Washington Race to the Top Diagnostic Report

8/14/2019 Washington Race to the Top Diagnostic Report

1/149

Washingtons Race to the Top Proposal

January 2010

Detailed Diagnostic


2/149

| 1

Contents

Introduction

Review of Washington States 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

PageContent

2

9

13

142

14

23

41

64

91

105

116


3/149


4/149

| 3

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

Note: LEA terminology from U.S. Department of Education is equivalent to DistrictSOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Introduction

Selection Criteria PercentPoints

State Success Factors Articulating States 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

Data Systems to Support Instruction Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system Accessing and using State data Using data to improve instruction

125655451530

2010305

25

4724518

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

704020201020

14

9

25


5/149


6/149

| 5

Great Teachers and Leaders is the largest requirement area in RTTT,though the top five sub-criteria are spread throughout requirement areas

20

20

20

21

25

20

1810

10

14

10

15

10

15

15

1010

15

20

STEMC. Data Systems

47

5

24

E. TurningAround LowestPerformingSchools

50

5

35

F. General

55

5

40

B. Standards andAssessments

70

A. State SuccessFactors

125

55

45

D. GreatTeachers andLeaders

138

5

28

Providinghigh-qualitypathways

Providingteacher/principalsupport

Percent oftotal(500 pts)

28% 25% 14% 11% 10% 9% 3%

Improvingstudentoutcomes

Ensuringcapacity toimplement

Participationin standardsconsortium

Adoptingstandards

Supporting

transition tostandards/assmt

STEM all ornothing

Top five criteria

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

RTTT grant requirement areas, ranked by number of possible pointsPoints


Use ofevaluationsto improveinstruction

Securingdistrictcommitment Conditions for

charter schools

Turning aroundschools

Fully implementing State

Longitudinal Data System (SLDA)


7/149

| 6

Another way to analyze the point system is by the number of points a statecan readily influence

Points in these sub-criteria depend onlegislation being passedPolicy barriers

Points in these sub-criteria are directly aresult of what WA has already accomplishedHistorical

performance

Limited

Little

Level of

influence

Points in these sub-criteria depend on thequality of the application and district supportFuture plan

actions

High

Sub-criteria

involving Description

The RTTT sub-criteria can be divided in three buckets that varies by the levelof influence the state has over gaining points in the application



8/149

| 7

While the majority of points fall into Future Plan actions a large portionstill is dependent on legislation and historical performance

SOURCE: Department of Education

5Demonstrating other significant reform conditions

10Intervening in lowest-achieving schools and districts

20Adopting standards

21Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachersand principals

40Ensuring successful conditions for high-performingcharter schools and other innovative schools

PointsSub-criteria involving policy barriers

5Making progress in each reform area

10Developing and implementing high-qualityassessments

10Making education funding a priority

20Participating in consortium developing high-qualitystandards

24Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal datasystem

25Improving student outcomes

PointsSub-criteria depending on historical performance

Criteria that states have limited influence over accountfor 190 pts (~40% of the total)

Total

Total

96

94

5Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools

5Measuring student growth

5Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda

5Accessing and using State data

10Ensuring equitable distribution in hard-to-staff subjects

10Conducting annual evaluations

10Using broad stakeholder support

14Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prepprograms

15Ensuring equitable distribution to high-need students

15Developing evaluation systems

15STEM

15Translating district participation into statewide impact

18Using data to improve instruction

20Providing effective support to teachers and principals

20Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts

20Ensuring capacity to implement

28Using evaluations to inform key decisions

35Turning around the lowest achieving schools

45Securing district commitment

TotalSub-criteria involving future plan actions

Total 310

leaving 310 points for criteria that states canimpact with their reform plans

Biggestlevers

Grand Total 500



9/149

| 8

Contents

Introduction





Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders


Criteria F. General


Appendix

PageContent

2

9

13

142

14

23

4164

91

105

116


10/149

| 9

The state has performed a rigorous review of Washingtons current stanceon all RTTT requirements, providing detailed assessments in thematic areas

1 General Criteria includes included both thematic (Charter Schools) and non thematic (Budget) sub-criteria. A detailed assessment was performed forthe thematic area in this criteria.

SOURCE: Team analysis

Type of review

Data reviewDetailed assessmentDetailed assessmentDetailed assessmentDetailed assessmentData review/Detailed assessmentDetailed assessment

Requirement areas

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

Every thematic criteria will begin with a Summary page thatshows rankings on each of the sub-criteria.

Following with be pages that break down the sub-criteria intomore granular super sub-criteria and rankings are applied

Process: In-depth interviews with state officials and data from existing state resources were used to create thisdiagnostic. There two were types of reviews conducted:

Data review

Detailed assessment

Overview of types of review by requirement area:

Relevant data and charts will be shown

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

Non-thematic requirements

Type of reviewType of requirement for whichreview was performed Format and content

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Review of Washington States initiatl position


11/149

| 10

How to read a detailed assessment


Results format

Rationale

100%RTTTcompliant

0% RTTTcompliantSub-criteria

Washington hasdemonstratedcommitment todeveloping andadopting common high-quality standards

Washington has notcommitted to adoptingthe Common Corestandards

Washington hascommitted toparticipating in CommonCore and will adoptstandards by December31, 2010

Washington hascommitted toparticipating in CommonCore and will adoptstandards by August 2,2010

SA1 Washington is part of the Common Core

standards which are internationallybenchmarked and build toward collegereadiness

ILLUSTRATIVE

A description andlabeling of the sub-

criteriaA description of what it means

to be at different levels of RTTTcompliance

Where WA currentstands

Where WA will be once currentinitiatives are complete

(excluding new plans via RTTT)

Details of findings that led tothis judgment



12/149

| 11

Summary of Washingtons performance: The state hasopportunity for improvement in nearly all sub-criteria

Criteria A, E, F

State Success Factors

1. Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, andsustain proposed plans

2. Enlisting statewide support and commitment3. Raising achievement and closing gaps

Standards and Assessments

Washington is committed to developing andadopting common standards

Washington is committed to developing andimplementing common high-quality assessments

Washington is supporting transition to enhancedstandards and high-quality assessments

Criteria B, C, D, E: The Four Assurances1

0%

Compliant with RTTT criteria

100%

Turning around lowest-achieving schools

Turning around lowest-achieving schools

Providing alternative pathways for aspiringteachers and principals

Differentiation of teachers and principals basedon performance

Ensuring equitable distribution of effectiveteachers and principals

Reporting the effectiveness of teacher andprincipal preparation programs

Providing effective support to teachers andprincipals

Great teachers and leaders

Data systems to drive instruction

Washington has fully implemented a statewidelongitudinal data system

Key stakeholders have access to and use

State Data

Stakeholders use data to improve instruction

SA1

SA2

DS1

DS2

DS3

0%

Compliant with RTTT criteria

SA3

TL1

TL2

TL3

TL4

TL5

LS3

100%

Intervening at the lowest-performing schools and

districts

LS1


Community partners assist teachers in integratingSTEM content across grades / disciplines,promoting effective instruction, and offeringapplied learning opportunities for students

More students prepared for advanced study andcareers in STEM, including underrepresentedgroups and women

STEM

ST2

ST3

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

ST1

General

1. Making education funding a priority

2. Demonstrating significant progress

CS2 Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing 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 themost education reform and have focused federal funds around them

Washington current capability


13/149

| 12

This assessment translates to an estimated 169 out of 500 points, withlargest opportunities in the top six future plan actions sub-criteria

5

10

20

21

40

Potentialpoints

3Demonstrating other significant reform conditions

0Intervening in lowest-achieving schools anddistricts

20Adopting common core standards

10Providing high-quality pathways for aspiringteachers and principals

0Ensuring successful conditions for high-performingcharter schools and other innovative schools

WA1

pointsSub-criteria involving policy barriers

5

10

10

20

24

25

PotentialPoints

3Making progress in each reform area

0Developing and implementing high-quality studentassessments

5States demonstration of education funding priority

20Participation in consortium of states developinghigh-quality standards

22Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal datasystem

18Improving student outcomes

WA1

pointsSub-criteria depending on historicalperformance

Washington earns 101 out of a potential 190 points on criteriaregarding policy barriers and historical performance

Total

Total

96

945

5

5

5

10

10

10

14

15

15

15

15

18

20

20

20

28

35

45

Potentialpoints

4Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools

3Measuring student growth

4Articulating comprehensive, coherent reform agenda

5Accessing and using State data

3Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers in hard-to-staff subjects

3Conducting annual evaluations

5Using broad stakeholder support

4Improving the effectiveness of teacher/principal prepprograms

5Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers to high-need students

0Developing teacher and principal evaluation systems

0STEM

0Translating district participation into statewide impact

5Using data to improve instruction

2Providing effective support to teachers and principals

15Supporting transition to enhanced standards/assmts

5Ensuring capacity to implement

0Using evaluations to inform key decisions

5Turning around the lowest achieving schools

0Securing district commitment

WA1

pointsSub-criteria involving future plan actions

Total 310

The greatest six opportunities amount to168 points, of which WA potentially has 27 today

33

68

68

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

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

Biggestlevers


ESTIMATES ONLY


14/149


15/149

| 14

Overall achievement: Washington has marginally reduced the number ofstudents performing below basic level in reading and math

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics

4th Grade Reading, 2003 to 2007 8th Grade Reading, 2003 to 2007

4th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009 8th Grade Math, 2003 to 2009

303033

200720052003

-3%

Percent of all Washington students below basic on NAEP assessments, 2003 to 2007

232524

200720052003

-1%

222525

28

200720052003 2009

-6%161616

19

200720052003 2009

-3%

1 Most recent available test data

Key insights

The percent ofstudents performingat below basicdecreased in eachcategory and eachyear from 2003 to

2007

The percent of 8th

graders reading atbelow basicdecreased at aslower rate as

compared to othercategories

Race to the Top Diagnostic: State Success Factors


16/149

| 15

Achievement Gaps in Math: The ethnicity gap has increasedin the eighth grade

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

20052003 20092007

Fourth Grade

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2005 2007 2009

Eight Grade

Gap between white and other minority groups in terms of percentage of students below basic on NAEP assessmentPercentage point different between the two groups

White-Black

White-Hispanic

The achievement gap in 8thgrade math has increasedsignificantly for Hispanics, eventhough both Hispanic and Whitegroups have improved



17/149


18/149

| 17

Achievement Gaps in Math: The English proficiency gap has increasedwhile the disability gap has largely remained constant

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2009200720052003

0

5

1015

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

200920052003 2007

Fourth grade

Eighth grade

Gap between majority and minority groups in terms of percentage of students below basic on NAEP assessment

English proficiency gap(Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs.ELL students)

Percentage point difference between the two groups

Disability gap(Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES)vs. Having SES)




19/149

| 18

Achievement Gaps in Reading: The ethnicity gap has improved forHispanic, but increased for black students

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2005 2007

Fourth Grade

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

200720052003

Eight Grade

Gap between white and other minority groups in terms of percentage of students below basic on NAEP assessmentPercentage point different between the two groups

White-Black

White-Hispanic



20/149

| 19

Achievement Gaps in Reading: Both income and gender gaps haveremained relatively constant

1 Females outperform males in both gradesSOURCE: NCES, NAEP

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200720052003

Income gap(Not Eligible vs. Eligible for free lunch program)Percentage point difference between the two groups

Gender gap(Male vs. Female)1


Fourth grade

Eighth grade


-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200720052003



21/149

| 20

Achievement Gaps in Reading: The English proficiency and disabilitygaps have largely increased

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP

Fourth grade

Eighth grade


English Proficiency gap(Non English Language Learners (ELL) students vs. ELLstudents)


Disability gap(Not having Supplemental Education Services (SES)vs. Having SES)


-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

45

50

55

60

200720052003

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

200720052003



22/149

| 21

05-06 06-07 07-08

On-time graduation rate 70.4% 72.5% 72.0%

Extended graduation rate 75.1 77.5 77.0

Annual dropout 5.7 5.5 5.6

4-year dropout rate 21.4 21.0 21.4

Graduation rate: Graduation and Dropout rates have remained relativelyflat over the last three years

Estimated 4-year Cohort dropout rate

40.8Native American

32.5African-American/Black

29.6Hispanic

26.7Pacific Islander

21.4All students

18.7Caucasian

15.3Asian/Pacific Islander

14.7Asian


Graduation and dropout rate summary


23/149


24/149


25/149

| 24

Summary: Washingtons current status ofStandards and Assessments relative to RTTT criteria

Washington is part of aconsortium of statesworking to develop high-quality standards

SA1A

Rationale100% RTTTcompliant

0% RTTTcompliant

Washington is not part ofa consortium of statesthat is working toward

developing and adoptingK-12 standards

Washington is part of aconsortium of 25 statesthat is working toward

developing and adoptingK-12 standards that aresupported by evidencethat they areinternationallybenchmarked and buildtoward college andcareer readiness

Washington is part of the Common Core standardswhich are internationally benchmarked and buildtoward college readiness

Super Sub-criteria


Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessments

SA1

Sub-criteria

Washington hasdemonstrated commitmentto developing andadopting common high-quality standards

Washington is part of the Common Core standardswhich are internationally benchmarked and buildtoward college readiness

The Common Core includes all but three states Washington is able to adopt the Common Core

standards by August 2, 2010

SA1

Washington will adopt thestandards by August 2,2010

SA1B

The state will adopt thestandards later than2010

The state has committedto and made progresstoward adopting thestandards by December31, 2010

The state has committedto and made progresstoward adopting thestandards by August 2,2010

Washington is able to officially adopt the standardsby August 2, 2010


Washington hascommitted toparticipating in CommonCore and will adopt

standards by December31, 2010


standards by August 2,2010

Projected capabilities oncecurrent initiatives implemented



26/149

| 25

Washingtons current status of Standardsrelative to RTTT criteria

Washington has a plan to

implement new standards

SA3A

Washington has a plan toimplement newassessments

SA3B

Washington meets fewerthan four of the criteriafor high-qualityimplementation plan forstandards

Washington meets atleast four of the criteriafor high-qualityimplementation plan forstandards

Washington meets allcriteria for a high-qualityimplementation plan forstandards

Washington meets fewerthan three criteria forhigh-qualityimplementation plan forassessments

Washington meets atleast three of the criteriafor high-qualityimplementation plan forassessments

Washington meets allcriteria for a high-qualityimplementation plan forassessments

Rationale

Recent implementation of new mathematics

standards can be leveraged as a plan toimplement Common Core standards

The state has a method of developing centralizedprofessional development materials and curricularreviews for implementation of new standards

There was a recent reduction in the number ofprofessional development days included indistricts budgets

Assessments were adjusted based on newmathematics and science standards and contractswith vendors allow for additional changes

Professional development plan andcommunication plan are incomplete

100% RTTTcompliant

0% RTTTcompliant

Washington is supportingtransition to enhancedstandards and high-qualityassessments

Sub-criteria



SA3

Recent implementation of new mathematicsstandards can be leveraged as a plan toimplement Common Core standards

There was a reduction in the number ofprofessional development days included in

districts budgets during most recent legislativesession Assessments were adjusted based on new

mathematics and science standards and contractswith vendors allow for additional changes

SA3

Sub-criteria



standards by December31, 2010


standards by August 2,2010



R h T Di i S d d d


27/149

| 26

Washington standards show some alignment to areas ofCommon Core College and Career Readiness Standards

Subject area

Alignment betweenWA & Common Core1

(Scale of 1-5)

Reading 3

Writing 4 Many standards align however key differences include: Common Core Standards focus on writing to make an argument and to inform or

explain, versus Washington which also includes other purposes such as civic writing

and reflection Common Core excludes the interrelationship of writing process to the standards

Communication 3-4 Many standards align however key differences include areas where the Common Corestandards 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

Key differences

Many standards align; Common Core Standards do lack some elements present inWashington 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

Mathematics 4 The Common Core Standards are closely aligned on eight of the ten content areas anddiffer in the following ways: Washington Standards do not address the area of quantity Washington addresses the content area of modeling within other content areas rather

than as a stand alone content area The Common Core addresses Standards of Mathematical Practice which include the

practice of looking for underlying structure in mathematics

1 As estimated by OSPI in September 2009, based on preliminary version of Common Core College and Career Readiness Standards; Common Core K-12 standardsare not yet available for comparison

5 = Strong alignment

1 = Weak Alignment



SA1

R t th T Di ti St d d d t


28/149

| 27

Washingtons summative assessments, meet five of ten ofthe required elements outlined by Department of Education



More constructed responsethan most states but less thaninternational best practice

Thorough set ofaccommodations available asnecessary

Varying test items selectedfrom broad pool; items notrepeated >3x

Not available at classroomlevel

Available on WashingtonQuery and Teacher Tool

Online testing coming in 2010

Approved by ED

Confirmed by independentaudit

53 day turnaround

Funding and budget

maintainable through 2013

Individual studentachievement asmeasured against

standards that buildtoward college andcareer readiness bythe time of highschool completion

Individual studentgrowth (datashowing change instudent achievementfor an individualstudent between twoor more points intime)

The extent to whicheach individual

student is on track,at each grade leveltested, towardcollege or careerreadiness by the timeof high schoolcompletion

Assessments mustmeasure

Additional detail provided

SA2ARequirement met

Requirementpartially met

Requirement not met

Required characteristics

1. Reflect and support good instructional practice by elicitingcomplex responses and demonstrations of knowledge andskills consistent with the goal of being college and careerready by the time of high school completion

2. Be accessible to the broadest possible range of studentswith appropriate accommodations for students withdisabilities and English learners

3. Contain varied and unpredictable item types and contentsampling so as not to create incentives for inappropriatetest preparation and curriculum narrowing

4. Produce results that can be aggregated at the classroom,school, district and State levels

5. Produce reports that are relevant, actionable, timely,accurate, and displayed in ways that are clear andunderstandable for target audiences, including teachers,students and their families, schools, districts, etc.

6. Make effective and appropriate use of technology

7. Be valid, reliable and fair

8. Be appropriately secure for the intended purposes

9. Have the fastest possible turnaround time on scoringwithout forcing the use of lower quality assessment items

10. Be able to be maintained, administered and scored at a cost

that is sustainable over time

WAStatus Rationale



29/149

| 28

Washington has a greater proportion of selected responsethan international best practice, but less than other states

31

6681

64

2715

Selected

Response

ShortAnswer

ExtendedShortAnswer

Product

U.S. - Sub-set of stateassessments

(composite)3

42

U.S. - Natl.Assessmentof Educational

Progress(Grade)2

0

Washington

3

34

Singapore -Primary SchoolLeaving Exam1

16

210

Percent questionsfrom mostrigorous types4 44% 29% 15%

Washington utilizesfewer selected responsequestions than U.S.peers, but more thaninternational bestpractice

Washington uses

product questions(written assessmentbased on promptwhereas other U.S.assessments useextended short answer)

Test-based

Performance-based

Selectedresponse

Constructedresponse

Product Performance Process

1 Given at the equivalent of Grade 62 NAEP based on entire item pool, students receive samples of content based on these item pools3 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 Singapores World Class Mathematics System (2005)

25-40%


SA2A

1


30/149



31/149

| 30

Washington has an online tool to enable stakeholders toaccess and track student summative assessment results

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


SA2A

5

Detailed results provide informationabout specific areas of strength andopportunities for improvement

Overall scores are easy to read Overview of results highlights student

learning gaps and enables parents andstudents to engage with teachers



32/149

| 31

A selection of U.S. scorecards provide examples of how todisplay assessment data in an easily understood format

Synthesis and explanations Performance comparison

Clarity Comprehensiveness

Boston school reportsprovide information beyondstudent performancemetrics such as:

Overview of staff andteachers

Details on communitypartnerships

New York City School reports simplifycommunication by calculating an easy-to-understand (albeit contentious1)summary grade and by providing

explanation on each evaluation criteria

Chicago PublicElementary Schoolreports include trendsover time on keymetrics to enablecomparison (e.g.,highlight improvementor challenges)

Chicago Public MiddleSchool reports are clearlystructured along four keymetrics (student outcome,academic progress, studentconnection and school

characteristics) in an easy-to-read manner and providerationale on why thesemetrics are important

1 Critics of the New York City school grading system argue that it emphasizes student progress over absolute performance (e.g., SAT scores), and

hence does not provide a complete picture of the schools overall performanceSOURCE: New York City Public Schools, Chicago Public Schools, Boston Public Schools, team analysis

p g

SA2A

5



33/149

| 32

LAGLEScienceGrade 3SIASI 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 systemand U.S. system unitsSection 1: Multiple choice: 5, 6, 7

A sample scorecard shows an example of how to linkassessments directly to content standards

Sample school report

Sample assessment report

Poor

Dissatisfactory

Approaching basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

Performance by band

Band

00.00 - 11.59

11.60 - 14.49

14.50 - 18.84

18.85 - 23.19

23.20 - 26.09

26.10 - 29.0

Range

200

150

110

50

25

25

# of students % of students

Exam:Time:# of students:

Grade 3 Science standardsOct 2008500

Summary

%of students at basic or above: 8%Average score: 12.3

Performance by content standard (# of students)

Standard Low Middle High

Content standards

SIASI: SSIASI: 7PSPOM: 19PSPOM: 22PSPMO: 24PSPMO: 26PSFOE: 3ESSPEM: 48

1005010

10010050

10060

150200290150150100150

90

250250200250250350250350

Assessment results arereported by individual

standard to enable teachers toidentify gaps in student learning

Tested contentstandards arelisted in detail

DISGUISEDU.S. DISTRICT

40%

30%

22%

10%

5%

5%


Performance by bandenables teachers to tracknumber of students

achieving proficiency

p g

SA2A

5



34/149

| 33

Washington is increasingly implementing newtechnologies in its assessment systems

6

SOURCE: Assessment Update: Redesign of State Assessments for 2010, 10/16/09

0000 0

50

0

50 50

100

0

100

2010

2011

2012

Percent of grade level assessments projected to be onlinePercent

1 Mathematics retest is projected to be 100% online in 2011 and 20122 Writing assessment is 7th grade

3 Science assessment is 5th grade

0000

25

000

80

0

2525

Highsc

hool

proficie

ncy1

00

2525 25

808080 80100100100

8th

Grad

e2

4th

Gra

de3

Washington isincreasingly usingtechnology inadministering itssummative assessments

By 2012: The high school

proficiency test will have100% of its reading andwriting portions and 50%

of its science portionadministered online

The 8th grade test willhave 100% of reading,writing and mathematicsand 80% of scienceadministered online

The 4th grade test willcontinue to be largelypaper and pencil

Districts also use various assessmenttechnology for formative assessments (e.g.,

DIBELS, TeachScape, MAP and others)

SA2A

Reading Mathematics Writing Science



35/149

| 34

The state used a high-quality plan to implementnew mathematics standards

SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, The New Teacher Project, team analysis

The state has allocated resources to developing newcurricular and professional development materials

Districts have a plan to efficiently approve and purchase newcurricular and professional development materials

Districts have the time and resources to provide high-quality

professional development in the new standards to allinstructional staff

The state has obtained support from colleges anduniversities to align their entrance requirements with thenew standards

The state has a communication plan to create buy-in amongteachers, parents and students for the new standards

State teachers and principal programs will modify theircurriculum to align with new standards

Elements of high-quality implementation plan

2

3

4

5

6

WA currentStatus Rationale

State provides centralized professional developmentmaterials and conducts train the trainers sessions toensure teacher leaders know necessary content tosupport teachers in implementing standards

State allocates materials and training modules but

financial support is minimal

The state has provided reviews of curricular materialsand common professional development materials, butadoption and purchase plans vary across districts

Review cycles vary by district

Districts have been provided state financial support for

professional development through Learning ImprovementDays (LID); LID was reduced last year; Districts often uselocal funds for professional development; Districts arevaried in delivery of professional development

Standards are used to create the college readinessmathematics test used for placement but are not explicitlytied to entrance requirements

The state used a high-quality communication plan toimplement new mathematics standards and has a high-quality plan for Common Core

Teachers will likely be more open to new curriculum inareas that have not had recent adoptions

Additional details follow

SA3A

1

Element fully in place

Element partially in place

Element not in place



36/149

| 35

The state created grade level professional development materialsto facilitate implementation of new mathematics standards

SOURCE: OSPI Mathematics Professional Development Facilitator documentation

State provided facilitator notes to ensure

training is consistent with standards andthorough in locally administeredsessions

1

Facilitator notes

SA3A

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?

11/1/2009 15Geometry

Content

State provided professionaldevelopment materials to facilitateteacher knowledge development incontent areas associated with new

standards



37/149

| 36

Assessments must: Be aligned to state standards in areas that are being

assessed

Measure student growth and competency at multiplepoints throughout the year in a manner that allows instructorsto monitor student progress and have the necessary trend datawith 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 thestudent 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 theassessment

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, Englishlanguage learners, gender, ethnicity, poverty, age, anddisabilities

Strive to be computer-based and adaptive Engage students in their learning

Use of both formative andsummative assessments toprovide information to improveinstruction and informaccountability

Enables collection of data that

allows statewide and nationwidecomparisons of learning andachievement

Balance of effort so thatdecisions are made based onmany data points, not a singleassessment

SB 5414 mandates

SB 5414 mandates a statewide formative assessmentsystem to improve instruction

Washington recently passed legislation mandating the creation of astatewide system for formative assessments


SA3A

1


38/149

W hi l i i i l f ll



39/149

| 38

Washington can leverage its communication plan from recent rolloutof new mathematics standards for implementing Common Core


SA3A

Key elements of communication plan to build buy-in for new standards

Engage key statewide partners and stakeholders in learning about andsharing information re: new standards process for adoption and plans forimplementation

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 (forstate, regional, local stakeholders)

Implement multiple approaches to share information with districts, schools,teachers

Web site, email, newsletters, in-person (conferences), hard-copy mailing toschool 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 oldstandards, etc.)

5

Th t t h d i d l i

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Standards and assessmentsElement not in place


40/149

| 39

State has allocated resources to modify existingsummative assessments to align with new standards

The state has allocated resources to developing abank of formative assessments tied to newstandards

The state has a plan to provide high-qualityprofessional development to instructional staffregarding access, interpretation, and usage of

assessments

The state has a communication plan to create buy-inamong parents, students teachers, and principalsfor the new assessments

Teachers are willing to incorporate formativeassessments into their curriculum and adjustteaching plans based on assessment outcomes

Elements of high-quality implementation plan

1

2

3

4

5

WA currentStatus Rationale

SB 5414 mandates that assessments be updated toreflect standards

Contracts with service providers allow changes inassessments to match standards

The state has made progress in developing ahigh-quality plan to implement new assessments

The state sponsors webinars with principals tocommunicate 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 systemsfor formative assessments, indicating they are open tousing formative assessment systems

SB 5414 created a mandate for the creation ofcentralized formative assessments which will be tiedto new standards

Washington has implemented Assessment LeadershipTeams that provide training of trainers who thenprovide 1-2 day professional development sessions to

discuss the nature of assessments and scoringstudent responses

SOURCE: OSPI Interviews, team analysis

SA3BElement fully in place

Element partially in place

p


41/149

| 40

Contents

Introduction





Criteria C. Data systems to drive instruction

Criteria D. Great teachers and leaders


Criteria F. General


Appendix

PageContent

2

9

13

142

14

23

41

64

91

105

116


42/149


43/149


44/149


45/149

Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Data systems to drive instruction

DS3 Projected capabilities once


46/149

| 45

Stakeholders use of data to improve instruction

Rationale100% RTTTcompliant

0% RTTTcompliant

State longitudinal data andinstructional improvementsystems are available andaccessible to researchers

The state has no plan toprovide researchers withaccess to state or localdata

The state has a plan toensure data fromstatewide longitudinaldata system are readilyaccessible to

researchers but not datafrom district levelinstructionalimprovement systems

The state has a plan toensure data fromstatewide longitudinaldata system and districtlevel instructional

improvement systemsare readily accessible toresearchers

Elements of statewide longitudinal data arecurrently available

District level data is not consistent across districtsand is available only by request

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


DS3

DS3C

Super Sub-criteria



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


DS1Fully complies

P ti ll li


47/149

| 46

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

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

1. A unique statewide student identifier (ID) that does not permit a student to be individuallyidentified by users of the system

Each student in the state is assigned a unique statewide student number

The state has procedures to prevent two different students from receiving the same ID

The state has procedures to prevent the same student from getting a different ID when she/hechanges districts

The student identifier system can be used to link student-level records across all of the statesstudent-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 subsequentyears to determine continuous enrollment

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

DS1

Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act Status

Partially complies

Does not comply


DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (2/5)Fully complies

Partially complies


48/149

| 47

Detailed elements of the America COMPETES Act

3. Student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, dropout, or complete P16 education programs

The state collects student-level graduation data

Student-level graduation data are collected by diploma type

The state collects student-level dropout data

The state has the ability to identify exiting students as graduates

The state has the ability to identify exiting students as dropouts

The state has the ability to identify exiting students as transfers

The state has the ability to identify exiting students as GED recipients

4. The capacity to communicate with higher education data systems

Student-level K-12 records can be matched with the records of the same students in all of thestate's public colleges and universities

Able to match using either the social security number or unique student ID

Status


DS1 WA status on elements of America COMPETES Act (2/5) Partially compliesDoes not comply



Partially complies


49/149

| 48


5. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability

A state data audit system exists to review the accuracy of data submitted

Statistical checks are performed on data submitted by school districts

There is a system for investigating the accuracy of data flagged by the statistical checks

There are standards for the percent of departing students that school districts should be ableto 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 completeand 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 todetermine 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

Status





Partially complies


50/149

| 49


8. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students

Each teacher has a unique identifier

The state has procedures to ensure that a teacher does not have two different IDs

The state has procedures to ensure that two teachers do not have the same ID

The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject inelementary school

The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject inmiddle school

The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject inhigh school

9. Student level transcript information, including information on courses completed andgrades 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 collegesand universities

Status





Partially complies


51/149

| 50


10.Student-level college readiness test scores

The state collects and permanently stores student-level AP exam results

The state collects and permanently stores student-level SAT exam results

The state collects and permanently stores student-level ACT exam results.

11. Information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary schoolto postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework

12. Other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation forsuccess in postsecondary education

Status



OSPI currently provides selected data through its website


DS2A


52/149

| 51

y p g

Example: District level report card

SOURCE: OSPI

Graduation and dropoutstatistics

Personnel by position,ethnicity and gender

Enrollment by gender and

ethnicity State, district and school

level report cards Demographic and

achievement data School comparison

Key data categories include

Washington recently passed legislation to create a


DS2A


53/149

| 52

comprehensive K-12 education data system

SOURCE: OSPI

Legislative Background

The 2009 Legislature established its intent to create a comprehensive K-12 educationdata improvement system for financial, student, and educator data. The objectives of thissystem 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 Legislatures overall vision for the data system, Part two ofESHB 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 currentstatus of the data system compared to the Legislatures intent, and define the operatingrules and governance structure for K-12 data collections

Identified specific financial, student assessment, data accuracy, and class size reportsthat OSPI is to post on the internet


54/149

Publicly available data is often provided in tabular form, but bestti i di t t f t t t k h ld


DS2B


55/149

| 54

Washingtoncurrentlypresents muchof its data intabular formats

Adoptinggraphicalformats could

help engageusers byenabling them todraw insightswithoutconducting their

own analysis

practice indicates report formats to engage stakeholders

SOURCE: OSPI and SchoolView.Org

Colorados SchoolView.org interface shows stakeholders a graphicalrepresentation of school performance

Implementation of Education Data Improvement System of HB 2261ill bl t k h ld t k ti


DS2B


56/149

| 55

will enable stakeholders to engage on many key questions

How effective are

existing programs ?

How are ourstudentsperforming?

Which schools and

teachers are mosteffective atpreparing students?

What are leadingindicators forsuccess in

students?

How do ourstudents perform inhigher educationand the workforce?

To what degree does participation in early childhood programs increase kindergartenreadiness?

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 thestrongest academic growth?

What programs reduce dropout rates among at risk students? How cost effective are existing programs?

What proportion of the students who enter elementary school maintain continuousenrollment and complete 8th grade in a timely manner?

Do our teachers know how their students academic growth compares, by subject andgrade, to other students with similar backgrounds? How about principals?

Which teachers are most effective?

Which elementary and middle schools in the state consistently perform best inpreparing different student populations for high school ?

Which high schools are doing the best job of graduating students on-time, based onthose students economic level?

What achievement levels indicate that a student is well prepared to succeed inchallenging courses in high school?

What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous courses orperformance 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 states high school and college graduates?

Key questions

Answerable after HB

2261 implementation

Yes

Yes

Yes1

Yes1

Yes

In some casesYes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes1

Yes

Yes1

Yes1

Yes1

SOURCE: Certification of Enrollment for Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2261, team analysis1 Will be available via Washington Education Research and Data Center (ERDC)

Data systems to improve instruction vary across school districts inWA and some districts lack systems to improve instruction


DS3A


57/149

| 56

WA, and some districts lack systems to improve instruction

20

20 60 WSIPC1eSIS1

Other

Includes School Master, PowerSchool and 40 districts which

have no data system

Functionality varies by district, but many districtdata 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 toeffectively use them

SOURCE: District interviews

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

Percent of K-12 students whose school uses datasystems provided by vendorPercent

Information systems should enable teachers and administrators tosolve problems and answer questions to improve instruction


DS3A


58/149

| 57

solve problems and answer questions to improve instruction

Studentachievementtracking

Professionaldevelopment

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 students long term achievement history in terms of grades and test scores? How much progress is the student making toward graduation?

What professional development modules are necessary to enable me to havenecessary content knowledge?

What professional development modules are necessary to enable me to accessuseful systems (formative assessments, information technology trainings, etc.)?

How can I access professional development materials online ?

Program evaluation Which programs result in the biggest impact on student achievement? Which programs are most associated with reducing dropout rates? Which programs are effective at reducing achievement gaps?

What assessments can I use to test students learning that are aligned with thestandards 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?

Formativeassessments

Administrator tools

How do my lesson plans compare with standards in this subject? What materials can I access to make sure I teach all relevant standards?

Curriculumselection

Teacher tools

NOT EXHAUSTIVE


Best practice: Data systems have reports for parents andteachers to identify student progress


DS3A


59/149

| 58

teachers to identify student progress

SOURCE: Wireless Generation Solutions

Data systems can be used to provide reports that enable parents and teachers to track student progressand 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 studentprogress versus progressrequired to be on track to

achieve goal

Best practice: Washington District system enables parents totrack intra-term grades and teacher comments online in real time


DS3A


60/149

| 59

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

xxxxxx

Parents can trackstudent progress andengage with teacherswhen an issue arises

Teachers can

communicate withparents to set

expectations for theclass

SOURCE: Northshore School District grades website

Best practice: Louisiana monitors student level data to evaluateprogress and improve instructional practice


DS3A


61/149

| 60

For each student, a teacher can view incorrectresponses by topic area

Teachers work with coaches to analyze results,identify student needs and utilize data to re-teacheffectively

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

GROUP AVERAGE

SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District

progress and improve instructional practice

Best practice: Louisiana uses grade and subject-specific reports totarget opportunities for teachers professional training


DS3A


62/149

| 61

Reports identify individual topics thatwere particularly difficult for students

Groups of teachers share bestpractices and plan for re-teaching

Student results are displayed in sixperformance bands

Each month, students are tested and results aredisplayed in six performance bands

Reports identify individual topics that wereparticularly difficult for students

Groups of teachers share best practices andplan for re-teaching

SOURCE: Louisiana School Recovery District

g pp p g

Best practice: Report on monthly assessments that aredirectly tied to selected content standards


DS3A


63/149

| 62

y

Short (30 minutes) multiple choice testadministered each month to allstudents within the district

Test questions cover selected grade-

specific content standards in eachsubject

Test results are reported back toschools and evaluated in order to planintervention at the student level(if necessary)

Results can be cut at variousgranularity levels to fit target audience(e.g., by school, by classroom, bystudent)

Tests are designed to support teachingand learning, there is no link to theaccountability systems. However,

transparency of results naturallycreates some peer pressure amongteachers and principals

Sample school report

SOURCE: Firm experts, team analysis

40

30

22

10

5

5

Sample assessment report

Poor

Dissatisfactory

Approaching basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

Performance by band

Band

00.00 - 11.59

11.60 - 14.49

14.50 - 18.84

18.85 - 23.19

23.20 - 26.09

26.10 - 29.0

Range

200

150

110

50

25

25

# of students % of students

ExamTime# of students

Grade 3 Science standardsOct 2008500

Summary

% of students at basic or above: 8%

Average score: 12.3

Performance by content standard (# of students)

Content standards

LAGLEScienceGrade 3SIASI 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 metricsystem and U.S. system unitsSection 1: Multiple choice: 5, 6, 7

Standard Low Middle High

SIASI: SSIASI: 7PSPOM: 19PSPOM: 22PSPMO: 24PSPMO: 26PSFOE: 3ESSPEM: 48

10050101001005010060

150200290150150100150

90

250250200250250350250350

:::

Assessment resultsare reported byindividual standard

Tested contentstandards arelisted in detail


64/149


65/149


66/149


67/149

Improving teacher and principal effectiveness basedon performance

Race to the Top Diagnostic: Great teachers and leaders

TL2 Projected capabilities oncecurrent initiatives implemented



68/149

| 67

Effectiveness data notavailable or not used todifferentiateperformance

Available data usedto drive one or morekey decisions

Effectiveness data usedto differentiateperformance and driveall key decisions

Improving teacher andprincipal effectivenessbased on performance

Rationale

100% RTTT

compliant

0% RTTT

compliant

Student data exists in CEDARS, but no widelyaccepted methods for mapping student outcomesto teacher or leader effectiveness currently exist

Data analysis focused on compliance rather thanperformance assessment

Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extentis unknown

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education

Super Sub-criteria

Extent to which state, incollaboration withparticipating districts, has ahigh-quality plan andambitious yet achievableannual targets to ensureparticipating districtsconduct annual evaluations

of teachers and principalsthat include timely andconstructive feedback withdata on student growth

TL2C

Annual reviews notconducted, or do notinclude feedback ofstudent data

Annual reviewsconducted and includeeither feedback orstudent data

Annual reviewsconducted and includeboth feedback andstudent data

Annual review processes determined at districtlevel and vary by district and CBA

Student data in CEDARS not linked to teachersuntil 2010

TL2

Extent to which state, incollaboration withparticipating districts, has ahigh-quality plan andambitious yet achievable

annual targets to ensure thatparticipating districts useannual evaluations, at aminimum, to inform decisionsregarding developing,compensating, promoting,retaining, granting tenure,and removing teachers andprincipals

TL2D

Annual evaluations notused for key teacher andleader decisions

Annual evaluations usedin some but not alldistricts to make some

but not all key teacherand leader decisions

Annual evaluations usedthroughout the state toinform all key teacher

and leader decisions

Decisions such as continuing contracts,compensation, promotion, and dismissal aredetermined at the district level

Currently no widely accepted methods for mappingstudent-level results to teacher effectiveness

No statutory prohibitions to using effectivenessdata to drive key personnel decisions

Local CBAs may regulate key decisions but extentis unknown

Sub-criteria


69/149


70/149


71/149


72/149

Washington has four alternate routes to teacher certification


TL1A


73/149

| 72SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, New Teacher Project, September, 2009

Unpaid route requires candidates to be insituations where income is not essential

Tends to draw early retirees and recent collegegraduates with financial support

For individuals with baccalaureate degrees not employed by thedistrict (career changers), with priority given to those who are

seeking residency teacher certification in a subject matter orgeographic shortage area

Cohorts of candidates for this route shall attend an intensivesummer teaching academy, followed by a full year employed by adistrict in a mentored (unpaid) internship, followed, if necessary, by asecond summer teaching academy

3

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

candidates transition into teaching

For baccalaureate degree holding career changers who havereceived conditional certification to teach

Participants earn full salaries and benefits while teaching underconditional certification

4

Targets para-educators with BAs Allows candidates to continue working Successful in shortage areas like special ed

For currently employed classified staff with baccalaureate degreeseeking residency teacher certification in subject matter shortageareas and areas with shortages due to geographic location

2

DetailsDescriptionRoute

1 Targets para-educators Allows candidates to continue working Takes longer to complete as candidates without

BAs complete remaining formal coursework

For currently employed classified instructional employees withtransferable associate degree seeking residency teacher certificationwith endorsements in special education, bilingual education, or

English as a second language

Sources of Non shortage area endorsements


Sources of Shortage area endorsements

WA share of teachers from alternative routes trails national averageand relies on public and private institutions of higher learning

TL1B


74/149

| 731 National average share of new teachers from alternative routes; WA does not count Masters in Teaching programs as Alternative routes while other states doSOURCE: U.S. Department of Education; NY Times, October, 2009

Sources of Non-shortage area endorsements

Percent

26%

17%

0%

6,403

2002

60%

26%

64%

22%

14%

0%

5,937

2005

32%

41%

26%

1%

3,823

2006

38%

8,023

0%

15%

27%

57%

2003

7,060

0%

14%

57%

38%

2004

1%

3,676

2007

Out of state

In-state public

In-state private

Alternative route23%

41%

29%

27%

3%

1,376

2002

6%

1,835

2004

57%

24%

14%

5%

1,308

2005

37%

34%

20%

8%

1,260

27%

48%

2003

1,688

4%

18%

31%

47%

19%

45%

31%

18%

7%

1,312

20072006

Sources of Shortage area endorsements

Percent

Alternative routesin WA have grownsignificantly, butstill trail nationalaverage of 20%1

Alternative routescontribute greatershare to shortageareas than non-shortage areas

U.S. case example illustrates how student growth data can be usedas a measure of effectiveness and improve instructional practice


TL2A


75/149

| 74

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

GROUP AVERAGE

SOURCE: U.S. School District

For each student, ateacher can viewincorrect responses bytopic area

Teachers work with coachesto analyze results, identifystudent needs and utilizedata to re-teach effectively

Additional grade and subject-specific analysis identifies trendsand targets opportunities for teachers professional training


TL2A


76/149

| 75SOURCE: U.S. School District

Each month, students are tested and resultsare displayed in six performance bands

Reports identify individualtopics that were particularly

difficult for students

Groups of teachers sharebest practices and plan for

re-teaching

Evaluating teachers and leaders across several dimensionsprovides thorough and objective measures of effectiveness


TL2B

ILLUSTRATIVE


77/149

| 76

Teacher reviewprocess

Student achievement data

Parent surveys

Peer assessments

Student surveys

School scorecards

Observations

Reviewers shouldbe trained ininterpreting data

and conductingreviews


ILLUSTRATIVE

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


TL2C


78/149

| 77

Rewards for high performers toteach in highest-need schools:teachers who show the highest

TVAAS gains are guaranteed an extra$5,000 per year in salary for the nextthree years if they teach in one of thenine low-performing elementaryschools

Consequences: schools that showthe lowest gains are reconstituted bythe district, with teachers dismissedon the basis of their performance

Clarity on which teachers areperforming and which are not:allows schools to designate mentor

teachers and learn from bestpractices

Student performance is monitoredin critical subject areas on theannual Tennessee Value-Added

Assessment System testChanges in student performancerelative to the previous year areaggregated across the state,which serves as an index

Individual students are given anexpected gain relative to theindex based on past years

Students actual versusexpected gains are compared,

and teachers receive a score(e.g., 100 if actual = expected)

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

4

3

2

1

Other states have funding and policies supportingperformance-based compensation for teachers and leaders


TL2D


79/149

| 78Source: 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)

Case exampleTexas Educator Excellence Fund

$260M dollars allotted to see if bonuses can improve

student achievement and teacher retention

$100M to fund bonuses ($3K-10K) to teachers at lower-income schools with exemplary or recognizedperformance ratings75%+ of each grant must go to teachers25% can go to principals and other school employees

or activities that support teacher improvement

$160M to fund local incentive plans devised by schooldistricts60%+ to teachers who improve student

achievement40% can go to principals, teacher mentors, hard-to-

staff positions, and other staff6

8

11

86

Alaska

South Carolina

Ohio

Minnesota

North Carolina 103

Florida 148

Texas 260

Arizona 407

Many states support performance pay$ millions

U.S. case study illustrates how pay-for-performance canencourage teachers and leaders to set high aspirations


TL2D


80/149

| 79

1 Started in 19992 $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

Main elements Description

Pilot supported and implemented byCity Public Schools and the citysTeachers Association

Four person Design Team includedunion and district appointees

Principals work with individual teachers toset and agree on two annual objectives

Objectives set using one of threemethods: Student achievement defined by

nationally normed tests Student achievement defined by

teacher-developed, criterion-referenced tests

Knowledge or skills attainment

Third parties (e.g., foundations,corporate leaders, technicalassistance/research providers) provideaccountability for Design Team

Objectives: Over the four year pilotperiod, 89-93% of participating teachersreceived bonuses2 for at least oneobjective, and 78% of objectives havebeen met

Student achievement: Teachers who fulfilled bothobjectives had higher student gains

Higher quality teacher objectiveswere 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 grantsfrom foundations

In March 2004, the union approveddistrict-wide implementation3

$25 million levy approved by votersin 2005 to fund program expansion

Joint sponsorshipwith union

Teacher objectivesset with principals

Variation/flexibility inteacher objectives

Third-partyinvolvement

U.S. City Pay-for-Performance (PFP) Pilot1 Impact to date

U.S. case example reveals how placement processes can leadto inequitable distribution of highly qualified teachers


TL3A


81/149

| 80

Research on teacher placement in a U.S. state highlights that teachers with more qualifications areconcentrated in schools serving fewest low-income and high-need students

Since teachers with equal qualifications and experience are paid the same, the study assessed thedifference in overall teacher pay between high-need (high poverty, high minority) and low-need schools

822

Q2

1,773Q3

Q4

-1,589Q5

5,024Q1

3,170

Q4

-737Q5

5,531Q1

3,414Q2

2,362Q3

1,299

SOURCE: Education Trust West, 2005

Gap between average teacher salaries in top

and bottom poverty quintiles1$ average pay gap across schools by quintiles

Gap between average teacher salaries in top

and bottom minority enrollment quintiles2$ average pay gap across schools by quintiles

1 Q1 = lowest poverty, Q5 = highest poverty2 Q1 = lowest minority enrollment, Q5 = highest minority enrollment


82/149

Washington relies on district-reported data to identify shortagesubject areas and demand for teachers


TL3B


83/149

| 82SOURCE: Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State, WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006, team analysis

Considerable surplus

Some surplus

Balance

Some shor

Documents

Washington Race to the Top Diagnostic Report