ARRA and Education Reform

1. ARRA and Education Reform What the Stimulus can tell Us about ESEA Reauthorization Mary Kusler American Association of School AdministratorsJanuary 28, 2010

2. Reauthorizing ESEA President Obama and the State of the Union Secretary Duncan announced that the administration would like to start reauthorization and get it done quick. The administration’s plan will be released sometime this spring. Raise the Bar-Close the Gap Tight on Goals-Loose on Means Foster Equity, Opportunity and Reform Recognize, reward and Replicate Success Develop a Culture of Innovation and excellence Optimize Investment

3. A New Outlook on Funding “Instead of focusing on the status quo, we only invest in reform” – President Obama • More competitive grants, less formula – fund innovation, eliminate bureaucracy. • Fewer programs, more money. • Fund Innovation – expansion of Race to the Top. • Not sure how to deal with the funding cliff of ARRA.

4. A New Vision for Federal Education Policy Four Key Areas of Education Reform: the four assurances…. • Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution • Improving the Collection and Use of Data • Improving the Quality of Standards and Assessments • Improving Struggling Schools

5. Increased Congressional support for common core (not national) standards. CCSSO and NGA have joined together with 48 states and territories to develop them. Partnership also with Achieve, ACT and the College Board. States may choose to include additional standards beyond the common core as long as the common core represents at least 85 percent of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics. What if Congress requires adoption of common core in order to receive Title I? Still unclear what Congress sees as their role in this. Common Core Standards

6. American Recovery & Reinvestment Act • $4 billion – Race to the Top state grants to be based on distribution of teachers, creation of longitudinal data systems, development of assessments for special education and ELL and efforts in school improvement • $350 million – Development of new national assessment to the Common Core Standards • $650 million – Innovation Grant local district and non-profit grant for innovative practices • $1.35 billion – New Race to the Top Fund state and local grants based on the current process

7. Jobs Bill • House Passed a Version of the Jobs Bill before Christmas • $23 billion for Teacher Job Retention • $3 billion to make the school construction bonds more marketable • Senate is currently determining their version • $18 for Teacher Job Retention • $3 billion to make the school construction bonds more marketable • Debating bonds versus direct grants

8. Race to the Top • States will have to submit “plans for reform” that will be comprehensive, coherent, integrating and incorporate all four assurances under the SFSF. • State must have both SFSF Phase 1 and Phase 2 applications approved. • State may not have any legal, statutory or regulated prohibiting the linking of student achievement data to teacher or principal evaluations. • Phase One Applications were due January 19, 2010. (Awards announced April 2010.) – 40 including DC applied. • TX and MT have chosen not to apply. • Phase Two Applications Due June 1, 2010. (Awards announced September 2010.

9. Application Priorities for RTTT • Absolute Priority – Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform • Competitive Preference Priority – Emphasis on Science, Technology, Education and Math (15 point potential boost). • Invitational Priority - Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes • Invitational Priority – Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems • Invitational Priority – P-20 Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment • Invitational Priority – School-level Conditions for Reform, Innovation and Learning • States will be judged on their application score based on a potential 485 points. • Department of Education is looking for massive reforms not just tweaks.

10. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution • # of HQT – broken down by Free and Reduced Lunch data • Does state teacher plan ensure that low-income and minority students are not taught at higher rates by inexperienced/ out of field teachers? • Describe the systems used to evaluate teachers & principals • Do the systems include student achievement and growth? • # & % of teachers and principals at each level of the evaluation system, if applicable • Is this information for teachers publicly accessible (# and %)?

11. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Improving the Collection and Use of Data • State progress towards 12 elements in the COMPETES Act • Does the state provide math and language arts teachers student growth data of current and last year’s students in a timely and instructional manner? • Does the state provide math and language arts teachers with reports on individual teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments?

12. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Improving the Quality of Standards and Assessments • Approval of the state’s assessments under ESEA • Status of alternate assessments for students with disabilities (grade level, modified or alternate academic achievement standards) • # and % of students taking alternative assessments. • Are there native language assessments available? • A state review within two years of the quality of special ed and ELL assessments. • Does the state report card include the latest NAEP results in reading and math?

13. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Improving the Quality of Standards and Assessments (cont’d) • # & % of high school graduates, using cohort model • # & % of graduates who enroll in higher education within 16 months of graduation • # & % of graduates who enroll in a public higher education within 16 months of graduation and complete one year college credit within two years of enrollment in higher education

14. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Supporting Struggling Schools • Average statewide gain in “all students” & statewide school gain in all subgroups on math and language arts. • # and % of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action or restructuring that have made progress in math or language arts. • Definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” • # and identity of Title I “persistently lowest-achieving schools” • # and identity of schools in the lowest achieving five percent that have turned around, consolidated, closed or transformed in the last year

15. Meeting the Assurances under the SFSF • Supporting Struggling Schools (cont’d) • # and identity of secondary schools who are eligible but do not receive Title I $ but are “persistently lowest-achieving schools” • # and identity of secondary schools who are eligible but do not receive Title I that have turned around, consolidated, closed or transformed in the last year • # of charter schools permitted to operate in the state • # of charter schools currently operating • # and % of charter schools that made progress on math or language arts assessments in the last year • # and identity of charter schools that have closed in the last 5 years and the reason for which a charter was closed: financial, enrollment, academic or other reasons.

16. Shifting Priorities due to ARRA • $3.5 billion for School Improvement Grants; • Money will be targeted to bottom 5% performing schools in each states. • Schools will have to choose one of four possible interventions. • Turnaround – fire principal and 50% of staff, institute a new curriculum • Restart – close school and restart as a charter or under an educational management organization • School Closure – close school and send students to other schools • Transformation – fire principal, grant new budgeting and scheduling flexibility, new curriculum, intensive professional development, community schools model • Districts will have to build capacity and put in place the expertise for school improvement

17. Innovation Fund • $650 million available through competitive grants to school districts and non-profits (including higher education) through winter and spring windows • Grants will be given out in three tiers: • Development Grants - for new programs. • Two phase application: first round, then invitational for the second round. • Must have reasonable hypothesis. • Validation Grants - for current programs that need to build a research base or expand organizational capacity. • Must have moderate research evidence. • Scale Up Grants - to scale up current proven programs • Must have strong research evidence.

18. Innovation Fund • Must meet one of first four priorities: • Innovations that Support Effective Teachers and School Leaders • Innovations that Improve the Use of Data • Innovations that Complement the Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality Assessments • Innovations that Turn Around Persistently Low-Performing Schools

19. Innovation Fund • Applicants will be given a higher rating if they also include one of the following: • Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes • Innovations that Support College Access and Success • Innovations to Address the Unique Learning Needs of Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students • Innovations that Serve Schools in Rural School Districts

20. Innovation Fund • Applications will focus on: • Impact & Design: How many students will your innovation impact? • Research: Looking for quality and relevant evidence for practices that will scale up. • Local Match: Required 20% local match, preferably from philanthropic sources. Can be considered an in-kind contribution. • Evaluation: Must set up an independent evaluation. • Strategy & Capacity to Scale: If successful could the applicant expand this program? • Sustainability: limited funding window, how will program continue?

21. Next Steps: Time for You to Get Involved • All of these proposals are the basis for ESEA reauthorization. Make sure your voice is heard!! • Superintendents have a unique expertise when it come to the ins and outs of educating children. • The timeline for action will be quick, even if they don’t complete it next year. Need to weigh in early and often. • ESEA Reauthorization will be high stakes impacting all education “reform” going forward. • Take the time to educate your senators and representatives of the good work being done to improve student achievement.

22. Any questions? Mary KuslerAssistant Director, Advocacy & PolicyAmerican Association of School Administrators801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 700Arlington, VA 22203(703) 875- 0733mkusler@aasa.org