Download
race to the top n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Race to the Top PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Race to the Top

Race to the Top

119 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Race to the Top

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Michael Lach March 22, 2011 MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM: Regional Conference Race to the Top

  2. Overview • Race to the Top Funding • State Competition • Assessment Competition • Resources

  3. Race to the Top Funding

  4. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act $53.6 Billion Formula Competitive $48.6 Billion “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” $5 Billion Funding Race to the Top $4.35 Billion Investing in Innovation $650 Million

  5. Funding (cont.)

  6. Race to the Top – State Competition

  7. Purpose • Purpose: To encourage and reward States implementing comprehensive reforms across four key areas: • Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace • Recruiting, rewarding and retaining effective teachers and principals • Building data systems that measure student success and inform instruction and practitioner development • Turning around the lowest-performing schools

  8. Overview of the Notice States must meet: Application Requirements, e.g.: • Signatures of key stakeholders • Certification from State’s attorney general re: descriptions of State laws • State Reform Conditions requirements • Reform Plan requirements Program/Other Requirements: • Evaluation • Participating LEA scope of work • Make work available • Technical assistance • State summative assessments Eligibility Requirements: • Approved for State Fiscal Stabilization prior to award • No legal barriers at State level to linking student achievement data to teachers and principals for purposes of evaluation Applications will be scored based on:* Priorities: • Absolute: Comprehensive approach to education reform • Competitive: Emphasis on STEM • Invitational: Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes • Invitational: Expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems • Invitational: P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment • Invitational: School-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning Selection Criteria: • State success factors • Standards and assessments • Data systems to support instruction • Great teachers and leaders • Turning around the lowest-achieving schools • General * Note that invitational priorities are not scored.

  9. STEM Competitive Priority To meet this priority in their RTT application, a State’s application had to have a high-quality plan that addressed all three aspects of the STEM priority: • offer a rigorous course of study in mathematics, the sciences, technology, and engineering; • cooperatewith industry experts, museums, universities, research centers, or other STEM-capable community partners to prepare and assist teachers in integrating STEM content across grades and disciplines, in promoting effective and relevant instruction, and in offering applied learning opportunities for students; and • prepare more students for advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including by addressing the needs of underrepresented groups and of women and girls in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 9

  10. RTT Awards State Funds • Up to 50% of total award • States plans include reforms in four areas and STEM • Annual targets and benchmarks set by States LEA Funds • At least 50% of total award • Allocated through Title I, Part A funding formula • LEAs signed Memoranda of Understanding outlining commitment to State reforms before application • Reviewers evaluated and scored applicants on LEA commitment • LEAs and States work together after award to create “LEA Scopes of Work” • LEA activities and benchmarks evaluated by State over 4 years

  11. Competition (cont.) • Phase 1: Applications submitted on January 19, 2010. • 2 Winning States: • Phase 2: Applications submitted on June 1, 2010 • 10 Winning States:

  12. Competition (cont.) • 34 states passed laws and/or regulatory changes related to Race to the Top. • 38 states (including DC) have adopted the Common Core State Standards.

  13. STEM highlights in RTT Plans • Delaware • Plans to partner with the State’s Graduate School of Education to develop a STEM residency program as an alternate route to certification designed to meet the State’s need for STEM educators. • DC • By 2011, DC plans to have a coordinated statewide plan for STEM, developed by the DC STEM Learning Network, to include targets for the number of DC graduates choosing majors and careers in STEM-related fields. • Florida • Plans to utilize the STEMflorida Education Advisory Group, which is working collaboratively to produce a STEM plan to enhance STEM support for educators and students by Dec 2010.

  14. STEM highlights in RTT Plans (cont.) • Georgia • Plans to require that all 3-8 grades make science their second AYP indicator to put more focus on the subject. • Hawaii • Aligning HS grad requirements and assessments with college-readiness requirements and State STEM goals in cooperation with the University of Hawaii system. • Maryland • Developing the Maryland STEM Innovation Network which will be a comprehensive, physical, and virtual network to support communications, convey knowledge, and share valuable resources among all of Maryland’s STEM stakeholders: PreK–12 teachers, higher education faculty, business and community leaders, economic development officers, researchers, and policymakers.

  15. STEM highlights in RTT Plans (cont.) • Massachusetts • Plans to utilize RTT funds to Individualize STEM instruction, increase the number of effective STEM educators, and increase STEM college and career readiness among underrepresented groups. • New York • Is considering regulations authorizing a new and expedited certification route for persons with doctoral degrees in STEM disciplines to teach in high-need middle and high schools. • North Carolina • Plans to build a network of STEM-themed high schools throughout the state and provide virtual courses in STEM areas to students statewide.

  16. STEM highlights in RTT Plans (cont.) • Ohio • Plans to leverage an established statewide and national STEM learning network in order to support teachers in inquiry-based applied learning approaches and build student motivation, competence, and persistence to pursue advanced STEM academics and careers. • Rhode Island • Plans to include STEM emphasis in the development of curriculum materials and STEM emphasis in professional development and support for instructors. • Tennessee • Plans to form a new STEM Innovation Network with goals to increase the number and enhance the support of STEM educators, develop curricula linked to the state’s STEM industries and partner with a diverse group of organizations to raise student achievement in STEM.

  17. Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) Program

  18. Purpose PURPOSE: Support states in delivering a system of more effective, valid, and instructionally useful assessments that: • Provide accurate information about what students know and can do: • Student achievement of standards • Student growth from year to year • On-track to college and career ready by the time of high school graduation • Reflect and support good instructional practice • Include all students from the outset, including English language learners and students with disabilities • Present data to each audience – students, parents, teachers, administrators, policymakers – in ways that are clear, useful, and actionable

  19. Competition Categories

  20. RTTA Grantee Highlights

  21. Resources

  22. Resources Web site: www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop • NIA, NFP, FAQs • Applications • Peer Reviewer Comments • Tier 2 (videos and presentations) • ED Presentations • Peer Review training materials • Peer Reviewer biographies

  23. Website – RTT Homepage

  24. Website – Applications Links to Phase 1 and 2 applications, scores and comments

  25. Website – Peer Review Information on Peer Review – reviewer selection, training and biographies

  26. Questions?