turning around lowachieving schools

LS1 – Intervening at the lowest-achieving schools and districts LS2B – Implementing one of four intervention models

Possible points 10

Policy barrier

35

Legislation required to remove barrier Current turnarounds are strictly ▪ “Required Action” gives state voluntary and require district the authority to compel districts cooperation with persistently low-achieving schools to participate in turnarounds Districts are free to select any turnaround strategy, not limited ▪ “Required Action” provides to the four recommended by state with recourse should RTTT districts choose strategies that do not sufficiently address audit findings State cannot implement performance-based decisions or effectiveness assessments in districts where prohibited by CBAs


Great teachers and leaders

TL2B-TL2D – Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

53

Legislation that supersedes CBAs prohibiting performancebased personnel decisions and/or effectiveness assessments


Priorities

CS1 – Ensuring successful conditions for highperforming charter schools and other innovative schools

40

No legislative support for charter schools or other innovative schools

SOURCE: Team analysis

Legislation that expressly encourages the development of innovation schools. Legislations that encourages the development of charter schools and permits, supports with facilities and funding comparable to traditional public schools, and does not put a cap charter schools. | 143

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

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 High school in Korea WA - minimum hours of instruction in grades 1-12 OECD average WA average number of hours of instruction
648

1,500 1,190 1,000
921

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

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

Activities in other states (1/4)
State California Headline Schwarzenegger OKs School Bill to Pave Way for Federal Funds Details California removed the legal ban on using the results from student tests to evaluate teachers More legislation is needed however, including a lift on the charter school limit Special legislative session called by Gov. Schwarzenegger to discuss reform Allow parents with special-need students to use vouchers to purchase services from private schools Committee debated new legislation that aims to encourage the creation of new charter schools Board meeting held that discussed linking merit pay to student achievement Faced opposition from Teacher’s Union Move would allow CT to compete for RTTT funds New four year union contract includes provision which allows test scores to be included in teacher evaluations Board of Aldermen still have to approve contract All educators would need to have bachelors degree with a major or minor in subject they’re teaching New test on content and teaching methods Districts would have the ability to hire superintendent and principals without traditional educational backgrounds Two bills have been proposed which would allow charter schools Various unions are lobbying against the bill | 145

Colorado

Compromise to get the Race to the Top money

Connecticut

Talk of linking teacher performance to pay in RTTT application New Haven, CT Teachers Union Approves RTTT Friendly Contract

Indiana

State Superintendent Proposes New Licensing Requirements

Kentucky

Proposal Seek to Bring Charter Schools to Kentucky

SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

Activities in other states (2/4)
State Louisiana Headline Commission backs graduation rates Details LSU must increase its graduation rate to 75% by 2018 and all other 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. Outlines options on proposed plan for RTTT Describes more details on the proposed plan, including amount of money to go to turnaround/charter schools Message delivered at a forum by Scott Pearson, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary at DOE Maine 1 of 11 states that have yet to allow charter schools Race to the Top Coalition formed to lobby the state to apply for 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 Some districts use new measuring tool that is based on students’ rate 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 | 146

State plans for school innovation Local schools urged to earn a share of $4.3 billion from feds Maine Maine Risks Losing Funds because of Charter Schools Prohibition Coalition formed to Push State to Raise Charter School Limits

Massachusetts

State refines how it tracks MCAS scores

SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

Activities in other states (3/4)
State New York Headline State charting new course for old HSs Details State officials are seeking to dismantle as many as a dozen large city 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 Proposal embraces alternative pathways for teachers Would remove certain moratoriums for Ohio community schools, such as virtual and e-schools Former mayor appointed to be chief of education innovation and strategy OK has hired consultants and other strategists to raise money and compete for the grant Committee has been formed to draft 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 Ed Commissioner assembled a 23-member committee “We have very few barriers and we have a lot to put forward,” she said | 147

Ohio

RTTT Legislation Proposed

Oklahoma

Governor Appoints New State Education Official to Oversee RTTT Process State Plans on Writing RTTT Application

Oregon

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Enters Race for Grant

1: CUNY: City University of New York SOURCE: Team analysis

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Appendix

Activities in other states (4/4)
State Tennessee Headline Tennessee Education Chief Says Innovation is Key to Gaining $400M Grant Details Tennessee is an actively pursuing the grant; stands to get $400M Ed Commissioner Webb opined that the state is one of the 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 State Board of Ed convened summit to ascertain how to involved with RTTT process State is already fulfilling many of the grant requirements An effort has been launched in the state Capitol to legislative changes that would allow the superintendent of public instruction to order curriculum and personnel changes in chronically failing schools. Details specific initiatives around all four assurances that governor plans to see through to prep state to win RTTT, including: – 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 The Senate Education Committee is expected to approve a package 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 | 148

Utah

Utah Seeks Part of RTTT Grant State education chief may get new intervention powers Governor Doyle Pushes Reforms to Help Wisconsin Students Achieve Success

Wisconsin

Education reform on the fast track

SOURCE: Team analysis

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful