1/15/2010 Update

Dear ACSA Leaders and Members:

The final RTT State Plan and Application was posted this afternoon. Please go to www.caracetothetop.org to download. The State Plan is 124 pages and the Appendix is a mere 443 pages! Regarding funding, the state is requesting $1 billion of which $700 million would be dedicated to LEAs. This is better than we anticipated. We had urged 80 percent. There is also a principal institute to be competitively bid at $2.4 million. There is also detail regarding local MOU obligations. I will be on vacation next week and then Superintendents Symposium so I will not be completing a summary for a couple of weeks and wanted to alert you immediately.  

Happy reading!

Sherry Skelly Griffith
ACSA Governmental Relations
1029 J Street, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
916-329-3805
sgriffith@acsa.org

Sent From Sherry on January 13...

Dear Board Members and ACSA Leaders:

The update below will go out to all ACSA members Thursday. Please note we achieved two significant victories under RTT. Inclusion of our sponsored bill vetoed last year by the Governor (AB 429 Brownley) to link student assessment data to CALPADS to begin to generate a student growth model and the inclusion of an independent standards commission. Its been a very rough few months and I have the bruises to prove it! See you all soon. Sherry

Race to the Top: Latest Update
Politics and Making Sausage; Not a Pretty Sight
Some Wins and Some Losses
Sherry Skelly Griffith sgriffith@acsa.org
ACSA Governmental Relations

Nineteenth Century German leader Otto von Bismark has proven yet again that “Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.” Both Race to the Top (RTT) bills that passed and signed into law last week went from barely in print on Tuesday, January 5 to signed into law by Thursday, January 7. In 48 hours significant reforms after four months of work.

ACSA Succeeds in Securing Sponsored Bill Language on Individual Student Growth and an Independent Standards Commission

We are pleased to report that an independent standards commission has been included in final RTT legislation to ensure a fair and balanced review and comparison between California’s math and English language arts standards and the national effort to develop common core standards.  Also considered a significant victory for ACSA is the inclusion of our sponsored bill language on individual student growth; linking student assessments with CALPADS to begin to move towards a true growth formula. This language was contained in our sponsored AB 429 (Brownley) but was vetoed last session.

What ACSA Championed: The wins and the losses

From the onset and based on ACSA membership input, we have stood for the right to see the final RTT State Plan before LEAs make  any long term commitments. We still await the final plan. We have stood for no new unfunded mandates at a time when we have been devastated by budget cuts. We fought hard for a minimum 80% of the RTT funding going directly to LEAs rather than to state bureaucracy.  We fought for more than the four federal “cures” for struggling schools. We fought for charter quality. We advocated for a fair and balanced standards review process and individual student growth data. And last but not least, we stood behind the rights of principals to be fairly evaluated and not arbitrarily removed from their jobs. We did not achieve all of our goals in legislation but some areas have been included. We continue to advocate our goals be part of the final RTT State Plan and will keep you apprised as they state submits the plan on or before January 19, 2010.

Summary of RTT Legislation Impacting all LEAs

Both Bills in Effect April 2010

SB X5 1 (Steinberg/Brownley): Race to the Top Requirements (RTT)

SB X5 1 is considered the measure that implements the main provisions of RTT not only for the LEAs who have signed the RTT MOUs but also provisions applicable to all LEAS.

Main Provisions:

Standards and Common Core

• Establishes an independent 21 Member Academic Standards Commission appointed by the Governor and Legislature (majority teachers). They are charged with developing content standards in mathematics and language arts. The standards shall be internationally benchmarked, build toward college and career readiness and consist of at least 85 percent of the common core standards developed nationally in consortia. We anticipate they will build upon California’s current standards
• By July 15, 2010 the Commission will present their recommendations to the State Board of Education to either reject or adopt by August 2, 2010.
• If adopted, the State Superintendent and state board shall present a schedule and implementation plan to the Governor and Legislature.
• 30 month timeline for the development of instructional materials is waived for purpose of adopting new standards aligned materials based on revised standards. This is likely to bring the adoption cycle back to 2013-2014 (math and ELA respectively).

Quality Assessments, API and Student Growth

• By July 1, 2013, develop a method to determine group and individual performance growth results from a longitudinally valid assessment system, addressing interactions with the API. PSAA will make recommendations to the SPI by January 1, 2011, on how to measure group and individual academic growth. ACSA strongly supports. Contains language from our sponsored bill AB 429 vetoed last session.
• Extends the STAR program for two years from July 2011 to 2013. This allows for the modification of assessments to match common core standards. ACSA supports
• PSAA will make recommendations on how to increase emphasis on science and math in the API.
• Recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2011 to revise the API to include a measure of pupil skills and knowledge to succeed in obtaining entry level employment or postsecondary education.

Data Systems – K-12 Impact

• Authorizes data in the California Educational Information System (which includes CALPADS) to be used by LEAS for evaluating teachers and administrators and for making employment decisions so long as those decisions are in compliance with current collective bargaining laws.
• Legislative intent to include career technical program data operated by LEAs.
•  Authorizes LEAs to access data for its own pupils via CALPADS, share data with other LEAS to the extent permissible under state and federal law, access data for pupils who intend or have been transferred to an LEA parental notification.
• Requires liability for decisions related to managing data regarding potential violations of FERPA to be held by the CDE for decisions under its control, an LEA for decisions under their control and the CDE and LEA for decisions under “joint control.” Liability is also vested with researchers releasing data in violation of state or federal law.

Struggling Schools

This applies to all LEAs not just those who signed a RTT MOU

Definition of “Low Achieving” and “Lowest 5 Percent”

• Defines “low achieving schools” as schools that have been identified for improvement (program improvement), corrective action (program improvement Year 3 plus), or restructuring (program improvement Year 4 plus) and high schools who have graduated less than 60% of pupils each year for the last three years.

• Of those schools a definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” that are in the lowest 5 percent of low achieving schools (as defined above) and high schools that have graduated less than 60% of their students in the last three years.
• If allowed by federal law, exempt county community schools, juvenile court schools, special education schools and schools that have grown at least 50 points on the API in the previous five years form the low-achieving category unless returned by decision of the State Superintendent or State Board. District Community day schools may be exempted by joint action of the State and Board and State Superintendent.

Required District Interventions

• LEAs if they have one of the state identified 5 percent of schools must impose one of four RTT models as defined in federal RTT guidelines. Before selecting one of the four interventions the LEA must hold two public hearings. One hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting and one hearing at the school site.
   

1. Turnaround Model – Replace the principal and grant the new principal sufficient operational flexibility (staffing, calendars, budgeting, etc.) to implement a comprehensive reform approach. Screen existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent. Select new staff. Provide ongoing financial incentives for staff and professional development. Adopt a new governance structure at district level to have turnaround schools report. Extensive use of data to inform decisions. Provide appropriate social-emotional strategies, community services and increased learning time among, other reforms.

2. Restart Model – Convert to a charter school or close and reopen under a charter school operator, a charter management organization or an education management organization selected through a “rigorous review process.” A restart must enroll within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school.

3. School Closure -  Close school and enroll students in another school in the LEA that is higher achieving.

4. Transformation Model – Replace the principal. Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals. Identify and reward school leaders and teachers and other staff who have increased student achievement and graduation rates. Provide ongoing professional development and financial incentives and flexible work conditions. Ensure the school is not required to accept a teacher, regardless of seniority. Ensure comprehensive instructional reform strategies. Additional extensive requirements.

If a school identified has implemented, in whole or in part within the last two years, an intervention that meets the requirements of Turnaround, Restart, or Transformation, the school may continue or complete the intervention being implemented.

We anticipate the CDE will provide information on all four models once the list of 5 percent is developed and the bills go into effect (April 2010). To view the actual federal language go to Appendix C in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions and Selection Criteria; and in Notice Inviting Applications under RTT at www.ed.gov

Additional bill provisions not covered in this summary are included under SB X5 1. If you would like to review the bill in print please go to: www.sen.ca.gov then click on Legislation then input bill number SB X5 1 (Steinberg). Please do the same to view SB X5 4 in its entirety.

SB X5 4 (Romero): Open Enrollment Act and Parent Trigger Programs

SB X5 4 is also considered part of the Race to the Top however many groups argued including ACSA, these new programs were not required to apply for RTT nor do they garner many points for RTT competition. Open enrollment is not mentioned under RTT. SB X5 4 was “double joined” causing many groups to oppose because both the main RTT bill and this bill had to be passed and signed as a package. ACSA did not support SB X5 4 based on unfunded mandates and as unnecessary for RTT.

Romero’s bill does the following:

Open Enrollment Act (there is no sunset on this program but includes an evaluation in 2014).

Different and Additional Formula to Label Schools “Low Achieving”

·        Creates a another list and another definition of “low-achieving” schools by creating an annual list of 1,000 schools ranked by increasing API with same ratio for elementary, middle and high schools as existed in Decile 1 in 2008-2009.

·        No more than 10 percent of these low achieving schools will be identified per LEA however if the number of schools in an LEA is not evenly divisible by 10, the State Superintendent shall round up to the next whole number of schools This may be to capture some schools in smaller districts.

·        Court, community, or community day schools exempt

·        Charter schools are exempt (strongly opposed by all groups but charters)

Open Enrollment Process

• Whatever schools are identified on the annually updated list of 1,000 parents are notified of their right to transfer out of the district and may enroll in any district in the state. The district of “enrollment” is responsible for notifying parents of their right to enroll in any district on the same timeline as notification of school choice under ESEA Program Improvement.
• Parents can submit an application to a “school district of enrollment” which can be any district the parent chooses prior to January 1 of the school year preceding the school year the transfer would commence, with the exemption of military families.
• The application may request enrollment of the pupil in a specific school or program. It’s unclear who develops the application (is it CDE or the district of residence or enrollment?).
• In order to provide priority enrollment for intra district transfers, a school district shall establish a period of time for resident pupil enrollment prior to accepting transfer applications. After this deadline it appears intra district pupils would no longer have priority.
• The school district of residence or the school district of enrollment may prohibit the transfer or limit the number of transfers if the local governing board determines the transfer would negatively impact, 1) court ordered or voluntary desegregation plans or, 2) the racial and ethnic balance of the district, consistent with state and federal law.
• A school district shall not adopt any policies that prevent or discourage pupils from applying to transfer.
• Communications to parents shall be factually accurate and not target pupils or neighborhoods based on a child’s perceived academic or athletic performance or other personal characteristic.
• A school district of enrollment may adopt specific written standards of acceptance and rejection of applicants that may include consideration of capacity of program, class, grade level, school building, or adverse financial impact.  The standards shall not include consideration of a student’s previous academic achievement, physical condition, proficiency in English, family income or any other individual characteristics set forth.
• Magnet schools and gifted and talented programs may apply their usual requirements.
• A school district of enrollment is required to ensure that they enroll transfer students in a school with a higher API then the school they left.
• First priority for transfer is siblings of children who already attend the desired school and second priority for pupils who request an out of district transfer pursuant to this program. Intra district students are not explicitly provided a priority status but rather an enrollment period prior to the LEA accepting transfer applications.
• A transfer applicant can’t displace a student within the attendance area of the school or who is currently enrolled.
• A school district of enrollment will notify the applicant within 60 days of receiving the application of acceptance or rejection. They LEA shall accept credits towards graduation of a transfer student.
• LEAs are encourage but not required to retain data on transfer activities.
• Basic aid districts that are districts of enrollment under this act shall receive an apportionment of average daily attendance at 70 percent of the district revenue limit that would have been apportioned to the school district of residence.
• Transportation is not required under this program from either the sending or receiving district.

Parent Empowerment Program

Another formula for labeling “low achieving” schools

• Schools that are not identified under the lowest 5 percent under the RTT struggling schools formula but who meet the criteria for NCLB Program Improvement Year 3 and with an API of less than 800, are considered schools that parents can petition for reforms directly.
• Up to and no more than 75 schools can be included under the “Parent Trigger” which requires at least 50 percent of the parents signing a petition or a combination of parents from feeder schools comprising 50 percent signing a petition, to evoke one or more of the four interventions required under RTT (close, turnaround, convert or transform) or the alternative governance option under NCLB.
• The school district shall be required to implement the petition choice of the parents (regardless of the desires of the other 50% of parents at the school).
• The only alternative is if the school district makes a finding in writing in a regularly scheduled meeting stating the reason they cannot implement the intervention and includes what option they will implement under NCLB or RTT.
• The school district must notify the State Superintendent and State Board when they receive a petition and the final result of action. The LEA must prove to the State Board and Superintendent any alternative to the parents’ petition intervention request holds “substantial promise” to ensure the school makes AYP.