Race to the Top Appli?ation for Phase 2? Funding CFDA Number: 84.395A US Department of Education Washington, DC. 20202 OMB Number: 1810-0697 Expiration Date: 06/30/2010 PaperWork Burden Statement According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for misinformation collection is 1810-0697. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to' average 68-1 hours per respOn-se, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy 'of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: US. Department of Education, Washington, DC. 20202?4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding. the status of your individual submission of this form", write directly to: Race to the Top, Of?ce of Elementary and Secondary?EducatiOn, US. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave, S.W., Room 3E108, Washington, DC. 20202?3 18 . APPLICATION FOR INITIAL FUNDING UNDER. RACE TO THE TOP TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. APPLICATION INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS 3 II. 7 RACE TO THE TOP APPLICATION ASSURANCES 12 IV. ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, REPORTING AND OTHER - ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS 14 V. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 17 VI. SELECTION CRITERIA: PROGRESS AND. PLANS IN THE FOUR EDUCATION REFORM AREAS 18 VII. COMPETITION -. 129i BUDGET I 137 IX. PARTICIPATING LEA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Appendix I) in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, De?nitions, and Selection Criteria; and in the Notice Inviting Applications) 171 X. SCHOOL INTERVENTION MODELS (Appendix in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selectitm Criteria; and In the Notice Inviting Applications) -. I XI. I SCORING RUBRIC (Appendix in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, De?nitions, and SelectiOn Criteria; and in the Notice Inviting Applications) 1'81. XII. APPLICATION - I 1 98 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. . 200' XIV. OTHER REQUIREMENTS - . . 2-01 XV. I CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES. -. - - XVI. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES 20.4 XVII. APPLICATION CHECKLIST 206 TABLE OF. . 208 Dear Colleague: On July 24, President Obama and I released. the proposed priorities, requirements, de?nitions, and selection criteria for the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund. That announcement precipitated a vigorous national dialogue about how. to best reform ourschools and educate our Nation?s children. With your assistance, that dialogue is beginning to generate far?reaching that will helpArnerica boost student learning, narrow achievement gaps, and increase college and career readiness. Today, the U.S.- Department of Education is releasing the ?nal priorities, requirements, de?nitions, and selection criteria, along with the application for the Race to the Top competition. . . Race to the Top provides an unprecedented opportunity to reform our schools and challenge an educational status quo that is failing too many children. President Obama and C0ngress have provided more money for school reform than ever before in. history. This is a once? in?a?lifetime chance to change our schools and accelerate student achievement. And everyone c0mmitted to education reform Can be- partners in- promoting the success of our children. - Through Race to the Top, we are asking States to advance reforms around four specific areas . Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed 111 college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy, - . Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how" they can improve instruction,- - Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effeCtive teachers and. principals, especially- 'Where they are needed most; and - a Turning around. our lowest?achieving schools. Awards in RaCe to the Top will go to. States that are leading the way with ambitibus yet achievable plans for implementing coherent, compelling, and comprehensive education reform. Race to the "Top winners will help trail? blaze effective reforms and provide examples for States and local school districts throughOut the country to follow as they too are hard at Work on reforms that can transform our schools .for decades to come The momentum for reform is already building. Some. 1,161 commenterssubmitted thOusands of unique comments, ranging from one paragraph to 67 pages. Educators and members of the public from every State. and the District of Columbia submitted comments, and the 00mmenters included parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school board. members, chief state school officers, and governors. This outpouring of thoughtful input prompted the Department to make numerous changes and. improvements to. the ?nal application. But just 'as- important, the overwhelming volume of comments demonstrates the potential for Race to the Top to prOpel the transformational. Changes that students and teachers need. I hope this process becomes a model one where transparent and candid dialogue informs our policies and your work, enabling all stakeholders toact in the best interests of children. I am heartened by and grateful for your participation to date. And invite you to continue that conversation as we move forward in the effort to build an education system that our students deserve, one that ensures that our country is ready to compete in the global economy of the '21St Century. Sincerely, Arne Duncan 1. APPLICATION INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS Introduction Race to the Top 13 authOrized under section 14006 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The purpose of the Race to the Top Fund a competitive grant program, is to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and re.;form achieving signi?cant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring Student preparation for success in college and careers, and implementing ambitious plans 1n four core education reform areas: - . Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the Workplace and to compete in the global economy; I - . Building data systems that measure student grOWth and success, and inform teachers- and principals about how they can improVe instruction, Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and . Turning around our lowest? ?achieving schOols. General Instructions - . The Department encourages all potential applicants to read through the entire application. package including the notice inviting applications, the notice of ?nal priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, and this application? before beginning to prepare the- application proposal - This application includes sections that require response or action by the State, as well as several sections of background information that are directly relevant to the program. For example, Section 11 includes de?nitions that are used throughout the application. Page Length Recommendation The Department recommends a page length for the State?s response to each selection criterion; these are indicated in the application next to each criterion. We recommend that States limit their total page count (that is, the narratiVe reSponses to all selection _-criteri.a in Section VI). to no more than 100 pages of State?authored text, and that they limit their appendices to no more than 250 pages. For all responses, we request that the following standards be used: A -?page? is 8. 5" on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. . Each page has a page number. - Line spacing for the narratives is set to 1.5 spacing, and the fOnt used is l2 point Times New Roman The Secretary strongly requests that applicants follow- the recommended page limits, although the Secretary will consider applications of greater length. Instructions for Responding to Selection. Criteria The appliCation provides Space for the State to address the selection criteria, including performance measures and supporting evidence. As required by the Absolute Priority (eXplained in more-detail below), the State must address all education reform areas. It need not address every individual Selection criterion. However, a State will not earn points for selection criteria that it does not address. There are two types of selection criteria ?.State Reform Conditions Criteria and Reform Plan Criteria?to Which the State may respond. State Reform Conditions Criteria are used to assess a State progress and its success 1n creating conditions for reform 1n specific areas related to the four ARRA education reform areas The State must provide, for each State Reform ConditiOns Criterion addressed a description of the State current status in meeting that criterigon and at a minimum, the information requested as supporting evidence that the'State has met the criterion. The State may also submit additional information that it believes will be helpful to reviewers in judging the criterion. 1 Reform Plan Criteria are used to assess a State plan for future efforts in the four ARRA education reform areas The State must provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion that the State chooses to address, a detailed plan for use of grant funds that includes, but need not be limited . The key goals; 5 The key activities to be undertaken and rationale for the activities, which should include why the specific activities are thought to bring about the change envisioned and how these activities are linked to the desired goals, - The timeline for implementing the. activities; 0 The party or parties responsible for implementing the activities; 0 The State?s annual targets for this plan, where applicable, with reSpe'ct to the performance measures, if any. Where the State proposes plans for reform efforts not covered by a speci?ed performance measure, the State may propose performance measures. and annual targets for those efforts; and The information requested as supporting evidence, if any, for the c1iterion, together with any additional information the State believes will be helpful to reviewers in judging the I credibility of the State 3 plan. Responding to Selection Criteria: For each criterion, there are up to three parts: the narrative, the performance measures, and the evidence. a Narrative. For each criterion the State addresses, the State writes its narrative response in the text box below the selection criterion (in the space marked, ?Enter text here?). In this space, the State describes how it has addressed or will address that criterion. Response are indicated in the directions. 0 Performance Measures. For several selection criteria, the State 15 asked to provide goals and annual targets, baseline data, and other information; these are indicated in the application. In addition, the State may provide additional performance meaeres, baseline data, and targets for any criterion it chooses. Reviewers will consider, as part of their evaluations of the State?s application, the extent to which the State has set ambitious yet achievable annUal targets for the performance measUres- in support. of the State?splan. Tables for all. of the performance measures are provided in. the application. or criteria to which a State is responding, the State must complete thetables or provide an attachment in the Appendix responding to the perfOrma'nce measures. If there are data the State does not have, the State should indicate that-the data are not available and explain why. . Some data elements may require States to collect information from participating LEAs. It may be helpful to begin gathering this information as early as possible (see especially criteria and To minimize burden. performance measures have been requested only where the Department intends to report nationally on them and for measures that lend themselves to . objective and Comparable data gathering. In the future the Department may require grantees to submit additiOnal performance data as part of an annual report program evaluation, or other mechanism - For optional performanCe measures, no submission of the measures is required; however if? the State wishes to include performance measures in these Optional caSes, it may use the templates provided 1n the application or it may submit attachments 0 Evidence: Some selection criteria require the State to provide specific evidence; this is indicated in the application. In addition, the State. may provide additional evidence for any criterion it chooses. - The State must provide the evidence 1n the narrative text below each selection criterion or provide an attachment in the Appendix. Appendix: The Appendix must include a complete Table of Contents. Each attachment in the Appendix must be described in the narrative text of the relevant selection criterion, With a rationale for how its inclusion supports the narrative and a notation of its loCatibn in'the Appendix- - Competition Priorities: The Race to the Top competition includes abSolute, competitive, and invitational prion'ties. The competition priorities can be found 1n Section VII of this application. The absolute priority will be addressed under State SucCess Factors, section A, and through the State? 5 comprehensiVe approach to addressing the four edu'Cation reform areas, selection criteria Sections B, C, and E.- A State that is respOnding to the competitive preferenCe priority should address it throughout the application, as appropriate, and provide a summary of its approach to addressing the priority in the text box below the priority in Section VII. Applicants responding to the invitational priorities may address them throughout their applications or in the text boxes. below each priorities in Section VII. Responding to the competitive and invitational priorities is optional - -- Competition Description and Scoring Rubric For information on the competition review and Selection process, see the section entitled, Review and Selection Process, in the notice inviting applications; and Section XI, Scoring Rubric (Appendix in- the notice). In addition, point values have been. included throughout the application. Technical Assistance Planning Werksl? To assist States In preparing the application and to respond to questions, the Department will host a Technical Assistance Planning Workshop for potential Phase 2 applicants on April 21, 2010, in Minneapolis,-Minnesota. The purpose of the workshop is for Department staff to review the selection criteria requirements and priorities with teams of participants responsible for drafting State applications; for Departrnent staff to answer technical questions about the Race to the Top program; and for- potential Phase 2 applicants to hear from and ask questions of successful Phase 1 applicants. For more information about the workshop please visit http: f/wst2. ed. -te_c_h-assistauice? workshop litrril; updates about. all events will be available at the Race to the Top website - ed. gov/programs/racetothetop Attendance at the workshop is strongly encOuraged. For those who cannot attend, transcripts of the meeting will be available on our website. Announcements of any other conference calls or webinars and Frequently Asked QuestiOns will also be available on the Race to the Top website ed. gov/programs/iacetometop Frequently Asked Questions The Department has also prepared frequently asked questions in order to assist States In completing an application. Frequently Asked Questions are available at ed gov/programs/racetothetop. - II. DEFINITIONS Alternative routes to certification means pathways to certi?catiOn that are authorized under the State?s laws or regulations that allow the establishment and operation of teacher and administrator preparation programs in the State and that have the following characteristics (in addition to standard features such as demonstration of subj ect? matter mastery, and high?quality instruction in pedagogy and 1n addressing the needs of all students In the classroom including English language learners and. Student with disabilities): can be provided by various types of quali?ed providers including both institutiOns of higher education and other providers operating independently from institutions of higher education;- are selective In acCepting candidates; provide supervised school? based experiences and ongoing support such as effective mentoring and coaching; signi?cantly limit the amount of coursework required or have options to test out of courses; and upon completion award the sanie level of certi?cation that traditional preparation programs award upon completion. College enrollment refers to the enrollment of students who graduate from high schOol consistent with 34 CFR and who enroll In an institution of higher education (as de?ned In sectiOn 101 of the Higher Education Act, P. L. 105 -244, 20 U. S. C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation.- .- Common set of K-12. standards means a set of content standards that de?ne what students must know and be able to do and that are substantially identical across all States in a consortium. State may supplement the common standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State's total standards for that c0ntent area. . Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (6. g, at least one grade level In an academic year) of student growth (as de?ned in this notice). States, LEAs, or Schools must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in signi?cant part, by student growth (as de?ned in this notice).- Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates, as well as evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community. engagement. Effective teacher means a teacher Whose students achieve acceptable rates at least One grade level 111 an academic year) of student grOwth (as de?ned In this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness 15 evaluated, in signi?cant part, by student growth (as de?ned 1n this notice). Supplemental measures may include, fOr example, multiple observation.? based assessments of teacher performance. Formative assessment means assessment questions, tools, and processes that are embedded in instruction and are used by teachers and students to provide timely feedback for purposes of adjusting instruction to improve learning. - Graduation rate means the four? ?year or extended?year adjusted cohort graduation rate as de?ned by 34 CF The term English language learner, as used in this notice, is synonymous with the term limited English pro?cient, as de?ned in section 9101 of the ESEA Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (6. one and one?half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as de?ned in this notice). States, LEAS, must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in. signi?cant part, by student growth (as de?ned in this notice). Supplemental measures may include,- for example, high school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing supportive teaching andlearning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement; or evidence 'of' attracting, developing, and retaining high numbers of effective. teachers. Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students. achieve high rates (6. g, one and one- half grade levels 1n an academic year) of student growth (as de?ned 1n this notice). States, LEAS, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness 1s evaluated, in signi?cant part, by student growth (as de?ned 111 this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation?based assessments of teacher performance or evidenCe of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that 1ncr?ease the effectiveness of other teachers 1n the school or LEA. High-minority school is de?ned by the State in a manner Consistent with its Teacher Equity Plan. The State shOuld provide, in its Race to the Top application, the de?nitio'nused. High-need LEA means an LEA that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with 1ncomes below the poverty line; or for which not less than 20 percent of? the children served by the LEA are from families with 1ncomes below the poverty line. High?need students means students at risk ofeducationai failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students Who are living in poverty, who attend high?minority schools (as de?ned in this notice), who arefar below grade level, who have left school before . receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have . disabilities, or who are English language learners - charter school means a charter school that has been in operation for at least three ConsecutiVe years and has demonstrated overall success, including substantial progress in improving student achievement (as de?ned in this notice); and the management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start?up problems and eStablish a thriving, ?nancially viable charter school. High?poverty school means, consistent with section 1111 of the ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a measure of poverty determined by the State. High quality assessment means an assessment designed to measure a student 3 knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply, critical concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats (6. g, open-ended responses, performance?based tasks). Such assessments should enable measurement of student achievement (as de?ned in this notice) and student growth (as de?ned in this notice); be of high technical quality be valid, reliable, fair, and aligned to standards); incorporate technology where appropriate;- include the assessment of students with disabilities and .English language learners; and to the extent feasible use universal design principles (as de?ned in section 3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U. S. C. 3002) 1n development and administration Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to signi?cantly increase the total number of school hours to include additional. time for instruction in Core academic subjects, including English; reading or language arts ,?mathematics; science; foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts; history; and geOgraphy; instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well- rounded work? based learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; and (0.) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development - within and across grades and subj ects} Innovative, autonomous public schoOls means open enrolhnent public schOols that, in- return for increased accountability for student achieVement (as de?ned 111 this notice), have the ?exibility and authority to de?ne their instructional models and associated curriculum; select and replace staff; implement new structures and formats for the school day or year, and control their budgets. Instructional improvement systems means technology-based tools and other strategies that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with meaningful support and actionable data to systemically manage continuous. instructional improvement, including such activities as: . instructional planning; gathering informatiOn (rag, through formative assessments (as de?ned in this notice), interim assessments (as de?ned in this notice),- summative assessments, and looking at student work and other student data); analyzing informmiOn with the support of rapid? time (as de?ned In this notice) reporting; using this information to inform decisions 0n appropriate next instructional steps, and evaluating the effectiveness of the actions taken. Such systems promote collaborative problem? solving and action planning; they may also integrate instructional data with student- level data Such as attendance, discipline, grades, credit accumulation, and student survey results to provide early warning indicators of a student?s risk of educational failure. Interim assessment means an assessment that 15 given at regular and speci?ed intervals throughout the school year, is designed to evaluate students knowledge and skills relative to a speci?c set of academic standards, and produces results that can be aggregated g, by course, grade leVel, school, or LEA) 1n order to inform teachers and administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels. - 2Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per school year. (See Frazier, Julie Morrison, Frederick J. ?The In?uence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and Perceived Competence in Eariy Elementary School.? Child Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp.495?497 and research donelby Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after?school hours can be dif?cult to implement effectively, but is permiSSible under this de?nition with encouragement to closely integrate and coordinate academic work between and out?of school. (See ames?Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. "When Elementary Stay Open Late: Results from The National Evaluation of the let Century Community Learning Centers Program." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4), December 2007, Document Involved LEAs means LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement those speci?c portions of the State? plan that neCessitate full or nearly-full statewide implementation such as transitioning to a common set of 12 standards (as de?ned in this notice). Involved LEAs do not receive a share of the 50 percent of a State grant award that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance with sectiOn l4006(c) of the ARRA, but States may provide Other ?inding to involved LEAs under the State? Race to the Top grant in a manner that is consistent with the State 5 application. Low-minority school is de?ned by the State in a manner consistent with its Teacher Equity Plan The State should provide, in its Race to the Top application, the de?nition used. Low?poverty? school means, consistent with section of the ESEA, a school 1n the lowest quartile of schools in the State with respect to poverty level using a measure of poverty determined by the State. . Participating LEAs means LEAs that choose" to work with the State to implement all or - signi?cant portions of the State Race to the plan, as. speci?ed in each agreement with the State. Each participating LEA that receives funding Under Title I, Part A will receive a share of the 50 percent of a State? grant award that the State must subgrant to LEAs, based on the relative share of Title I, Part. A. allocations in the most recent year, in accordance with section l4006(c) of the ARRA. Any participating LEA that does nOt receive funding under Title I, Part A (as well as one that does) may receive funding from the State other 50 percent of. the grant aWard, in accordance with the State 3 plan. Persistentlv lowest?achieving schools means, as determined by the State: (1) Any. Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that Is among the lowest?achieving ?ve percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest- achieving ?ve Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater, or Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as de?ned 1n 34 CFR 200. 19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years, and (ii) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that Is among the I lowest-achieving ?ve percent- of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving ?ve secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of Schools IS greater, or Is a high school that has had a graduation rate. as de?ned 1n 34 CFR 200 19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both The academic achievement of the ?all students? . group in a school in terms of pro?ciency on the State?s assessments under section 11 1 of the ESEA 1n reading/language arts and mathematics combined, and (ii) The school lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the ?all students? group. Rapid? ?time-, 1n reference to reporting. and availability of locally?collected school- and level data, means that data are available quickly enough to inform current lessons, instruction, and related supports. 10 Student achievement meansw? For tested grades and subjects: (1) a student?s score on the State?s assessments under the and; asappropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph of this de?nition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. For non?tested grades and subj ects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scOres on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language pro?ciency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.? . Student growth means the change in student achievement (as de?ned in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across Classrooms. Total revenues available to the State means either projected or actual total State revenues for education and other purposes for the relevant year; or ected or actual total State . - appropriations for education and other purposes for the relevant year. America COMPETES Act elements means (as speci?ed in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of that Act): (1) a unique statewide student identi?er. that does not permit a student to be individually identi?ed by users of the system; (2) student- level enrollment; demographic, and program participation information; (3) student- level information about the points at Which students exit transfer 1n, transfer out; drop out; or complete 16 education programs; (4) the capacity to . communicate with higher education data systems; (5) a State data audit system assessing?data quality, validity, and reliability; (6) yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b) of the ESEA (20 U. S. 6311(b)); (7) information on students not tested by grade and subject; (8) a. teacher identi?er system with the ability to match teachers to students; (9) student- level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; (10) student? level college readiness test scores; (11) information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary school to poStsecondary . education; including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and (12) other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in - postsecondary education. 11 111. RACE TOP APPLICATIGN ASSURANCES 10111111 No. 84.395111) Legal Naine of Applicant (Of?ce of the Applicant? 5 Ma?in?iAddxess: I ?Qeinmx JORR ?1 1101183 (M GOO-ewe: 113m 0:1 He; - 063031164 1R3 011353 ~00:5_1 Empioyer Identi?cation Numbeiz Organizational DUNS: {$000001 . - ROROLEBSHS State Race to the Top Contact Name: Contact 1?051 '011 and Of?ce; - (Single point Of Contact for comm1111ieation) 936 - . RREYN . ?101 Re. hepatic 111111117 0in M1 E50 Conmc?el hone: Contact E?mail Address; {3:131 191% be.) 21:0 engete?ske?y? 1111111110 61011 Required Applicant Signatures: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information and data 11:1 this application are true . and correct I ?thher certify that I have read the application am fully committed to it, and will support its . l- THGovernor or Authorized Representanve Of the Governor (1)1111th Name) Telephone 3:01? 1?1 %l Clo: :1 1 @eefflof {5&0 11213 353 - Slgnature of Govern or Authorized fRepresentatiVe Of the Governor Date #1415 . Chief State School Of?cer (Printed Name): f1 1?1 :1 . 911014?1121 Slgnature of the ef State School 01111: .: ?Date:- #1715 010! til-Pres1de111 Of the State Board Of Educatlon {Prmted Name) TClephone 741/111 ester . 120,1} S1g11ature ofthe Pres1deet Of the State Board Of - I Date -. 12 State Attorney General Certi?cation I certify that the State 3 description of, and statements and conclusions concerning, State law, statute and regulation in its application are complete, accurate, and constitute a reasonable interpretation of State law, statute, and regulation. (See especialfy Efigzbiifzjl Requirement (5) Selection Criteria (D) (I), .) . I certify that the State does not have any legal statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level to linking data On student achievement (as de?ned 111 this notice) or student growth (as de?ned in this notice) to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation. State Attorney General or Authorized Repre sentative (Print?d Name): Telephone Sal-an ear must, sigmtureofihe' sateAttomeyGenemi orAthOI?lZ?d Representatite bat-es ?13 IV. ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, REPORTING AND OTHER ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS Accountability, Transparencv and Reporting Assurances The Governor or his/her authorized representative assures that the State will comply with all of the accountability, tranSparenCy, and reporting requirements that apply to the Race to the Top program including the following: 0 For each year of the program, the State will Submit a report to the Secretary, at such time and _in such manner as. the Secretary may require, that describes: I the uses of funds within the State; 0 how the State distributed the funds it received; 0 the number of obs that the Governor estimates were saved or created with. the funds; _0 the State progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly quali?ed teachers implementing a State longitudinal data system, and developing and implementing valid and reliable assessments for limited English pro?cient students and students with disabilities; and if applicable,_a description of each modernization, renovation, or repair project approved in. the State application and funded, including the amounts awarded and project costs (ARRADivision A, Section 14008) 0 The State will cooperate with any US. Comptroller General evaluation of the uses of funds and the impact of funding on the progress made toward clOsing achievement gaps (ARRA Division A, Section 14009) 0 If the State uses funds for any infrastructure investment, the State will certify that the. investment received .the full?review' and vetting required by law and that the chief executive accepts reSpOnsibility that the investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. This certification will include a description of the investment, the estimated total cest, and the amount of covered funds to be uSed. The certi?cation will- be posted on the State?s Website- and linked to A State or local agency may not use funds under the ARRA for infrastructure IinVestment funding unlesS this certi?cation is made and posted. (ARRA Division. A, Section 151 1) - The State will submit reports, within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter, that - contain the information required under section 1512(0) of the ARRA in accordance with any guidance issued by the Of?ce of Management and Budget or the Department. (ARRA . Division A, Section 1512(0)) ?1 The State will cooperate with any apprOpriate Federal Inspector General?s examination of records under the program. (ARRA Division A, Section 1515) 14' Other Assurances and Certi?cations The Governor or his/her authorized representative assures or certi?es the following: The State will comply with all applicable-assurances in OMB Standard Forms 424B (Assurances for Non~Construction Programs) and to the extent consistent with the State? 5 application, OMB Standard Form 424D (Assurances for Construction Programs), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance; access-to records; con?ict of interest; merit systems; nondiscriminatibn;Hatch_ Act provisions; labor standards; ?ood hazards; historic pr.eservati.;.on protection of human subj. ects; animal welfare; lead- based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreement to comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders and regulations. 'With respect to the certi?cation regarding lobbying 1n Department Form 80 0013, no Federal- appropriated ?mds? have been paid or. will be paid to any person for in?uencing or attempting to in?uence an of?cer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress an of?cer or emplOyee of Congress Or an employee of a Member of COngress in connection with the making or renewal of Federal grants under this program; the State will complete and submit Standard "Disclosure F0rm to Report Lobbying," when required (34 C..-F.R. Part 82, Appendix and the State will require the full certi?cation, as set forth in 34 CFR. Part .82, Appendix A, in the award documents for all subawards at. all tiers. The State will comply with all of the operational. and administrative provisions in Title XV and XIV of the ARRA, including Buy American Requirements (ARRA Division A, Section 1605), Wage Rate Requirements (section 1606), and any applicable environmental impact requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) (ARRA Division A, Section 1609). In using ARRA funds for infrastructure investment, recipients will comply with the requirement regarding Preferences for Quick Start Activities (AR-RA Division A, Section 16.02) Any local educational agency (LEA) receiving funding under. this program will have on ?le with the State a set of assurances that meets the requirements of sectiOn 442 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U. S. C. 1232e). Any LEA receiving funding under this program will have on ?le with the State (through either its Stabilization Fiscal Stabilization Fund application or another US. Department of Education Federal grant) a description of how the LEA will comply with the requirements of section 427 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1228a). The descriptiOn must include information on the steps the LEA proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and other program bene?ciaries to overcbme barriers (including barriers based on gender, race, color, national origin, disability, and age) that impede access to, or participation in, the program; The State and other entities will comply with the Education Department General - Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), including the follo'wing provisions as applicable: .34 CF Part 74?Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Pro?t Organizations; 34 CFR Part 75??Direct Grant Programs; 34 CFR Part 77? De?nitions that Apply to Department Regulations; '34 CFR Part .15 80? Uniform Administrative Requirements for. Grants and C00perative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the procurement provisions; 34 CFR Part 81.4 General Education Provisions Act?Enforcement; 34 CFR Part 82? New Restrictionson Lobbying; 34 CFR Part 84?Governmen'tWide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance); 34 CFR Part SS?Governrnentwide Debarment and Su?spension (N onprocurement) SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR CERTEYING OFFICIAL Date: 16 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS A State must meet the folloWing requirements in order to be eligible to receive funds under this program. Eligibility Requirement: The State applieations for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stab1l1zat1on Top grant The Depanme-nr w1ll de1er-m-1ne'elfgibilizy under 111.1113requirement-before? making 11 grantqward, .. Reqmrement At the time the State its application, there are; 110' legal statutory; or regulatory barners at the State level to. llnking data on student ach1evement (as de?ned 111 this notice) or student growth - (as de?ned 111 this notlce) to teachers. and for the purpose of teacher and evaluation - The certj?catzon ofthe Attorney General addresses this requirement. he applicant may provide explan; '_r;y1nforma110n 1f necessary The Department ?will determine el1g1b1l11y unde1 1111's reqmrement - (Enter text hereVI. SELECTION CRITERIA: PROGRESS AND PLANS IN THE FOUR EDUCATION REFORM AREAS (A) State Success Factors (125 total points) Articulating State? 5 education reform agenda and participation' 1111 it (65170111159 The extent to Whichew The State has set forth a comprehensiVe and coherent refOrm agenda that, clearly art1culates its goals for Implementing reforms In achieving these goals and IS cons1stent with. the specr?c refOrm plans that the State has proposed throughout its. application (5 points) (ii) The participating LEAS (as defined in this notice) are strongly committed to the- State plans and to effective implementation of reform 1n the four education naieas as evidenced by Memoranda of. Understandmg (MOUS) (as IseIt- forth in Appendix D3) or other binding agreements between the State and- its participating LEAS (as de?ned' In th1s notice) that Include? (45 porters) Terms and conditions that re?ect strong commitment by the part1c1pat1ng LEAS (as de?ned I111 this notlee) to the States plans; Scope- -Of?-W0rk descriptions that; requlre participating LEAS (as de?ned :1_n this notice) to implement all or signi?cant portions of the State?s Race to the Top. plans; and Signatures from as many-:as-possible of-"therLEA superintendent (or equivalent), the president of the-local. school board. (or equi-Valent if applicable) and the j-loea'l (if applicable) (one signature be from an authorized LEA representatlve) demonstratlng the extent of leadership support Within participating LEAS (as de?ned In this noticeg) and 3 See Appendix for more on participating LEA MOUS and for a model MOU. 18 participating LEAS, schools students and students 1n povertY) will translate into broad stateWIde impact, allowing the State to reach its ambitious yet achievable goals, overall and by student subgroup,- for?(l 5p01ntS) increasing student achievement 1n (at a minimum) readmgl language artS and mathematics as. .1eported by the NAEP and the. assessments required under the ESEA Decreasing achievement? gaps between subgroups 1n reading/language. arts and mathematics reported by the NAEIIP- and the assessments required under the ESEA (0). Increasing high school graduation-1151.16.52 (as. de?nedin this notice); and- Increasing college enrollment (as de?ned 1n. this notlce) and' Increasing the number. of students who complete at least a- year 5 worth of college credit that' is appl1cab1e1toa degree Within. two ?years of enrollment 1n an institution of h1gher education In the text box below the State. Shall: describe itS1 current. status in meeting the criterion aS well aS prejeetecl goal clercribed in (A The narrative or attachments Shall also. include at. a. minimum the evidence listed below and how each piece Hofevidenee demonStrateS the State? in, meeting the.- criterion he narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the State believes will be helpfiil to peer rewewerS For attachmentS included tn the Appendix, note in the narrative. the. location where the attachments can be found Evidence for 0 An example of the State 5 _standald. Participating LEA MOU and descriptlon of varlatlons used if1wany .0 The completed summary table indicating which speci?c portions of. the- State 1S plan each. LEA .to implementing, and relevant summary statistics (see Summary Table for below) 0 The completed summary table indicating: Which LI-EAI leadership signatures have been, obtained (_.seeI Summary- Table for. beloW). Evidence for l9 6 The completed summary table indicating the numbers and percentages of participating LEAs schools ?students and students 111 poverty (see Summary Table for below). 0 Tables and graphs that shOW the State 5 goals oVera'll and by subgroup, requested in the criterion together with the supporting narrative. In addition, describe what the goals would look like were the State. not to ?receive an award under. this. program. Evidence for and The completed detailed table, by LEA that includes the: information requested in the criterion (see Detailed Table for below). - Recommended maximum. response length Ten pages (excluding tables). 1. Maine has a vision ?Maine?s people will be among the best educated'in the world.? We Will realize this vision by focusing on the mission of Maine? 5 educational system that all students gradaating?om high school 11111.11 be prepared for post?secondary education careers and citizenship. (MR 20-A 620]) Maine 15 committed to ensuring that all students receive a world- class education in order to participate in the global economy and contribute to the democratic ideals of the nation, while re?ecting the values of local Communities regardless of where they live and attend school. Maine is making progress toward this Vision and goals through education reform over the past decade. Recognized for rigorous teaching and learning standards that are propelled by innovations in instructional practices, Maine educators are ready to take reform to a deeper and higher leVel for student The shift has already begun as Maine reconfigures its mission with students at the center and their performance as evidence for sustainable and transferable learning. We are committed to establishing conditions for learning wherein eVery student in relationships with other students and adults acquires and demonstrates skills, attitudes, and dispositions essential: for their attainment of school, work and life success. No longer restricted by time or place, Maine students and their educators are engaged in anytime, anywhere learning. Maine classrooms have been reconfigured to eXpand beyond the walls to a world-wide connectivity with ideas, content and processes for creative and critical thinking. Pedagogical content knowledge has been released from the university classrooms and methods courses to expand how teachers and principals are prepared for today learners. Continuous learning for/educators is now pessible through these 20 expanded networks of connectivity and in concert with their students. Leadership and access to know1edge have been redistributed. We have shifted ?locus of control? to locus of learning by generating data on each and every individual student. Our recent award for . the continuation of the IES Longitudinal Data Systems Grant strengthens our ability to develop and implement data systems that allows us to examine student progress from early childhood into career, including matching teachers to students, while protecting student privacy and con?dentiality. has a place in oUr data. system wherein their personal journey of growth and progress is honored, recorded and adds value to their life goals. . . What does the transformational system focused on the individual student look like? Each student is supported by .a system . comprised of ?ve'interrelated elements: (1) personalized learning; (2) performance-based learning; (3) systems of learning support; (4) great teachers and leaders; and (5) data used to guide teaching and learning. There must be transparency as the. system redesign takes place. The system must be open, visible, and responsive to all stakeholders from students to teachers, to principals to diStrict leaders, to parents and the general public. The principle of high-quality lifelong learning recognizes that learning is continuous across the lifespan; it does not just happen ina classroom. The system?s success will 'be' driven by-great teachers and leaders in all of our schools equipped with data and technology to guide teaching and learning. It is evident that the four ARRA assurance areas are integral-to, and consistent with, our transformed educational system, as described in more detail below. Standards and Assessment I . I (1) Personalized learning is a key element of our transformed educational system. It encompasses early education through the transition to. post-secondary educationjcare'ers. The individual student is at the center of an educational system that .is personally relevant, challenging, and responsive to his/her unique interests and abilities. When students are clear about what they are-expected to know and be able to do and are given the freedom and responsibility to play an integral role in meeting those expectations, they become more engaged, are more likely to identify when they are hitting obstacles and seek help in overcoming them, and are more likely to be successful in reaching those expectations In a system where learning is personalized,i{students develop post?secondary education and career goals, advocate for their needs, re?ect. on. their. prOgress, assume responsibility for their own learning, and 21 develop as life-long learners. Personalized learning puts theneeds and interests of-the student at the center Of a data-driven framework for-setting goals, assessing progress, and ensuring that students receive the academic and developmental supports and opportunities that each needs. Personalized learning is performance-based learning. It is not about acquiring- credit simply through seat time and- course taking. It is about meeting state and local standards through the demonstration of mastery of standards through various means. I It is about a delivery and support system that changes and adapts based on the student?s-aspirations and learning progress, indeed, it involves the other elements of the system. Teachers are facilitators, mentors ad leaders in this system. This we believe will lead to increased engagement for students and. increased ownership over their own education, resulting 1n increased achievement and an improved graduation rate, setting more students on a path to post secondary education. Schools and districts, as. well as the State itself, have undertaken initiativesor reforms with the goal to personalize learning for students. Some examples include: schools organized into smaller learning communities; multiple pathways fOr students to achieve the standards; and schools implementing performance-based systems. Legislation enacted in 2009-requires that students be able to demonstrate achievement of state and local standards through multiple?pathways and giVen support through a- system of interventions to do so (Appendix The Maine Course Pathways system allowsthe student and the parent, collaborating with school personnel, to select courses that electronically track the standards and inform the students if the path of courses will. address all the standards in the content area (Appendix A-2). This allows the student to design a four year person-a1 plan, or more if begun in middle school,'that will provide the student with access to and the opportunity to demonstrate achievement of the standards. Maine?s statewide laptop initiative in grades '7 and 8 has provided a quantum leap in student engagement and ownership of their own learning at a critical time in their learning development, Evidence shows that students write and edit their writing more, with resulting improved writing achievement as. measured by statewide assessments. By engaging creatively in inulti-media, research, online ?ash cards and host of other resources, students are taking control of-their' learning and in many cases shape the path of course curricula. At the annual statewide student conference on learning technology, more than 1,000 students and teachers 22 gather for workshops and seminars, mostly run by' students themselves, offering creative ideas to be brought back to classrooms around the state. The Maine Learning Technology Initiative has been clear in its-approach from the start and has educated the teaching community, policy makers and the pirblic that the focus is not on the machinery or software, but rather on using it to enhance learning and teaching. Through recent efforts, more than half of Maine?s high schools now-also provide laptops to? all students; many school systems have expanded on their own to lower grades, some starting as early as the third grade. 515%. We propose to use funds to expand several on?going state initiatives as well as to implement new initiatives that will support the goal of personalized learning. These include, but are not limited to: 0 Expand Maine Course Pathways, a system of reviewed syllabi that provide a tool forimplementing multiple pathways and ensuring opportunities for students to, demonstrate achievement" of standards.? 0 Develop Next Generation Innovative Schools. and Innovation Lab Schools-(NXGL) (Appendix A6) to pilot new approaches to teaching .and learning that embody the ?ve key elements of thisplan and implement the new Common Core Standards and new Cemmon Cross State Performance Assessments. "Maine Learning Technology Initiative in ways to support personalized learning and lifelong learning opportunities by providing virtual learning opportunities for students and teachers. (2) Performance-based learning will be central to our developing accountability system and is tied closely to personalized learning. The focus of our developing accountability system will be on student-by-student achievement along a progression of learning continuum. instructional system is dependent on local curriculum development and local interpretation of the State?s standards, with uneven implementation and expectations across the State. In the developing. system, students advance based on their demonstration of content knowledge and skills and are given opportunities to learn that enhances and maintains student motivation to do their personal best. We will work with our districts to develop and implement a curriculum that is performance-based 23 and modular, so that students. can enter and exit when they demonstrate proficiency. Assessments are embedded throughoiIt the curriculum as part of learning progressions. Instructional strategies are based on authentic, extended inquiry into complex problems. Performances are based on the ability to apply learning in real world context of careers and civic/social responsibilities. Integrated with Race to the Top priorities, our focus in this area will be participation in, adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (Appendix and common assessments (Appendix A-S), and performance assessments developed with the NXGL Partnership (Appendix A-3), including formative, benchmark, interim, and 'summative assessments. We will use Race to the Top funds to support performance-based learning in the following ways: 0 Performance- based learning in all areas, including. cross- -cutting in STEM areas. 0 The implementation of industry based standards and performance- ~based assessments in Career and Technical Education, in consortium with other states. 0 Develop and provide?professional. development for teachers and leaders to support and implement performance based. learning, common standards and common assessments. I I I I (3) Systems of Learning Support are integral" to our transformed educational system. Toachieve our vision, the system requires safety nets for students throughout. the learning progression from Pre-kinder-garten thrOugh high school diploma. Systems of learning support are tiered and weave together the resources of the state, school, home, and community to provide a full array of services that follow the learner. Rather than simply being school-based, the. system includes early childhood and early learning support to ensure I that each student can achieve his/her full potential as a next generation learner. Learning suppOrts, using data from interim, formative, and benchmark assessments, learning plans, and performance based assessment systems, are designed for all. students, not just a few. Learning services and supports need to reach students in unique placements andlcircumstances. A cohesive, coherent system of supports enables all students to have an equal opportunity for success by removing barriers to learning, including location, thereby increasing engagement, and re?engaging disconnected youth. Systems of support for learning designed for improving Specifically address the gaps in achievement and success among student subgroups. 24 The implementation of comprehensive systems of support is integral to our transformed educational system but they are also integral with the overarching goals of Race to the Top: raising achievement, reducing. achievement gaps, decreasing the dropout rate, and increasing post?secondary enrollment and attainment. Maine is actively coordinating the development of systems of support in our schools. By 2012, all school districts are required to develop and implement a system of interventions for grades that provides each student who is not pregre'ssing toward meeting the State?s standards with different learning experiences or assistance to achieve the standards (Appendix The interventions must be specific, timely and based upon ongoing formative assessments that continuously monitor student progress. Maine. has supported public preschool programs-for four~year olds to improve school readiness and provide early intervention when necessary. Maine has also supported, along with private foundations, the development and implementation of an Educare early childhood and development center, where one of the goals is to ultimately reduce special education services and costs in public schools by addressing development issues through early intervention. _We have partnered with a statewide nOn?profit organization called Jobs for Maine?s Graduates (Appendix A-6) to identify and serve students at?risk for dropping out. Students served by obs for Maine?s Graduates are much more likely to graduate and continue to postsecondary education or training than similar at-risk students. We are also collaborating with our tow Job Corps Centers to meet student?s needs. With Race to the Top funding, 'we propose to: 0 To support high quality professional development in early childhood. . Expand the operation of Jobs for Maine?s Graduates in the lowest performing high schools to- help more students at risk of disengaging or dropping cut to succeed in higher education and. the workforce. 0 Support professional develOpment for teachers and leaders to effectively implement interventions. Great Teachers and Leaders . I I (1) Great Teachers and Leaders are essential as we proceed with our transformational work. The Maine Department of Education, herein referred-to as the Department, cannot simply mandate reforms and initiatives and expect success. Lessons learned from our long history of'reform suggest that to enact signi?cant reform and lasting change, all educational stakeholders must work together. 25' That is why we believe that the success of .our transformed educational system is dependent upon great teachers and leaders. Research suggests-that teachers and principals are two key inputs to student success (Leitwhood, Louis, Anderson, Wahl-strom, 2004). It is - essential that current teachers and leaders entering-the profession are trained to facilitate. and leadlearning. In order to do so, working with its educational stakeholders, including communities, parent groups, unions, and professional. associations, Maine will implement human capital development and evaluation systems that are also. performance based, informed by and driven by studentoutcor'ne data. Central to the success of this element is the state?s focus on improving teacher and principal effectiveness. With Race to the Top funds, the state will: 0 Develop, implement, and fine-tune a rigorous and multifaceted educator evaluation system. The Maine Professional Accountability System (MPAS) will evaluate teachers and school leaders in part based on the growth and achievement of the individual students they teach and lead and will use these evaluations in making personnel decisions. 0 Work with the Stakeholder Group (Appendix A- -7) to identify and approve additional models for teacher and leader evaluation to provide choice to districts In selecting models. 0 Support comprehensive new. teacher induction programs. 0 Use distance technology to make rigorous courses? with highly-qualified teachers available to all students in the state,? regardless .of where they reside. 0 Provide ongoing support and coaching to teachers and leaders to turnaround the lowest performing schools with Turnaround Teams that assist with school transformation. - 0 Provide effective professional development to teachers and leaders to enable them to Successfully implement and lead 26 personalized and performance-based learning. 0. Work with teacher preparation programs to integrate skills and knowledge of innovative practices. Using Data (1 Data used to guide teaching and learning The system is dependent upon-a robust and comprehensive. data system that is longitudinal, provides several access points for teachers, leaders, learners, and others, and links data to provide information about performance of students, teachers, and schools, as well as that can be used for accountability and policy purposes. Maine has just been noti?ed that it will receive a Student Longitudinal Data System Grant. Race to the Top funding will further support the use of data for measuring school and district effectiVeness through the development of Balanced Scorecards that will measure school, program, and district performance on speci?c measures to compare to performance targets. Balanced Scorecards will be- especially useful to schools in turnaround status because they will have so many initiatives going on, the Scorecard will help them measure progress along the way. From our vision and plan, it is evident that Race to the Top funds will be-put to good use, laying the ground work for long-_ . lasting change that supports increased, achievement for all students increased teacher and leader effectiveness; improved data systems and the use of data to inform teaching, learning and policy decisions; and fast turnaround of our lowest performing schools. Education communities across the state have indicated their support. for the State?s Race to the Top plan. School districts across the state understand the state?s framework for transforming education in Maine to ensure the success of all students and want to be at the forefront of innovation and bring as many opportunities for suCcess to their students asipossible. Maine?s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Scope of Work (Appendix A-S) include very specific requirements linked directly to elements in the 27 State?s reform plan. Our Memorandum of Understanding is explicit on the goals and commitments required of participating! districts and the State as a result of the one-time investment in our schools through Race to the Top funds. The state plan and MOU present clear goals for the participating districts and the state while recognizing the extent of local control in our districts, giving districts some ?exibility in how they will reach those goals with their unique settings, challenges and opportunities. Maine?s Race to the Trip MOU consists primarily ofrequired-components and several optional components. LEAs will agree to implement significant portions of the State?s Race to the Top plan. only 12 of 46 componentsvare optional. The state will support the scaling up and expansion of current. innovative programS/practices to'help LEAs implement systems that are known to improve student achievement. LEAs are required to implement all items in the column ?Participating SAUs virill. . that are in boldface font and not indicated as optional. We have received signatures from alsigni?cant portion of the leadership in these districts: 82 LEA. superintendents, and 64 of the chairs of the local 'school boards/committees of these 82 LEAs. We have also received signatures fr0m224 of the leaders of the local teachers unions in these districts. The 82 participating LEAS that have signaled a commitment to the State Race to the Top plan represent 70% of all K- 12 students across the state and 59% of all students in poverty in the state. The large percentage of studentS?and students in poverty? Who vvill be reached by their participation will result in signi?cant sustained impact in educational transformation across the state. The reach of the State?s plan will extend far into the state, allowing us to achieve our goals of raising student achievement, decreasing the achievement gaps, increasing the graduation rate, and increasing college enrOllment and attainment. Maine has a relatively high level of student achievement as measured by its state test and the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Maine has consistently had a higher percentage of its students meeting or exceeding proficiency on the 28 NAEP than the nation overall, but-can do better. Maine also has had persistent, though clbsing, achievement gaps in English Language Arts and Mathematics that we are working toward eliminating. Maine-i graduation rate is 8 0% but the. state wants it inuch higher. Maine?s students tend to pursue postsecondary enrollment at rates below other New England states. Wei'wil'l'do better in all of these areas to ensure a viable future in Maine for all our citizens. To thisend we havebee-n Working diligently with our constituencies to implement practices that We will continue to Support and expand, as well as introduce new ones to meet our goals. We are working with our entire department staff, including our Career and Technical Education, Adult Education, Special Education and all ESEA program staff, as well as across State agencies, for example with Health and Human Services, to achieve our goals 1n all content areas. Our state goals are as follows: National Assessment of Education Progress 2009- NAEP Scores 2011/2012 . 2013/2014 Percentage of students pro?cient on Grade 4 36% I - 37% I 40% NAEP Reading I - . Percentage 'of students pro?cient on Grade 8 35% 39% NAEP Reading I . Percentage Of students proficient on Grade 4 45% I 46% 49% NAEP Mathematics Percentage-of students pro?cient on Grade 8 3.NAEP Mathematics. The above chart was created from the following gOal: Students scoring at or above pro?cient [eve-,1 in NAEP reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 will increase by two (2) percentage points in the 2011 and 2013 assessment years. Maine annual NAEP goal: Students 1n the FRL and SD subgroups scoring at or above pro?cient Zevel will increase an average of 3 percentage points in 2011 and 2013, on the NAEP reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8. A more rapid rate of improVement as well as during the period under review, will serve to decrease the achievement gaps between subgroups. .29 New England Common Assessment Program Results . . 2009 Scores 2011/2012 2013/2014 Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade NECAP- Reading I I I Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade Reading . . I - - I Percentage of Students Pro?cient . Grade Reading .- - - I I . . Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade NECAP- Reading I . Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade NECAP-Reading . - Percentage of Students Pro?cient GradeReading Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade 3 62% 64% 66% on Mathematics . . Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade NECAP- Mathematics - I . . Percentage Of Students Pro?cient I Grade 68%- on NECAP- Mathematics I I Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade 6 63% 65% 67% ?on NECAPL Mathematics I - . - Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade NECAP- Mathematics - . . I Percentage of Students Pro?cient Grade 8. - 59% - I 61% 6.3% on NECAP- Mathematics 1 . . The above chart was created from the following goal: Students scoring at or above pro?cient Zevel on NECAP annual assessments 30 in reading and mathematics will increase by one (1) percentage point annually. Maine?s annual N-ECAIP Goal: Students in the FRL and SD subgroups, scoring at oriabove pro?cient on NECAP annual assessments in reading and mathematics, will increase by one (1.5) percentage points annually. By the end of the periodunder review (2014), on theIaverage, students scoring at or above pro?cient will gain 6 percentage points.I This will serve as well to close the achievement _gap by 2014. IMaine made a powerful move to inerease post-secondary aspirations and college enrollnientby requiring all students in 10th and 11tll grade, as noted in Section (EL). Maine declared. .a stronger commitment when the SAT became our State assessment and multiple alignment studies were done with out State standards, for USED Peer Review. Reports from the universities and community celleges show that admission applications had signi?cantlyI inereased. The contract with the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) will provide us with valuable data. All of our public and private institutions participate in thetNSC. Our goal is that 90% ofour students will pursue, and be successful in post-secondary education by 2020. Summary Table for . Elements of State Reform Plans LI :NunrberiofL'EAs Percentage of Total .?P?artieipatingt(at) 13. Standards and. Assessments I Participating LEAs Supporting the transition to: enhanced I I 82 100 assessments - C. Data Systems to Support Instruction Using data to improve instruction: Use of local instructional improvement.System-s I 80 98 (ii) Professional development-en.use-cf data: .. . 31 99' 93I Availability . . 7-6 D. Great Teachers andLeaders - Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based onIperfOrmancei I I 31 (1) Measure student growth 77 94 (ii) Design and implement evaluatlon systems 70 85 Conduct annual evaluations 70 85 Use evaluations to inferm professmnal development 77 94 Use evaluations to. inform compensation, promotion and retention .55 67 6.1 74 Use evaluations to inform tenure and/or full certi?cation Use evaluations to infOrm removal 6-8 83 Ensuring equitable distnbutmn of effectlve teachers and principals: High- -pov_erty and/or h1gh- m1nor1ty schools, 66 80 (ii) Hard-to-staff subjects and specralty areas 69' 84 (DXS) ProViding effective support to. teachers and principals: 98 (ii) Measure effectiveness .of professmnal development 93 ..E Turning Around the Lowest-Achlevmg Schools 79 62 V76 Turning around the Summary Table for Signatures acquired from participating'LEAs: Numberof Participating with all applicable_s_'ignatures Number of .?S-ignatures . Signatures Obtained Applicable (14) (Obtained LEA Superintendent (or equivalent100 President of Local School Board (or equivalent Local Teachers Union Leader (if applicable) I 24 82 . 30 Summary Table for . I Percent-age of Total Part1c1patmgLEAS( Statew1de(#) .. Statewide 32 Schools- 412 653 . 63 K412 Students 131,562 188,812 70 Students in poverty 51,938 - 87,372 I 59 Detailed Table for This table provides detailed information on the partiCipation of each participating LEA (as de?ned 1n this notice). States should use this table to complete the Summary Tables above (Note: If the State has a large number of participating LEAs (as de?ned 1n this notice), it may move this table to an appendix. States should prOvi?de 1n their narrative a clear reference to the appendix that contains the table.) LEA Demographics Signatures on .MOUs MEOU Terms "Werli-?-Participation: in each applicablel?lan Criterion Participating LEAs of Schools of Students in a K412 Students LEA Supt. (of equivalent) President of iotal school board (?applicable) Teachers Union (if an?licablel Uses Standard Terms I I. realuun 1J1 MKAJ. (EXZ). CD) (19 ((3)9101) (B113) . (Craze. WW) (131(3) (D) (2) (11) (D115) (1) (1321131181 Name of LEA here 22? 5: a; .535: 2. 2 >42 >42? 2 <11 2 <1 <1 Auburn School Department 3 569 1804 <1 Augusta School Department 2247 .1263 . Baileyville School Department 263 20-3 Bangor School Department 3702 1758 Biddeford School Department 26641 1259 Cape Elizabeth School Department 1704 98 East Millinocket School Department 259 3 197 >4>4>4>4>4>4z sag->4>4>4>4>4>4>4 >4 sa?>e2?>4s2?>8:22sa?>4 >4 >4 >4 >4>4 >1 25-1- 33 #5 2: 22 912' 6951' 1061 11101111101303 10014139 311011 ?31 2851 31101111md0q 1001103 1111101111133 100110.10 dag 1001108 L6Z1 83>z . luaunmdaa 1001103 >100101sam Z651 (ISO 11nb1m?o?s110m . >4 >4 >4 >4 -2: :4 9011 6115 '00 ON 11:01uuedea 1001103 011011101 1111103 <0 2: LEE 9Zt GSC) 310015001191 1110111005 259 ?965 1110111310 dag 100.1103 113001003003 EL ?91 11101111101100 1001103 11010011101 0125 0839 91001103 Oilqnd 211211304 LZS 1Z9 11101113J0d0q 1001198 19330111111161 691 mamamdaq [00'4138 PJOJIEW 96 L61 11191111101100 1001103 ?lempaw 01' 1101303 1011011000A 011mm 3 001%011 1011011000A 011mm 99$ 1101100013 111210111 011mm 699 1110u1119daq 1001105 uoqsn 809 #193 1u9111110dag 1001103 111311109 tZ . 811 100101100103 1001103 111101031009 191 099 (133 1121101 01115 I>?01 6513' 11101111md0c1 1001103 1111101111051 68ZZ 8 - ?nsa 595 31731 9 snsa (ZOL L991 znsa AA.A A I91068 1717a 17 A A A A 9179 0m 179mm LLZI 9119 9. 09avsw 999 17am 9 ssavsw 9L9 -ozz1 9 ssquw 6656901 17 ssavsw LSOZ 003 ~591z 01m L?17z 9 67mm 9L17 17M. 9 717mm 17179 9L9 17 wavsw 1709 "?va 9 ssquw929175 1799 :savsw Z171. SIEI 6z<1vsw 117; szavsw aim-mavsw ?88 17912 Havsw savsw 9991'176691701 173171 6 ?07391 17617309 - 4 9E seq 911215 9111 sumd ILLIOJQJ 1103112311133 9pphe'191319q1 1u9u191duI}. 01 $111129], @9193}pr DUB (11118.19me 3.110.113 (12) (S'Jug?dicj'aj?Aqsunld- pesodmd JUQUIQICIZIHITOJ, [3911111591 Auoedleo 3111 513113,} 11313 91115113 (A) seq @1213 9113,110ng GILL (Sluzodog) sunldepasqdoqdi'uyc'g'sn's put; .dn aligns ?ma'ulal'd'mg' 0'1. K113131133 ?uons-?ugpung (ZXV1791 m7 6 69uowmooqos1769 6Z8 17 . . Ataqqmog-Anqqmog 91a 6175 ?019 0176 17917 1789 ?89088 176L SSH 17 mass .96E1 99175 7.911921 9L17 36L 6L9. L16 6 961193 50:21 9 1751133 3017 176171 9. 92mm 1799 9L11 9 91311921 9IZI L9117 3. sznsu?317 ?9st 9 Iznsu 61171 9093 $1 oznsu . LL91 0017a L911 0669 8 smsa 9L9 8L91 9 911183 1z01 9 - .171 nsu 17L9 99oz 3 zmsa proposed; Supporting participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) in successfully implementing the education reform plans the State has proposed through such activities as identifymg promismg practices evaluating these practlces effectiVeness, ceasing ineffective practices widely disseminating and replicating the effective practices statew1de holding participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) accountable. f01 progress and perfomance, necessary; Providing effective and efficient operatlons and processes fer implementing its Race to the T0p grant in such areas as grant administration and overSIght budget reporting and monitoring, performance meas?re tracking and reporting, and fund disbursement; - Using the fonds for this grant, as. described in the: State as budget and accompanying budget narrative to accomplish the State plans and meet. its. targets including Where feas1ble by coordinating, reallocating, or repurposing education funds from other sourcesso. thatthey align; With. the State" Race to. the ggoaIS; and. Using the fisc,al political, and human capital resources the. State to continue after the: period of funding has ended those reforms funded under the grant for which there-11s eVIdence of success, and actions of support from? (J 0 points) The State?s teachers and. rinci- als, which include the: State?s teachers? ?11n'ions; of statewide teacher :aSsociations; and . .. Other critical stakeholders ?such as the State?s legislative leadership; charter school authorizers and State charter school membership associations (if applicable); other State and local leaders 3, business, community, civil rights, and eduriation association leaders), Tribal schools; parent, student, and community organizations g, parent- -teacher associations, nonpro?t organizations, local education foundations and community-based organizations) and institutions of higher education In the text box below, the. State: shall describe its current he: ._n.arratire= initial/[meats Shall. also include, at a minimum, the evidence listed below, and how each piece of'evicl'ence- den-ionsiraz?es the'Siale is. success in meeting the criterion. The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the State believes will be hehafal to peer reviewers The State? 5 response to (A (cl) will be addressed' in the budget. section (Section of the application). Attachments, 37 33011 as 19556?? box 1963.014: and organized nether summary-table in the Appendix. or attachments included in the Appendix, note in can befoand; Evidence - The State 3 budget as completed 1n Section of the apphcation The. narratlve that accompanies and explams the budget. and how it connects to the State plan, as completed 111 Section of: the..app.1.1eat10n..- Evidence for - A summary in the narrative of the statements or actions and inclusion of key statements __or actions in the Appendix Recommended maximum response Zength Fave pages (excluding budget and budget narrati'Ve) . (6) Leadership and implementation Maine possesses the capacity and capability to oversee Successful implementation of its Race to the Top reform plan. The Maine Department of Education?s reorganization in 2007 is in. many ways aligned with the Race to the Top assurance areas and priorities. During reorganization, the Department merged the Career and Technical Education Team with the PK-20 team to ensure the coordination of all curriculum efforts. In 2009, further integration occurred when the Team and the Adult Education, - Guidance and Counseling, and E-SEA team became one team, the Ed and Federal Programs (See AppendixA-9). This I reorganization has allowed for schools and LEAs to work with one integrated team from the Department and it has broken down the silos that frequently divide state departments. The Department?s current organizational structure provides an articulated system for students that begins before they enter school and continues through higher education and different pathways with a common thread of the content standards In addition, Maine Department of Education has a long tradition of working across state agencies to serve the needs of learners across the lifespan For example, the Children 5 Cabinet is made up of the commissioners from all agencies working with children and chaired by the First Lady. It IS fully staffed, demonstrating the cOmmitment the current and past governor(s-) have for :i 38 state agencies to work together to support Maine?s children. The Children?s Cabinetprovides coordination of programs for Early Childhood and Youth in Transition 9-20. The legislative support for alternative education and multiple pathways brings together Department of Labor, Job Corps as well as other agencies to support students. I I I The Department" 3 plan for implementing and overseeing the Race to the Top grant is built around sustaining the momentum . and institutionalizing reform while ensuring continuous improvement in the efforts undertaken by-the state and participating LEAS. An intra- and inter-agency Race to the Top Team, including department leadership, leadership from other: involved agencies, Maine Higher Education Commission, and others as. appropriate, will work together to implement the Race to the Top. The Commissioner will coordinate and oversee the state?s complete Race-to the Top efforts arid, through the'Governor?s Cabinet,.include- Commissioners from all state agencies. I . I Experts within the Department. will provide the implementation leadership and day-'to-day oversight for the state?s plan. The Leadership Team of the Department is made up of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, the Chief of Staff, the Team Leaders from the Education and Federal Programs, Special Education, Maine Learning and Technology, School Finance and Data Systems, and the Legislative Liaison Meeting weekly, this group will oversee the actual werk of the Department and I guarantee that all efforts are coordinated within the agency and outside of the agency These staff members understand how the State Race to the Top plan 15 connected to all areas of agency work and other federal requirements. Race to the Top efforts will be integrated in the Department work rather than ?added on?. On the ground work 1n each of the assurance areas and other related priorities and projects would be coordinated and led by small, dedicated, but overlapping area teams. For example, the School ImprovementTeam is led by the department?s Title 1 Coordinatorand includes staff representing the Great Teachers and Leaders area, Standards and Assessments, STEM, Special Education and Early Childhood and others related to supporting struggling schools meet regularly to be'sure all efforts are coordinated and meet the requirements of each of the programs. Much of the work of the Department is operationalized on-a re gional .level with State staff assigned to regions to work with LEAS, CTE Centers and service providers. These teams will work together to Support local implementation of the State plan. 39 Given the goal of long?term sustainability and capacity building, the state will not use Rate to the Top funds to hire limited duration or ?project? department staff. We are building and using capacity within current department staff. ?As needed, we will contract with experts and leaders for short-term or extended terms to meet the needs of this. grant but more importantly to meet the needs of Our schools and students. Rather staff roles and responsibilities will be reexamined to ensure thoughtful consideration of the reform work. Funds will be used-Strategically, for example to build on existing experts and expert organizations throughout the regiOn and country to build the capacity of state staff and leaders throughout the districts for this work. . Supporting LEAs and holding them accountable . . I I The State will provide implementation support to participating LEAS in a number of ways. Two primary ways are by providing the leadership and dedicated teams to support on?the-ground administration'of the state?s plan and by providing ?nancial resources. When a LEA includes in their ?nal scope of work components of the state plan, support through dedicated teams and expert consultants will with the staff at a school, district or regional level, depending on thetneeds of the LEA. LEAs will receive allocations based on the Title 1 formula, as required. The balance of the funds Will directly shpport the implementation 'of the state?s initiatives and provide additional ?nancial support to districts implementing the programs. The funds from the statewide portion will provide the professional development, and if a budget is not suf?cient, the state will provide additional funds to support complete and sufficient implementation. To further sustain the initiatives and build capacity for supporting reform, the state will leverage existing regional professional developinent'centers in each of ournine superintendent areas that 'cover the I state. Key areas of the professional development efforts will be coordinated and delivered through theSe egxisting centers. These centers have built a strong and effective relationship with the professionals in the regions. These centers have several years. of experience and are directly tied to the University of Maine System (UMS) and will allow us to quickly reach educators throughoutthe state. The State will also support the implementation and approval of online courses to address the equitable distribution of effective teachers. Meeting the needs of rural schools, the. online system will provide all students with equitable access to high level courses, such as: AP and courses/instruction where content teacher are not available 40 The State. will further support implementation through continuous evaluation of state and LEA prri grams to identify promising practices evaluating their effectiveness, and disseminating and replicating effective practices. Datafrom evaluations, conducted externally and internally, will support program improvement and the cessation of ineffective programs. Maine has a practice of using internal or external evaluators fer its grant funded projects, for example, wit-h the external evaluation of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative. Similarly, Maine will require that participating districts IcOnduct evaluations of the implementation I and effectiveness of their initiatives and as part of statewide initiatives, that districts and schools agree to participate in-evaluation activities for effectiveness and performance measurement purposes. As an indicator of the Department?s commitment to continuous- improvement through evaluation for Race to the Top projects, We. are requiring the external evaluation of the impact of our state- developed. leadership academy (See Section fer more information on the development plans). Budget and fiscal management The State of Maine posSesses an effective and efficient grants management and? ?scal oversight procedures that will be used for the Race to the Tops grant. The Department, with the assistance of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services - (DAFS), will have all project financial and accounting responsibility The Commissioner of DAFS and the Commissioner of Education, supported by the Leadership Team will be responsible .to administer all project funds and will be accountable for the expenditure of funds to. meet the requirements of the grant. All funds expended will be paid according to the ?nal negotiated grant budget and based on the policies, fringe benefits of participating-districts and subcontracts. All expenditures will follow the State of Maine procurement procedures and must be approved by the Director of Purchases. As part of this process there IS an extensive review by the Office of Purchasing to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations Additional expenditures will require the completion of standard travel forms, requisition forms and purchase orders which must be approved by the Finance and/br-Purchasing Department. The Project Director will also. maintain-regular contact with the federal program officer. and federal project ?scal officer. 41. Using the process established for monitoring ARRA funds, funds will also be under close scrutiny. The State has created an ARRA oversight committee within DAFS comprised of senior managers from the State Budget Office, the Chief Information Officer, State Controller?s Of?ce and the Service Centers. This committee developed guidance with regards to ?nancial controls and reporting procedures for ARRA programs In addition meetings are held Weekly to discuss ARRA activities and part of these discussions include a status report of the grants Questions and concerns regarding the accountmg, reporting or administration of these funds areaddres-sed at this time. The grant will be added to this committee responsibilities. I Additionally, representatives from the Budget Of?ce and the Controller?s Office Would be involved with oversight. for the grant, which provides an added level of review to ensure funds are being managed in accordance with the; federal regulations. The proposed budget and narrative are included in Budget Part I and Budget Part II beginning on page 1.39.. The budget re?ects our priorities in this application and-future plans. Then-reforms included in this proposal are components of a larger effort on . the partof the Department to redesign our school system to meet the needs of our students in the 21'St Century. The Race to the Top - funding will provide our LEAs and State with. the opportunity to scale up these systems level reforms. The work that is occurring I I now is intended to be a systems leveldeep-systems change. We will continue to usetour federal and state funds . to move this agenda forward. Because we ?nd a direct match between the Race to the Top components, our State Statutes and our state level work, we believe the assignments of staff will continue to support the work begun and expanded under We also believe this is necessary in preparation for the reauthorization of ESEA based on the blueprint. Maine has assembled support for its Race to the Top plan from a wide array of stakeholders incltiding higher education, Maine Legislative leadership, the business community, education partners, and US CongressiOnal delegates (Appendix A- 10). Over 30 letters or statements of support have. been received. so far. In addition, other organizations have expressed support for Race to the Top initiatives, the Maine Principals? Association adopted resolutions at its April 20-10 Conference the work of the 42 Department in implementing a standards-based diploma (Appendix 'A-l 1). The governing body of the Maine Education Association, the umbrella organization formost of the state?s lOcal teacher associations, voted not to support Maine?s ?application. However, its two representatives the president and executive director?? to the Stakeholder GrOup on removing barriets to linking student data to teacher and principal evaluations both were part of the unanimous vote in support of the ?rst model appreved by the group. In addition 24 local teacher association leaders signed their that represents 30 percent of thee participating LEAs. This IS re?ective of a growing sentiment of support among local associations. Demonstrating achievement and closing gaps (30 points) The extent to which thevState. has Make progress over the past several years in .eaoh of the four. education 1efo11n areas, and used its ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue such reforms (5 paints) (ii) Improve student outcomes overall and by student subgroup since at least 2003, and. explain the, connect1ons between the data and the actions that have contributed to (25- points)- Increasing student, achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under the ESEA Decreasing achievement gaps.betweensubgroupS-i eadirrgil'anguag_e arts and. mathematics, Both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under. the. and. . (0) Increasing high school graduation rates, In the text box below, the State shall describe its current status in meeting the. criterion The narrative or- attachments shall also include, at a minimum, the evidence. listed bel'0111,ancl how each piece. 0fev1de11ce demonstrates the. State success 1'11 meeting the criterion The narrative and attachments may also include any additional 1nfori11at10n the State believes w1ll be. helpful to peer- reviewers. 01- attaeh111ents included 111 theAppenaix, note in the narrative. the location where- the. attachaients can be Evidence for 43 1* NAEP and ESEAresults. since at": :15111003. Include in..the Appendix all-the: the. criterion as. a resource for peer reviewers for each year?inIWhich- a testIWas' gi-Ven' or data was collected. Note that this data Will he used for. reference only and can. be 1n raw format, I11 the narrat1ve prov1de the .analysis of this data and any tables or graphs that best support the narrative. Recommended maximum re sponse Zength SIX pages Over the past 13 years, the Department and its partner organizations in the state has. undertaken a Variety of reform efforts that address the four Race to the Top assurance areas, some of which were pursued with state, federal, Gates Foundation, and National Governors Association funding Maine began its reform efforts in 1997 with the Maine Learning Results, the development of the state 5 content standards. The standards were reviewed and updated 1n 2007. Maine also began its Comprehensive Assessment System 111 1995. that included the beginning of performance-based assessments. The Department focus on standards and assessment has driven education reform and educational achievement 1n the state Maine 8 most recent school transformation efforts have focused on personalizing learning for students, moving from a traditional time- based system Ito a performance-based education system, expanding the availability of rigorous learning support for all students,'expanding the rise technology, improving and expanding STEM education, and more. Our reform effort-s have been effective. Maine has tr-aditionaliy been one of the higher achieving states in the nation, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), discussed below. As a world leader 1n innovative and effective use of technology in the classroom, Maine has turned the notion of distribution of effective teachers on its head, using online courses and distance education, early college courses and dual enrollment (high school and college) to bring rigorous learning opportunities and the most quali?ed and effective teachers. to rural schools, schools With- lower teacher wages and other areas where distribution of highly effective teachers has lagged. Maine has had a Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) since 2007. This grant has enabled us to begin the design of a PK-Adult data system. Working with the Department of Labor, the Department was able .to pass legislation allowing the use of .44 student social security numbers. While it includes an ?opt-out? provision for parents. There is a strong beginning to tracking our students through school into post-secOndary and the labor force. The state has also had a contract for twe years with the National Student Clearinghouse to begin to monitor college attendance and retention past the ?rst year Our efforts to turn around the lowest performing schools will build on our current model that has been successfully used for Title I School Improvement. This improVement has resulted from identi?cation of school needs and targeted support. This foundation of this model utilizes a cadre of school improvement consultants who are assigned to work directly with identi?ed schools. This cadre of consultants includes former principals and superintendents who have direct expertise in working with school improvement initiatives, and, a clear understandingot? the elements of a school system and what leverage points can result in change to impact and sustain practices to improve studentachievement outcomes. State Assessments State assessment data show a picture of dramatic improvements in student achievement on the 4th and 8th grade Reading and Mathematics assessments of the Maine Comprehensive Assessment System over time. These increases have coincided with a period of remarkable innovation and reform in the Maine education from the introduction of standards to the introduction of learning technology. During this time, teachers and leaders at the local and state levels worked tirelessly to align curriculum to standards. Maine?s overall high levels of .achievement over time are even more remarkable given that Maine has among the highest pro?ciency standards in the US. In 2007, astudy mapping state pro?ciency standards onto 2007' NAEP standards, ranked Maine 10th in the nation for reading and 6th for mathematics (Bandeira deMelgh, Blankenship, and McLaughlin, 2009). From 1995 through the 2008?2009 school years, the state assessment was known as. the Maine Assessment System and the Maine Educational The Table in Appendix 12 shows MBA scores sihce the 200-2 school year, however, standards were resetin 2007 and data prior to- that time are not directly comparable. Since 2006, reading achievement 45 increased 1n 4th and 8th grade and increased but to a lesser extent in 11th. At the 4th and 8th grade, 71% of students overall scored at the pro?cient or higher level, representing an increase of about 11- 12 percentage between 2006 and 2009 However, at all grade levels, signi?cant achievement gaps persist between students with disabilities, Free and Reduced. Price Lunch eligible, and minority students and students overall. A lower percentage of students with disabilities score pro?cient than students overall in all grade levels and over time, as did lower percentages of low moome, American Indian, and Black or African American students. A lower percentage of male and Hispanic or Latino students. reach pro?ciency compared to students overall, but this gap is smaller than that of students with disabilities, low?income students, and other racial minority students (Appendix A-13). We see that most subgroups - are closing the aChievement gap in reading, slowly, by having a higher rate of change 1n the percentage of students achieving pro?ciency compared to White students or even students overall (Appendix A-14). Mathematics achievement, as measured by the is more variable than reading. Overall about 66% of 4th grade, 53% of 8th graders, and 42% of 11th graders score pro?cient or higher on the 2008- 09 MEA. Again, due to resetting of Standards, data from years prior to 2006-07 are not directly comparable. The percentage of students scoring pro?cient Or higher in 4th and 81h grade has increased since 2006. Math-achievement for 11th graders has remained steady over the 40% nfeeting or-exceeding pro?ciency in 2006?07 to 42% in 2008419, but this is lower than the 47% pro?cient in 2005-06. Large achievement gaps exist at all grade levels for all subgroups, except for gender and Asian. These achievement gaps have persisted overtime but are slowly closing with the rate of change. in pro?ciency attainment higher for. sub groups than for students overall. NAEP I Maine?s students do well on the NAB-P assessments in all grades for mathematics and reading (Appendix Indeed, in both grade levels and in both subject areas, Maine students consistently achieve higher average scale scores than the nation oVerall. The average. achievement is relatively high in'both Reading and Mathematics. The State?s Mathematics-sdores have increased over time but with. gaps between certain subgroups of students remain. Reading scoies have beengrelatively ?at over time, I Indeed, the ?atness of the scores have not gone unnoticed but have motivated renewed-efforts to focus on personalization and the 46 standards at the state and local level. - - I . . N-AEP assessments in Mathematics Show a slow, but steady increase in scale scores over time. Maine 4th grade students had average scale scores of 238 in. 2003, which increased. each year by 2-3 points, reaching an average scale score of 24.4 in 2009. Eight graders in Maine had a similar increase in scale scores overtime. The average scale score in Mathematics Hin'12003 was 282 The average scale increased to 286 1n 2007 Where it remained for 2009. Students With disabilities have a IlElower average scale score than those without disabilities, and students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch have lower average scores than students who are not eligible. The gaps between these groups are large (almost 40 scale points for disability-status and over 20 scale points-for low-income students) and unacceptable. I I I Maine?s NAEP Reading scores present a more. mixed picture. While. Maine?s average scale scOresE for both 4th and 8th grade Reading exceed the national public school average, but the scores have been relatively ?at-over time. The? 4th grade reading score in I 2003 was 22.4, after tWo years of one scale score point increases, the 2009 average scale Score was back to 224. Similarly in 8th grade, the 2003 scale score of 268 was 8 points higher than the national average, but-after two years of average scores, the 2009 average scale score was back to 268; Large achievement gaps exist between students with disabilities compared to those without disabilities (average 34 scale. points) and between students who are and are not eligible for free and Reduced Price Lunch ?(average of 20 scale points). These gaps have remained steady overtime. Graduation Rate Maine?s graduation rate has ?uctuated over-time, going from 87.2% in the 2002?03 school year to; 80.09% in 2008-2009. This appears to be a significant drop in graduation rate but the ?uctuations are a result of improved data analysis and improvements in the quality of data thathas been received from schools. In 2010, Department staff contacted every distjrict after receiving the data and asked the superintendent to ?certify? the data. In addition, for the 2009 graduation data, the state 'reperted the four year cohort using the NCLB procedures. This. was a change from the previous process. The. state also submitted for peer review our graduation rate process and the US Education Department given us full approval, one of the few in the country. We will continue to report?ve 4.7 a year completion in a separate reportfor in state use. Maine recognizes that the graduation rate is not Where we want it. The 2010 Maine Legislature passed LD. 165 8' which requires districtsto reach a 90% graduation rate by the-20152016 school year (Appendix A-I6). If a district has not reached 80% graduation rate by 2012 the district is required to submit a corredtive action plan to the Department. As part of our support forstruggl-ing schools outlined in Section E,.we will provide an intertjrention team to the school as well to help implement the corrective action plan. The legislation also requires the Department to bring together stakeholders and address the issues surrounding dropouts. I . I I Recent initiatives are beginning to take root that directly address the dropout challenge, with several showing promise. For example, recent initiatives, such as Maine CoursePathways and the expansionof obs for Maine?s Gradlfates, focus attention. and support on students at-risk for dropping out and provide alternative-ways. for students to meet standards in efforts to. keep them engaged in school: earning credits/meeting standards and staying on track to graduate. I SY 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 I GraduationR'ate 87.20% 87.54% 87.22% 84.25% 81.33% . 82.85% 80.09% (B) Standards and Assessments (7.0 total points) State Reform Conditions. Criteria Developing and adopting common standards (40,119.05009 The extent to which the State has demonstrated its commitmen to adopting a common set of? high- quallty standards evidenced by (as set forth 1n Appendix The State participation in a consortium of States that? :(20 points) Is working toward jointly developmg and adopting ac mon set of 12 standards (as de?ned In this notice) that are 48 supported by evidence that they are internationa?y benchmarked and build toWard college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation; and . . . Includes a signi?cant number of States; and (ii) (20 points) For Phase 1 applications the State 5 rhigh? quality plan demenstratmg its to and progress toward adopting a common set of K.- 12 standards (as de?ned 1n this notice) by: August 2010 or, .at..-..a1r11n1mum by .a later date 1n 201.0 speci?ed by the State, and to implementing the For Phase 2. applications, the State 5 adoption of a common. set- of 112 standards (as de?ned 1n this notice) by August 2, 2010, or, at a minimum, by a later date 111' 20.10 speci?ed by the State 111 a, h1gh- plan toward Which the State has made signi?cant progress, and its commitment. to implementing the standards thereafter 111 a well?planned array."1 In the text box heIow, the. State shaII describe. its barrent status in. meeting. (it-gittachments sha'II also incIude at'a minimum the evidence _Iisted heIow and how each piece. ofeVidence? demonstrates the State-'h-snccess in- meeting the criterion he narrative and attachments may aIs'o inchide any additionaI information the. State heIieves he heIpfaI to peer reviewers. or attachments included" in the Appendin note in the narrative. the Iocation where the attachments can hefound Evidence for A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, executed by the State, showmg that it is part of; a standards consortium. 0 A copy of the ?nal standards or, if? the standards are not yet ?nal, a copy of the draft standards and anticipated date for completing the standarhds 0 Documentation that the standards are .or. Will be internationally benchmarked .and that, when Well- Implemented will help to ensure that students. are prepared for: college and careers. . .o The number of States in the. standards consortium and the list e-f these. States, 5 Evidence for For Phase 1 applicants:- 4 Phase 2 applicants addressing selection criterion may amend their June 1,2010 application submission through August 2, 2010 by submitting evidence of adopting common standards after June 1, 2010. 49 A description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards, and the State plan, current progress, and timeframe for adoption. For Phase 2 applicants: 0 Evidence that the State has adopted the standards. Or if the State has not yet adopted the standards, a.descr1pt1on .of the legal process 1n the State for adopting standards and the State plan, current.progress, and. t1meframe fer: ad_opti_on.__. Recommended maximum langth: Two pages Maine is currently a member of multiple consortia that are working on the development and implementation of the State?s standards and the Common Core Standards. We believe that working with other States increases the quality of the work and implementation of State?s content standards and the Common Core. While Maine has developed-its own Standards, assessments and curriculum in the past, there is ample evidenCe to show that collaborations with other states is more cost efficient and effective, and . more importantly, results quality programs. Maine has prior participation experience with standards consortia. in 2009, the Department adopted the New England Comprehensive Assessment System (Appendix B- 1), earlier adopted by New Hampshire, . . Rhode Island and Vermont, in, order to conduct the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) statewide assessment required under No Child Left Behind 1n grades 3-8, in English Language Art-s and Mathematics. Maine had participated with the states in the very early formation stage. This collaboration has resulted In higher quality assessments, additional writing assessment options and a significant savings to Maine. It has also resulted in savings to the NECAP other states, since all four sharing. the costs of development. Maine was one of the ?rst states to have the Governor and the Commissioner of Education sign to: adopt the common Core State Standards Initiative hereafter referred to as the Common Core (Appendix result, Maine IS very committed to and has been involved 1n the process since the beginning. Governors and Commissioners of forty-eight states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia signed the Memorandum of Understanding toj-adopt the Common tCore. At- each stage of the 50. development of the Common Core standards, Maine state specialists and educatOrs, Ere-K through the university level, have been extensively involved in the review and comment period for the standards. Evidence presented in the development proceSs assures us that the Common Core Standards are internationally-benchmarked and are college and career readiness standards. As amember of the-American Diploma Project, made up (if 35 states, we have worked together with other states to align our-standards with international expectations. Achieve, Inc. is conducting an alignment study of our current content standards and the-new Common Core standards. Maine is a partner in several other consortia that will adopt the Common Standards and will Work on the development in other areas The work to develop common science standards across states has begun. Maine is a partner eind has agreed to be a lead state in this work, as well as with any other development of standards at the national level. In addition, Maine IS a member of the Career~ Technical Education Consortium of States (Appendix B- -3) 1n which fourteen states share development and costs of instructional resources, identification of industry based standards and assessments. Students leave high sdhool education programs ready for careers, gain college credit for their secondary work, and are ready to enter the workforce prepared. For the past three years, Maine has been-working with New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and most recently connectgicut to redesign high schools. The New England Secondary School Consortium, facilitated by the Great'S?chools Partnership is; -f0cusing- on 21? Century Skills and Knowledge. School level readiness to implement internationally benchmarked practices, and cbmmunicatiolns, across New England. In our-newest initiative, The-Next- Generation Learning partnerShip (NXGL), there are six lab states, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The partnership?s Work is aligned with the work and goals of Race. To The Top. States and participating districts will work to adopt practices aligned with the Common Core in each of the lab sites SAU #15 (Gray/New Gloucester) and the State are embarking on system transformation at the state, district, and local levels. The emphasis 1s on the next generation of education not the current. generation. Key 15 the implementation of educational systems that center on the student 51 experience with measures cf progress. To be. selected, out of 25 applications, we had to demonstrate With concrete; evidence, through a self assessment, that Maine was prepared to implement innovative practices. The Self assessm?nt is attached as Appendix B-4. Maine will adopt the Common Core during the summer of 2010. we. will begin the adoption process in late June and should . be complete by August. In April 2010', the legislature approved LD 180.0- and the Governor signed it intoilaw, giving the Commissioner of Education the authority to adopt the Common Cor-e through emergency rule making. As the dates for adoption are ?nalized, we will submit an amendment to this section as required 1n the application. The Common Core 13 required to be formally adopted by the Legislature, Which will take place during the 2011 legislative. session by the EmergenCy Riulemaking Process (Appendix 13?5 and 3-6). I I Developing and assessments (10 points). The extent to which the State has demonstrated its comm1tment to improving the quallty of its: assessments evidenced by (as set forth in Appendix B) the State?s part101patlon in a consortium of States thatm- ls working toward jointly developing and common, high~quality assessments (as de?ned in this notice) aligned with the consortium 5 common set of K-12 standards (as de?ned' 1n this notice); and (ii) Includes a significant number. OfS?tatBS. In the text hox below, the State Shaft. descr1be its current status 1n-n1eettng the criterion; The narratrve or attachments shall also 1ece ofewdence demonstrates the. State success 1'11 meeting the criterion. The narrative and attachments may aZS'o 111c111'de any add1tzonal 1nformat1on the State believes wit! be helpful to peer reviewers. For attachments included 111. the Appendix, note in. the location. 11'11herez. the. attachments can be found; Evidence for 52 0' A copy of the. Memorandum of Agreement executed by the State showmg that it 15 part of a. consortium that intends to. develop high-quality assessments (as de?ned in this notice) aligned with the c0ns0rt1um-s.- common set. .of standards; or- documentation that the .State 5-5 consort1um has applied, or intends to apply, fer a grant through. the separate Race. to the. Top Assessment Program (to .be in a. subsequent notice); or other evidence. of the. State?? vs pla11 to deVelop and adopt common high-quality assessments Cas defined in this notice). 0 The number. of States consortium and the. list. of these States. - Recommended 11111131171111.1111 response.- Zengfh Q11e. page and . Currently, Maine is part of the New. England Common Assessment'Program (NECAP). Using rigorous standards to assess students in grades 3-8, fourfstates'work together to develop and share aicommon assessment system that has been recognized by the USED as an excellent example 01a consortium of states developing and implementing a rigorous assessment, as re?ected by the Fully Approved status. I I In addition, Maine is a ?_?Governing State? with-the SMARTER Balanced Assessment; Consortium. As of May 26, 2010, the consortium is made up'of 13 governing states and 20 advisory states. The consortium is using Common Core standards to develop achievement standards for a large scale, adaptive, online assessment. A copy of the MOU and list of participating states is included - as Appendix and The consortium is Working together, along with national and industry experts, to build an assessment system that is balanced and includes formative, .interim, benchmark and summative assessments and practices as opposed to a single assessment. The consortium is committed to having the. assessmentsbe internationally benchmarked, provide students and educators with immediate and valuable feedback to guide learning (both student and teacher) and, teaching, as well as toprovide a program level look using summative data. This consortium .aligns with our belief, statutes'and rules that there must be multiple measures to assess students? learning and for teacher and principal evaluation, This, we have Signed the agreement as a ?Governing State? fully committing to the complete implementation of the system. The Department?s Team Leader for PK-Adult is - Co-chair of the Governing and Finance. Committee and the Assessment and Standards Director is on the Professional. Development Committee, as well as both serving On?the Steering COmmittee. At this time the consortium is developing the application in . . 1 . '53 response to the NIA and will submit by June 22, 2010-.- Maine also is a member of the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) (Appendix B-S), supporting assessment and accountability work through CCSSO. Our memberships demonstrate awillingness and commitment to work with other states to improve assessment and accountability for a better educational system for our students as well as a commitment of the participating states to work together to adopt and implement the standards and assessments. Speci?cally, Maine is a member of: 1. Accountability and Systems Reporting (ASR): Facilitates communication between statesaround changes in required accountability systems. I 2. Career and Technical Assessment Consortium (CTAC): A relatively new state collaborative project that works to assist states to develop and 1mprove career and technical assessment programs. It believes that assessment has a major role 1n meetmg. this goal. 3. Science Education Assessment (SCIENCE): The SCASS maintains a Science-Item Bank of over 1400 items to assist. member states 'in developing their own formative, end?of?course and statewide science'assessments. The items are. electronically accessible and customizable to assist member. SEAS and "their LEAs in developing science'assessments and supporting professional development. The six states working as NXGL Partnership will work the CCSSO and. the Stupski Foundation to design and implement performance based assessments that measure achievement of the Common Core (Appendix A- 3). Reform Plan Criteria - Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 paints) The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating. (as de?ned In this notice), has a high-quality plan for 54 supporting a statewide transition to and implementation. that build-toward- college and career readiness by the time. of high school graduation, and?highrgualityiassessments (as: de?ned in this notice). tied to these standards. State or LEA activities might, for example, include rollout ip'lan fen-thestandards together-With all of their supporting components; in cooperation With the State?s institutions of _fjhig__l_1er_ .edt1_cat_ion,II aligninghigh school exitcriteria and. I College entrance requirements with the new standards and and implementing high-quality instructional materials and assessments (including, example formative and "interim assessments (both as defined in this notice))_; developing or acquiring and delivering high?quality. professmnal development to; support the transition to new standards and assessments; and engaging in other strategies that translate the standards zanti 1nformat1on from assessments into classroom practice for all students; including high- need students (as defined in notlc The State shall prowde its plan for this criterion in the text box The plan should (Include timelines, and responsible parties (see. Reform Plan Criteria elements 1'11. Instrucnons 011 Sect1onXILIApphcat10n Requirements 11011111111131 detnfl). Any supporting evidence the State heheves be helpful to peer 1*e1116111e11sg11111st be described and, where relevant included 111' theAppend1x For attachments 1n. the Appendm note 1'11. the narratwe the location. where the attachments can befonnd; 2 Recommended maximum response. length Eight pages? (B113) . . . Implementation of the Common Core Standards affords Maine'the opportunity to bring together many of its performance- based and innovative initiatives, and provides a timely opportunity to undertake a coherent system of reforms to build an education system to support personalized learning though strategies beginning in Maine. The Department' 1s well organized to support the transition to enhanced standards and h1gh~qual1ty assessments. As noted earlier, the Maine legislature adopted the goal that all of Maine?s students Would ?graduate from our high schools prepared for post- seconda-ry education, careers and citizenship" In order to be post-secondary ready, a student will leave high school with the cognitive strategies to enter a postsecondary institution, not be enrolled' 1n a remedial or developmental course and have the habits to support the successful completion of the program. .. A career ready student is a student who leaves high school with the technical skills and knowledge needed for successful performance in the career area, the habits .anddisposition for success in the work place and the knowledge and skills to pursue further. training AND postnsecondary education. We believe all students must be. prepared for 55' both post-secondary education and careers. The state?s content standards, as do the Common Core standards, support Maine?s Guiding Principles (Appendix The 21'St Century Partnership and the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) have reviewed and af?rmed that our standards are truly the 2'1St century skills. and knowledge that our students need to be successful for post~secondary education, careers and citizenship. For the pastseveral years, the Department has. focused our work on ensuring that . this promise made to our students and our citizens will be realized. The partnerships we have formed with-other states ensure our implementation will not be insular, but will present opportunities to share developmentand strategies for high qualityass'essment for and of learning. The implementationof the Common Core in. literacy and mathematics will move forward as part of this overarching vision for our- State. Maine will work with our educators to implement the Common Core standards through continuing and new initiatives, including: 0 Developing a plan to incorporate the CommohCore standards into the. rollout ofthe current state?s standards in all eight content areas. . I 0 Specifically, within one month of the state?s adoption of the ?nal standards, the state will develop documentation of- the similarities and differences between the new Common Core and Maine?s current standards, the Maine Revised Learning Results for example with crosswalk documents; I 0 Beginning 1n the Fall of 2010 and continuing through 2014, the state will develop and provide: Electronic prefessional development that IS live and recorded, and archived on the state 5 website and through the state of Maine?s iTunesU site;_ I Information sessions fer parents, students, and the general public; Statewide professional development for all levels of educators that is geared toward the implementation of the -. standards; Support for the development of model syllabi, instructional material, and classroom- based assessments '56 . Support for participating LEAS to purchase or use computer-based adaptive assessment systems that measure achievement of Common Core standards (in 2014.? 2015 the state assessment will be online computer- adaptive system) and, Support for regional collaboratives. Collaborate with states in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, the NXGL Partnerships, and CCSSO to unpack the Common Core standards and develop aligned assessments, Support the adoption and implementation of performance-based assessment systems of multiple measures; Participate in the multistate effort to develop internationally henchmarked content standards in science, the arts and others as they develop; Develop and implement rubrics/scoring guides Within instructional units for all content areas as the standards are validated as college and career ready;- Support the expansion of the Maine Learning Tecthlogy Initiative (MLTI) to provide virtual learning opportunities for students and teachers; Implement a Board Examination system, such as the Cambridge International Examination?s International. General Certi?cate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) and their AICE program, the College Board?s Advanced Placement (AP) program, the International Baccalaureate (IB-)Diploma program, Quality Core or .IGCSE and A- level programs; State designed STEM- assessments using enhanced technology, simulatiOns and gaming strategies; 57 Increase participation and access to Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (1B) courses, including through expansion of the AP4ALL program of AP courses for low 1ncon1e students,; 0 Maine Course Pathways (Appendix A-2), a system of reviewed syllabi that prOvide a tool for implementing multiple pathways and ensuring opportunities for. students to demonstrate achievement of standards; 0 Support the development of systems of interventions for that are timely, as required by statute (Appendix I Expandthe operation of Jobs for MaineGraduate?s (Appendix A-6) in the lowest achieving high schools; and, 0 Implement early learning standards/guidelines for universal, inclusive early learning programs (Appendix Maine will build on the success from the Advanced Placement Incentive Program/N GA AP grants. Because of these efforts we increased the number of AP teachers from 300 to over 800 in nine year-s. The number of exams taken by Maine students increased from 5 ,'466 1n 2001- to 12, 483 in 2009. But we are proudest of our efforts that resulted 1n the number of AP exams taken by low . income students increased from 348' in 2002 to 1,471 in 2009. As part of the NGA AP Honor States, we showed the largest 1ncrease of participation in all of the project states (Appendix B-l 1). Over thene'xt four years, we will include as part of the rollout of Maine?s content standards, data and information from our AP courses to identify speci?c content topics that students are struggling with on the exams. Each content program area and connecting with higher education and developing a speci?c plan for the implementation of the state?s standards and identifying where the standards in one area cross overand can be demonstrated in a different content area. The Maine :Cour'se PathWays facilitates this at the high school level. We are committed to sharing this tool with other states as it is a first in the nation. Further description of this initiative is included in. Appendix A-2. .. 58 Activities Timeline Responsible Party . Incorporate CCSSI Standards into Maine Learning Results (state content standards) Align the CCSSI with the state standards September-201.0 Achieve as part of American Diploma Project 0 Conduct rule making process to adopt the CCSSI I . July September 2010 Standards and Assessment Director Conduct legional meetings to infmm the public and educators about the August 2010 - September, CCS SI 20.1 1- Pk? 20/Adult and Fedelal. Programs Team 0 Develop on?line and 1n- person plofessional development materials to August 2010 ongoing support teachers and educators 1n implementing the CCSSI standards. - Pk?ZO/Adult and Federal Pro grams Team - Conduct on- -line and 1n?person piofessional develop to I Develop multiple pathways for all students I I . August 2010 ongoing All MDOE staff in program - "Leadership? team areasw-Pk-ZO/Adult Ed Implement newlydeveloped common assessments aligned with CCSSI - Participate in Balanced-Consortium as Governing State 2010 ?201-5 Pk?20/Adult Ed Team Leads and Standards and Assessment Director . - ProVide technical assistance toneducators based on the plan Within I I January 20.11 - June 2015 SMARTER Balanced. Consortium - Director Standards and Assessment Support adoption and implementation of performance based assessment systems . 0 Create rubrics for all standards in the Maine content standards and the one 2010 September 2013 Common Core Within the context of exemplars and instructional units PK?ZO/gAdult Team, Standards I and Assessment Director - Work with SMARTER Balanced Consortium to develop and implement September 2010? September - performance assessment system with formative, interim and benchmark 2015 assessments - team Standards and Assessment Expansion of Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI). '0 Develop and/or identify. virtual and expanded learning opportunities for May 2010 ongoing. .students I Create rubrics for- a'll standards in the-Maine content standards and the Common Core Within the context of exemplars and instl uctional units Team Leader for Maine Learning Technology Initiative Expand AP and IB courses 1? Provide teachers With opportunities to become certi?ed to teach AP and Current/ongoing 1B cou1s'es Team AP Staff AP Team 9 Provide schools with incentivesOngoing 59 1- Expand AP4ALL to 25 courses for and AP Scale-?up Maine Course. Pathways. 1 2010 2014 0 Provide professional development to teachers on developing quality syllabi (Develop online training modules) 11111122010 ongoing I PK-20/Adult Ed Team 1- P1 ov1de models of quality syllabi Pk?20/ EPIC 0 Evaluate syllabi against the Common Cere and the state standards September 2010 June 2011 ongoing EPIC Support the Implementation Intervention Systems - Provide professional development in intervention systems I Ongoing MDOE RTI team 0 ka with SAUs to establish 1-2 LEA Intervention Systems? as 1eqi1ired by statute Current 20.12 LEAs with MDOE support Increase statewide support for students in STEM instruction and preparation for careers in STEM . 1- - Develop landscape plan for all of STEM efforts in Maine Current- Statewide STEM- Collaborative Implement specialized programs in Ongoing MDOE. STEM team with Collaborative and UMS Implement Math in CTE Current with two CTE programs each year MDOE CT-E and Math specialists Provide professional development?for-teachers on content in STEM Implement Proj eot Lead The Way in two Site's each year Current-With additional scale? up with grants MDOE STEM Team, UMS faculty and STEM Collaborative Design State STEM assessments I Design assessments that are perfOrmance based in traditional academic courses- and CTE p1?og1ams - ?January 20.1 ?1 Ongoing MDOE STEM Team- Support adoption and ?implementation of performance based assessment systems 1- Develop model pe1f011nance based assessment tasks October 2010 - September 2015 SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, Standards and Assessment Team I Provide professional development on scoring performance tasks a Develop online training modules January 2??011 ongoing Standards and Assessment team/_ SMARTER Balanced Implement a Board Examination System 0 Identify LEAs ?to participate June 2010 NCEE sand MDOE 1- Provide professional development foi LEAs October 2010- June 2014 MDOE Implement Jobs f01? Maine? Graduates 60 0 Work with districts to implement JMG programs for high risk students October 2010 - June 2014 School Ililprovement Team Implement early learn 11ing standards/guidelines 0 Provide profess issona al development to early childhood education providers Current and expanded Special Services/Early . - Childhood team I Develop pe'rfo111'1_11ance measures for teachers to use to measure'readiness October 2010 ongoing Early Childhood Specialist Monito1 the 11 nplementation and progless of early learning standards Ongoing Early Childhood. Specialist (C) Data Systems to Su upport Instruction (4 7 total pomts) State Reform Conditions Criteria Fully implementing .a statewide longitudinal. (24.19011115 219011115 per America 0MPETES element) The extent to which the State has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements (as de?ned' 1n this not i.ce) 111 the text box below he .State shall deScrz'be which elements of the America 0MPET ES Act (as def 11ed 111 this notice) are currently included 1111 tsstatewr?de longitudinal data. system Evidence: 0 Documentation for each of the America, COMPETES Act elements (as- de?ned 111 this notice) that is included in. the State.? statewide long itudina ldata. system, Recommended maximum response Two pages Each year the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) surveys all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to assess states progress towards and future plans for implementing 10 Essential Elements of a-lohgitudinal data system. Data Quality Campaign?s (DQC, 2009) annual survey identi?ed Maine as having a. majority of all ten Elements implemented. The expansion I under the newly awarded SLDS Grant is attached as Appendix 01 .. 61 Elements of America COMPETES Act SLDS Status Element 1; A unique student identi?er that does not permit a student to be individually identi?ed by users of the system. Existing Capabilities: All students enrolled in-publically funded Pre?K through '12 programs are assigned unique identi?ers .- Element 2: Student level enrollment demographic and program participation information. Existing Capabilities: All student- level information including demographics and program participatiOn. Element3: Student level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out or complete P- 6 education programs. Existing Capabilities: Student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer 1n, transfer out, drop out, or complete PreK- l2 educatiOn programs. Element 4: The capacity to communicate with higher education data? systems. Existing Capabilities. A pilot program using common transcript data 15 a 2007 SLDS grant component. Element 5: State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability. . Existing Capabilities: Data validation is built into the staging systems and Verification and cleansing routines are part of the data warehouse architecture. Element 6: Yearly test records of individual students with respects to assessments under section. 1 1-1 of the ESEA of 1965. Existing Capabilities. Individual statewide assessment data are collected in the State system. Element 7: Information on students not tested, by grade and subject. Existing Capabilities. Information is collected on students who are not administered the statewide exams. Element 8: A teacher identi?cation system with the ability to match teachers to students. Existing Capabilities. All teachers are assigned unique identi?ers. Any barriers to matching teachers with students were removed with the recently passed Public Law, Chapter 646. - Element 9: Student-level transcript information, including information on Courses completed and grades earned. Existing Capabilities: The statewide SIS produces student-level. ?of?cial?? transcripts for transmission to postsecondary institutions as well as the ability to electronically move student records between schools within and 62 Outside the State. Element 10: Student-level college readiness- test scores. Existing All Maine students take the SAT 1n lltl?l gr. and the PSAT twice in 10th grade. Element 11: Data that provide information regarding the Existing Capabilities: extent to which students transition successfully from Data received frOm National Student Clearinghouse. secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial. cOursewor'k. Element 12: Data that provide other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education. Maine is proud of this accomplishment, along with the recently awarded contract to develop a Data warehouse (DW) and Decision Support System (DS S). These aSsets will enable Maine to move rapidly towards the data integration, and infrastructure investment our state seeks to ensure. everychild is taught by an effective teacher. The Department believes the DSS divided into the Educator Improvement System (EIS) and Family Information System (FIS) will allow-end-users a customized experience that will better meet their needs. The Department is committed to further expanding and refining the data included in its statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS) to keep on the leading edge of data collection, while building Capacity .at the local level. When fully implemented Maine SLDS, DW, and DSS will comprise the technology infrastructure necessary to provide needed data to stakeholder, while concurrently linking the Department reform goals with the State 3 key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPIs will provide stakeholders, including parents and students, with readily available information about student achievement, . postsecondary education and career-readiness, and teacher effectiveness, while providing critical informatiOn to feed into the Department?s proposed Educator Improvement System (EIS) (described in section C2) and the Family Information System (described below and in section D2). Race to. the Top funds and 2.0.10 SLDS grant just awarded to Maine will not only allow the Department to increase access to. these data, but also increase the type of data that are collected. 63' Reform Plan Criteria Accessing and using Statedat'a (5 paints) leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers), and that the data support-derision- -makers' .111 the continuous. improvement of efforts insuc'h. areas as policy, .operations,.management, resource allocation, and overall effectiveness.5 The State shall provide its detailed plan for this criterion in. th ext box below, The plan should include, at a minimum, the goals, activities, timelines, and responsible parties 6'see Application Instructions or Section XII, Application. Requirements for further detail). Any supporting evidence the State believes will be help ul to peer reviewers must be described and, where relevant included in the Appendix. For attachments included in the Appendix, note. in the narrative the location where the attachments can be found Recommended maximum response length. Two pages The Data Management Team (DMT) is focused on the interface-with and impact of the Department?s data systems on the data collection activities at the school, and community levels. Collaboration efforts with the on the SLDS longitudinal data system has (and continues t0) included Focus groups with local functional and technical staff help determine and review the features and requirements for each of the components in the system; Regular meetings with superinte11dents.to disCuss the implications and bene?ts of the longitudinal data system; (0) Pilot testing the system; components, including user interface design, SIF data transmission, coordination with local student ii?rformation vendors, and providing feedback on the system?s reporting capabilities. Other activities used toinc-lude end-users are:- Designing data cubes for analysis and research of longitudinal data from the Creating data elements needed for supporting local decisions and the timeliness-of the data; and, (0) Selecting query tools fer. ad 'hoc report creation.'A.great. deal of public data will also be available for 5 Successful applicants that receive Race-to the Top grant awards will need to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy including 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local requirements regarding privacy. 64 community access. Governance of the technical components and overall security of the longitudinal data system isthe responsibility of the Of?ce of Information Technology (OIT) under the direction. of the Maine?s Chief Information Of?cer funded by the Department?s 2007 SLDS grant. 0.1T maintains, supports, and evaluates the technical infrastructure, including data security, accessibility, application maintenance, and network-services. Accessing Post Secondary Data Sources Gathering and using data on Successful transitions from secondary to postsecondary education is consistent with the state?s vision of having its students exit school college and career ready. Maine plans to participate intheNat'ional-Student Clearinghouse?s (NSC) Student Tracker Service. The NSC, the Department, andMaine?s Postsecondary Institutions of Higher Education will study postsecondary enrollment and other outcomes of Maine?s public high school graduates. By matching of?cial graduate class data from the Department?s DW'to NSC?spostsecondary enrollment records from public and private colleges and universities across the nation, the aforementioned groups will use NSC data to learn about graduates? college persistence and completion rates, Information acquired from these activities will drive. additional efforts to prepare students for post-secondary education. Online professional development modules for Maine secondary educators Will capture lessons learned and .tools for differentiating instructional-practices Within high school class-rooms. his-web?idriven Maine RTT approach previdles the ability to Scale the project nationally Without exponential costs. Seamless access. to robust and. comprehensive data on high school student and teacher performance represents a foundational element for Maine-is continued reform agenda. Longitudinal data across the ?grades.? is critical to ensure that the Department has appropriate information available to Support core policy decisions and ongoing operational improvements, while driving the allocation (and reallocation) of scarce resources (time, people, material, and capital investments). Accessing Student and Teacher Data Sources The effectiveness of teachers matters because research suggests that among all school resources, teachers have the greatest 65 impact on student achievement (Goldhaber, 2006). Maine will create a seamless integration of student and teacher data from the DW into the DSS, including data from the planned formative assessment system (see C3) to provide essential elements in the use of data to assess and improve classroom instruction. Without timely, accurate and nuanced data that links students to the teachers who provide them instruction in each subject, assessment data cannot readily be used to target professional development and improvements in instructional practices for teachers. The Department anticipates that the will provide educators with objective data that can guide decisions regarding instruction, professional development, school improvement initiatives, and personal assignments. The statewide assessment results from the and the future is a key component of the larger Educator Improvement System (BIS). Specifically, the linking achievement with teachers and schools Within the EIS web-based portal. This portal allows teachers and principals to verify that teacher-student links are accurateprior'to the data being used in analyses examining achievement outcomes. Linked (teacher-to- student) achievement data elements, along with static reports, will be placed Within the portal. The repOrts display,.via .a user code, a teacher?s teacher-student achievement outcome for each content area and, if applicable, results for specific student groups (leg, . high-achieving, low~achieving, students with disabilities, English language learners). Personally Identi?able information (PII) will be restricted to authorized individuals assigned a system generated password. will bereadily available to teachers, policy leaders, administrators, researcher, and (the general public. Stakeholder Training and Access The long term success of the proj ect'. will be measured more by the effective use-of longitudinal data for data?driven decision I making by stakeholders than by the ability of the project team to implement the technical components. The current, 2007 SLDS training is divided into two levels. The level one training focuses on the procedural aspects of data entry and an understanding of data quality at the level of data steward. This-system of training offers all educators in the State of Maine the ability to complete an online training module, with instructor-led classes'as needed. 66 The second level of training gees beyond the procedural knowledge in level one, and helps stakeholders-review, examine and interpret their data. The skills and decisions needed for this component of the training are more complex than in level one. The SLDS trainers ask educators to examine the quality of the information they have, form pertinent questions, and seek appropriate ways to answer those questions accurately and ef?ciently. Participants receive training on basic research methodology including the formation of a hypothesis, verifying data quality and choosing the right data to generate basic frequency charts and summary statistics for their schools. With the expansion of the SLDS to a Wider range of stakeholders new classes will be added using the 2010 SLDS ARRA grant- funding. The new classes will include training on how to use data and reports generated from data warehouse'data marts: - Growth Models Performing analysis of student, school, school unit and State growth models for eValuation of student progress, programs and teacher effectiveness. 0 At?Risk Students identifying Hat-risk students and selecting intervention and remediation programs to reduce drop-out rates and take preventative actions. Balanced Scorecard-s 9 Measuring school unit and program target objectives and comparing with actual performance. Additional on?line training modules will be developed for access by the general public. This training will be posted on the public pages of the SLDS education portal. The initial goalisto provide public stakeholders With knowledge on how to access and interpret school unit and State NCLB report cards available through the education portal. Tasks I Timeframe 67 Barty ACTIVITY (1): Continue the Data- Management Teams (DMT) to I Dee2009 Apr 2015 SLDS Staff oversee the policy and data implications of the DSS. ACTIVITY (2): Refine the. group dedicated to the operations of the Dec 2009 Feb2015 SLDS Staff Statewide Longitudinal Data System ACTIVITY (3) Perform data audits of all agency systems to determme the Apr201111? Sept 2011 External I data elements are currently cellected and those required to. implement Contractor Maine?s improvement initiatives. SLDS Staff. ACTIVITY (4): Develop a data schema to normalize both old and new data Nov. 2010 Mar 2011 OIT elements to "be migrated into the - . SLDS Staff Vendor I ACTIVITY (5): Develop the extract, transformation, and loading (ETL) .Dec. 2011 Sept 2012 OIT procedures required to link disparate agency systems into a ?Data Depot? - . . Vendor SLDS Staff ACTIVITY (6). Inform and train LEAS and schools on any changes to data Jan 2011 Aug 2014 SLDS Staff collection process. . PD Team ACTIVITY (7): Link the Data Depot to non?educational systems g; Oct 2012 Dec 2013 Vendor Department of Labor) and non-state systems g. National Student Clearinghouse) SLDS Staff 68 I ACTIVITY DevelOp inst-pass of data matching algorithm A match algorithm 1s required to track transient students across districts. Jul 2011. Jan 2012 SLDS Staff . ACTIVITY Develop additional data matching algorithm that incorporates new data elements (iterative process). 'Jan?Oct 2012 OIT Staff . RPA protecnons teachers, parents, and 0th stakeholders that are already captured. ACTIVITY (1.20) Create initial end -user_ dashboards and reports using data Apr Nov 2011 stiff" ACTIVITY (1 1): Cenduct user feedback sessions to determine new reporting needs. Sep 2011 Feb 2011 staff I External Vendor ACTIVITY (12): Evaluate BI, dashboard, and reporting tools andweb- based presentation tools. Mar 2011+ Jun 2012 External Contractor External Vendor Using data to The extent to which the State, LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), has plan. tow (1) Increase the acquisition, adoption and use of local; instructional improvement systems de?ned in this notice) that provide teachetrs principals? and administrators-With the; information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices decision~making, and overall effectivenessgi 69 (ii) participating LEAs (as defined- in this notice) and schools that are. using instructional. improvement systems (as de?ned in this notice) in providing effective professronal development to te_,achers principals and administrators on how to use; these systems and the resulting data to. support continuous instructional Improvement and - - Make the data from instructional improvement systems Cas defined I-Ii?l this; notice) together. with statewide longitudinal data system data, available and accessible to researchers so that they; have detailed information With which to eValuate. the effectiveness of instructional materials strategies, and approaches for educating different types of; students (e students with. disabilities, English language learners, students Whose achievement: IS Well below or above grade level) The State shall provide its-detailedplan-fOr- this criterion in'the text box-below he?plan should include, at a 1111'11i11111m, ?the- goals, activities, timelines, and respon sible: parties (see Refbrm Plan Criteria elements in Application Instructions or Section XII, Application Requirements for ?irther detail). Any ev1dence the State believes-11nd be help?il to peer reviewers must be described and, where relevant, included 111 the Appendix. For attachments meladed in the Appendix note the location where the attachment can be found . $111 Recommended maximum response;lengthiFive-pages - Increase. the acquisition, adoption, and use of loCal instructional improvement systems (as defined in this notice) that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices, decision?making, and overall effectiveness; Ensuring effective teachers in every classroom requires accurate and timely data for'teachers. High quality data is. invaluable at - improving. instruction and academic outcomes for students, While continually increasing teacher effectiveness. Although Maine?s planned DSS will be a powerful tool to infOrm many areas of work statewide, the Department recognizes that it does not provide ?real-time? data needed to inform instruction throughout the school year. Promoting effective teaching requires having data that helps them identify the academic needs of the students While monitoring student progress. Data from a D88 that provides ?real-time? information about student achievement will facilitate teachers adj usting- coursework. to meet the specific needs of their students. Research demonstrates the dual implementation of a benchmark and Response to Intervention (RTI) I program increases teacher and leader. effectiveness (Calendar, 2007). The Department isaware that across the state there is a lack of . uniformity and quality among the format-iveassessments used by teachers to measure progress in learning the c-urricultim. The I Department plans to develop an Online. formative assessment tool for use by ?teachers and principals. A key ?anction will be to provide aligned benchmark items to both the Common Core and state standards. The state?s goal is to design and deploy Maine?s Formative Assessment System for Teachers with'unique functionality and cost saving that will suppress-current community aVailable products. The rich formative assessment data collected through along with information from the DW, will feed into an overall improvement strategy that will provide teachers with on?demand access to data. Analyzing these data IS perhaps the most difficult component of the data drawn deCision models, which' 15 why the will include business intelligence tasks that uses technology to plot achievement trajectories, draws conclusions based upon trends, and recommends standard-centered interventions. is one component of the larger DSS (which also includes the MPAS) (described in Section D) to provide teachers with frequently- updated effectiveness information, allowing them to more readily identify areas of instriictional weakness and opportunities for professional development. This interface will use technology to draw conclusions about teacher needs based on student achievement data and other ,data stored within the larger DSS. will provide teachers withimore data on their own effectiveness while allowing administrators the ability to accessthese data in evaluating a teacher?s effectiveness. The will significantly enhance the abilityof school, district, and state leaders tomonitOr student achievement and. teacher effectiveness 1n individual classrooms and schools. This system will provide critical performance data to school improvement teams, school and district improvement teams will now have a powerful tool for monitoring progress and identifying the needs of the I subpopulations of students and teachers. would also allow state administrators to quicklyaccess information relative to a 71 . a. school?s or progress toward the state?s goals. (stxii) Support participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) and schools that are using Instructional improvement systems (as defined-in this notice); in providing effective professional developmentrto teachers, principals and administrators on 'how to use these systems and the resulting data to support continuousinstructional improvement; and The Department recognizes that establishing a profeSsional culture focused on data-analysis requires a substantial amount of human capitaldevelopment. To ac-complish this task, job-embedded professional development will be essential to the effective implementation of Participating SAUs will provide opportunities during the school day for teachers to examine student achievement. data and collaborate to adjust and improve their instructional practices based on the data. To do this, the Department data coaches will train school and district personnel in the use of the to impro've-instruction. This includes training SAUs on using to drive Response to InterventionThe RTI model provides high-quality instruction and interventions matched to Student needs, learning progress over time, and reviews levels of performanceto make ,important educational . decisions. Make the data from instructional improvement systems (as de?ned in this notice), together with statewide longitudinal data system data, available and accessible to researchers so that they have detailed information with which to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional materials, strategies, and approaches for educating different types of students students with disabilities, English language learners, students whose achievement is well below or aboVe grade level). The DSS With its component Systems Will have a transformative effect on Maine?s educational system by providing 72 acCess to student, teacher, and leader data. Maine through the SLDS grant will ?have 'the' ability to link student testdata (both summative and formative) to individual teachers and leaders. The Department-Will continue to work collaboratively with researchers and other stakeholders to identify practices and policies that are most effective in educating all students, especially practices that are effective in closing the achievement gap. Goal-z lProvrde benchmark system that? Include for? - Tasks Time'frame I I i I I ResponsibleParty ACTIVITY (1): Develop the-Maine-Formative Assessment System for Jun 20.11 Feb 20.14 MDOEEAssessment Teachers that includes benchmark assessment capabilities staff aligned to the NECAP. and Common Core standards. - External Vendor ACTIVITY (2): Ensure items/ tasks/ prompts within the are of Jun 2011 Feb 20125r I MDOE Assessment high quality and follow a model curriculum developed by the . . - - staff Steering Committee. External Vendor al Building Educator Intormatlon System that utllizeii" ihelp? e'"i'chersiandiilead 1?s analyze student ACTIVITY the EIS that integrates formative assessment data Jul .2011 Aug 2015 -. External Vendor from the and D88 tools 1n an integrated manner. ACTIVITY (4): Prov1de training and on?site support for the Jan 2011 Dec 2012 I 3-: i MDOE Staff implementation of RTI. 1 erna en or 73 (D) Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points) State Reform Conditions Criteria Providing high- -quality pathways fer teachers and principals (2-1. points) The extent to which the State has? Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisicns that allow alternative routessto certi?cation (as de?ned: in thisnotice) for teachers and principals, particularly routes that. allower providers in addition to education; (ii) Alternative; routes to certi?cation (as de?ned in this netice)that A process fer monitoring, evaluating, and Identifying areas of teacher and shortage and for preparing teachers and principals to ?ll these areas of shortage. - - In the text box below the State Shall describe its current status in. meeting the criterion. The narrative or attachments shall also include, at a m?inimum the evidence listed below, and how each piece Ofevidence demonstrates the State 3 success in. meeting the criterion. he narrative and attachmenta may also include-.anyadditionat information the State believes will be. help?tl-to. peer reviewers. For-attachments. included-in.gtheAppendix, Filo-{6: inthe narrative'the location?wliere. theattachtnents can: be. found. Evidence for regarding alternative. routes to certi?cation for both teachers and 0 A descriptiOn of the State.? 3 applicable laWs, statute's, regulations, or other. relevant legal documents, 1nclud1ng information on the elements of the State 3 alternative routes (as described 1n the alternatlve ?route to certi?cation. de?nition in this notice). Evidence for regarding alternative routes to certi?cation for both teacheis and 0 A list of the alternative certi?cation programs operating in the State.- under the State 5 alternat1v.e..ro.utes to oert1?cat10n (as de?ned in this notice), and for each. 0 The elements of the program (as described 1n the alternative routes to: cert1?catlon de?nition 111. this notice); 0 The number of teachers and principals that successfully- completed each program in the: prev1ous academlc year. 0 The total number of teachers and piincipals certi?ed statew1de 1n the p1ev1ous academic year. Recommended maximum response length: Two pages 74 Alternate Routes to Certi?Cation Maine has two options for the development of alternate routes to certi?cation in establish regulations and procedures which govern the approval of alternate route programs by various providers including consortia of School districts; and (2) establish an alternate route to certi?cation managed] by the state. Maine?regulations currently permit Alternate Route Programs for teachers (Appendix Alternate Pathways to Certification Program Proposal: a. This proposal is a combination of Providing .high quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals; and Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals. High quality pathways will expandthe number of effective teachers and principals and ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and leaders. With this in mind, alternate routes to certi?cation should- address four criteria:- (1) Alternate routes serve the statewide need for effective educators, particularly critical shortage areas. Districts would then have certi?cation pathways available 'to serve those speci?c needs; (2) Alternate route pathway-s can be delivered to the schools and communities where prospective teachers reside. The special education'teacher recruitment and retention research is siilpportive of such a ?grow your own? approach to producing certi?ed teachers, particularly in rural areas. An example is in Chapter 115, Part 2 - Native Language Provision in Appendix D-2. Alternate route pathways delivered. in schools and communities can tailor a robust curriculum with extensive clinical experiences and attention to Maine's Teaching Standards. The Curriculum can integrate preparation for teaching students with and without disabilities and students who are English Language Learners. 75 (4) Alternate route pathways can be rooted in a performance based assessment system of candidate evaluation for the recommendation for initial teacher certi?cation. There are no alternative route teacher'pro grams currently operating. in Maine that meet the de?nition Set forth in this RFP. I Currently all programs that service ?non?traditional? route candidates are operated by Institutions of Higher Education. Therefore, Maine's State Board of Education has passed a resolutiOn to open the regulations governing'and defining alternate routes to I certification programs. These regulations also contain the. "Performance Indicators?.for Maine's Teaching Standards. The Maine State Board of Education shall solicit public comment and stakeholder input for the. purpose of updating and revising these re gulations to enable a broader interpretation and implementation of alternate certi?cation programs as described above. In Maine the determination of teacher shortage area designations is based on. the most recent data available relating to the . number of vacancies for teachers in the content areas as reported to the Department for-the. previous and current academic years. Other data concerning teachers having less than full credentials, as determined by the number of less than full certi?cates (transitional, conditional" and targeted needs certi?cates) and waivers issued for teachers in the indicated subject areas are factored in, as well as the total number of .FTEs'of all classroom'teachers in the State.? Of?cials in all public and private districts/school's are contacted to seek input as to any. additional centerit areas in which shortages may exist. These data are used to identify and provide technical assistance to ?high need" schools under the auspices of the'Department Teacher Quality andlEquity Action Plans (Appendix D6). Currently, the underserved subject areas for Maine are: Teachers of English as a Second Language World Languages; Science and Mathematics; Speech?and Hearing-Clinicians; Technology Educati?on?ndustrial Arts; Special Education 76' (Birth to five-years and through grade l2); Giftedf/Talented Students; and School Librarians. For'the 2007-2008 school-year, which is the most recent data, the total number of teachers in shortage areas was 6,016 representing 37.59% of the total'FTE of all teachers which was 16,0053. Of the 6,016 teachers teaching in shortage areas, 788 or 13.1% were serving under emergency i? To help address Critical shortage areas, Maine operates a loan forgiveness IprogramPUnder the Educators fer Maine (EFM) Loan Program, which isadministered by the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME), recipients may be'eli'gible to have oneyear?s loan forgiven for each year of return servicein which the individual. is a full-time teacher, speech pathologist or child care provider with appropriate credentials in an eligible Maine school or child care center. In addition, two year?s worth of loan may be forgiven" Ifor each year that the individual is a full-time teacher in an eligible Maine school working in an underserved subject area. In addition, two year?s worth of loan may be forgiven for each year'tha't the ?individual is a full-time teacher in an eligible. Maine school working in an underserved subject-area (Appendix D-4). . - As we require full implementation of the standards in' all the content areas, it islcritical that we look for creative ways to ensure every student in Maine has access to a full comprehensive curriculum taught by highly quali?ed and effective teachers. 'We have assembled acommitteel'of teachers (Ii-12), higher'education, administrators and students to address the serious shortage and to develop a plan to resolve teacher shortages in a coherent and .coOrdinatedmanner. The STEM Collaborative is also working to identify possible solutions to the shortage and distribution of highly in the STEM areas. The Department will convene groups of teachers and teacher educators to develop a plan for increasing teachers in the shortage areas but also fer teachers to teach advanced'content courses such as Advanced Placement. Discussions have begun with the College Board and Deans of Education to explore ways that AP ?summer institutes? can take place as part of the teacher preparation program. Reform Plan Criteria Improving. teacher and principal. effectiveness. based. On performance.- (5-8points) 77 The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its part1c1pat1ng (as de?ned 1n this notice), has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that part101pat1ng LEAS (as de?ned in this notice)? Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as de?ned 111 this notice) and. measure it for each individual student; C5 points) (ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluatlon systems for teachers and pr1nc1pals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth (as de?ned 1n this notice) as a signi?cant factor, and are designed and developed with teacher and pr1n01pal involvement C15 pants) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that. include-timely and constructive feedback aslpart of; such evaluations, provide teachers and principals with data on student growth fo1 then students classes and schools;,_ C10 points) and (iv) Use these evaluations, at _a minimum, to infOrm decis1ons regarding?w- C28 paints) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing relevant 1nduct10n SUpport, and/or professional development, Compensating, promoting, and teachers and principals, including by. prov1d1ng opportunities for highly- effective teachers and p11n01pals (both as de?ned 1n this notice) to obtain additional compensation and be given additional respons1bihties - Whether to grant. tenure and/or full cert1?cation (where applicable). to teachers and principals using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and: fair procedures and - Removing ineffective tenured and untenured. teachers and principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such dec1s10ns are; made using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures The State shall provide its detailed plan for this criterion in the.11ext box below. The plan should include, at a minimum the goals,- activities, timelines, and CSeje. Reform Plan iteria elements in Application Instructions or Section XII, Application Requirements Ce),f0rf11rther detml) Any supporting evidence the State believes will be to peer reviewers must - be described and, where relevant, included' in the Appendix. or attachments included' in the Appendix note in. the narrative the 7s. location where the attachments Recommended n-mximum response length: Ten". pages I. Maine has not implemented a growth model at this time. The Department is developing a- model which will be ready for piloting by December, 2010 and fully operational by Fall 2012. Overview - Improving. teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance Maine proposes to design an evaluation system that is able to differentiate effective from ineffeCtive teachers in collaboration with state teachers and principal associations. This system will be based on training, certifying and- monitoring the results of teacher evaluations to ensure high quality, fairness, and consistency Teachers will be observed through multiple evaluations each year by trained evaluators A Multi?faceted Professional. Accountability System (-MPAS) will link individual'teachers and principals With student achievement data and providestudent growth data for educator evaluations. There is evidence of promising practices in that will be built upon and expanded to include student achievement and growth data (Appendix A-7). Maine expects to reach a number ofmilestones, which will translate into signi?cant improvements in teacher and leader effectiveness. Speci?cally, Maine will. implement a precise approach for measuring student growth by June of 2012 that can be used for teacher and principal evaluation along with multiple measures. Student using multiple measures will be used to I rate teachers and administrators as ?effective? or ?highly .effective? beginning in the Fall of 2012. The Departmentwill provide training to all administrators responsible for implementing the. MPAS to-ensure quality control and reliability. The State plans on accomplishing this task by developing and deploying professional accountability coaches for assuring that assessment measures are technically sound especially when using measures other These coaches Will ensure that all LEAs will participate in 79 either the MPAS or a locally developed system deemed as equivalent in design, rigor, and foCus.? The ultimate goal of these efforts is to dramatically increase theeffectiveness of Maine teachers and principals so that, by the. end of the SY 2013?14, no less than 75% of all teachers and principals in the state will be rated as either ?highly effective? or ?effective?. It is anticipated that less than 10% of all teachers evaluated will not meet the criteria of ?effective?iteacher and that this peroen'tage'will decrease annually. As with-other components of this grant, coordination and collaboration with school improvement efforts will be essential for achieving the proposed outcomes. Data and other information acquired in our work with Great Teacher-sand Leaders will be shared with Turnaround Team members, and used as part of our ongoing strategic planning. - Multi-faceted Professional Accountability System Components There are four key components to MPAS: annual evaluations, regulations, (0) longitudinal data, and training supports, (1) Statewide teacher and administrator evaluation system: MPAS will be based on a modi?ed Danielson method (Danielson McGreal, 2000) with stakeholder involvement. (2) Flexible regulations regarding MPASH evaluations: The MPAS will place additional emphasis on. the student Outcomes [Student Improvement] component of the original Danielson model. Under prior regulations, all the linking of 'teaC'herestudent information was not allowable. New, more ?eXible,'regulations make significant changes to the teacher-evaluation system by making student growth appropriate for determining teacher and leader effectiveness. Rather than set a speci?c percentagethat student growth must be weighed in the evaluation, the MPAS reduces the possibility 3a teacher could be rated as effective without showing satisfactory levels of student grovvth. The proposed system mandates that an educator cannot be rated effecu?ve or highly re?ective unless they have demonstrated satisfactory levels of student growth In addition, no educator can receive the lowest rating if they show satisfactory levels of student g-.rowth Additionally, Maine will formulate and refine regulations that specify hoiv 80 student growth data on measures of achievement will be used appropriately. Speci?cally, one of the multiple measures will include student growth data as measured by the Maine Comprehensive Assessment System as described in Section B. addition, other rigorous and comparable measures from non?tested subjects Will be used as appropriate. Teachers are observed throughmultiple evaluations each year by trained evaluators. LD 1799, Public Law 646 (Appendix was amended to allow the linkage of student achievement data to teacher and principal evaluation systems used in the State of Maine if a model is approved by a stakeholders? grOup. An-"Evaluation Model Stakeholder's Group" (Appendix A47) was convened with the express purpose of reviewing and approving such models for use by LEAs in Maine. Because the language in the law says thata district must select from the approvedrnodels the Governor issued an Executive. Order to have the stakeholders group begin"- meeting. immediately and approve at least one model for teacher evaluation and one for principal evaluation. The stake?holders? group unanimously voted- to approve two models that allow for the linkage of student achievement data to teacher and principal evaluations on May 12, 2010. (.3) Longitudinal Data: The Department?s longitudinal data system Will begin tracking student achievement in and will I improve as the planned Data Warehouse (DW).becomes fully operational. The DW 'will assign specific student results to individual teachers and this data can be further linked to information on past student results. The DW provide the necessary data organized in an automated manner by which educators can received MPAS- results once the assessment data are uploaded from the vendor. This will enable the State to establish a clear approach for measuring student growth. Given the aforementioned limitations, the state will conducta series of stakeholder meetings, consisting of educators and policy I makers, convened to create a growth system that re?ected Maine?s goals for teachers and principals. The group will evaluate the technical considerations associated with different growth model designs, such as projection, percentile, or cumulative effeCts models. Currently, Maine?s Comprehensive Assessment System has measures of student aChievement in grade 3-8 and high school. In grades 3?8, the state. participates in the New England Common Assessment. System (NECAP). has '81 built into its metric a vertical sc.;ale however, this scale 1s not linked to the high school assessment (College Board?s SAT). Further, no statewide assessment exists in grade 9. Another growth model the state will be evaluating is based on changes 1n student. performance level. These performance level changes are based upon the academic achievement standards set by the state in all applicable grades. Maine will review models that assess growth for students scoring below pro?cient and movement aboVe the Proficient category (Pro?cient with Distinction). The value table would split each performance level at a scale score point value that Considered the standard errors-associated with assessment at the particular cut point on the scale. This separation will allow more. granular measures 0f student growth and allow the MPAS to assign credit for showing growth for these Students. Student growth will be a factor for-determining teacher and leader effectiveness. The. operational. de?nition and measurement of student growth will be determined between September 201i0 and July 2011. The de?nition and means for assessing student I growth will represent a valid level of change in achievement data for an individual student between two points in time. Further,?the Department must ensure all teachers are included within the MPA-S or locally-developed model. How student achievement is assigned to teachers in subjects not measured by the state assessment systems along with teachers in grades Outside of those assessed will be de?ned by the stakeholder group. (4) Training Supports: The State will implement targeted training supports to take advantage of the MPAS activities. Three highlights of these trainings are plans to: (1) provide school leaders and Superintendents with development coaches to support the rigorous, transparent conduct of (2) develop career pathways that link differentiated-training to the evaluation results; and (3) require novice teachers to attend specialized training show satisfactory levels of student-growth before receiving licensure and tenure protections. Again, coordination and collaboration with school improvement efforts are critical to our success. Data and other information acquired in our work with Great Teachers and Leaders will be shared with Turnaround team members, and used as part of our ongoing strategic planning. and. (iv) The Multi-faceted Prefessiona?l Aceountability Systems is anchored in legislation and processes that ensure collaboration with stakeholder groups representing the Maine Education Association; Maine Principals? Association; Maine School Boards Association; Maine School Superintendents AsSociation; and Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities. The MPAS annual evaluation system makes possible the use of assessment data as part of teacher and principal evaluations. The models that have been approved at this time are: Framework for Teaching (Danielson model), with the inclusion of a student achievement and growth component and the VAL- ED model with a student achievement and growth component for adoption by. local school districts 1n principal evaluation. Recommended Schedule for Implementation: While this schedule IS based on the Race to the Top application, should the reauthorization of ESEA include a different timeline, Maine will meet the new requirements. MPAS Program Timeline and Benchmarks Grant i Program CompOnent . Year 2010 Aug Needs Ass sessment/Gap Analysis to determine ast1 ucture needed with Capacity 2011 Nov measul able goals/time]mes/benchmarks set. - Building for . . . Implementing MPAS Design/Deployment Phase MEQEP Oct State?wide and 'Stakeholder's Groups design components of Jan based on needs. assessments at State and local level Sept "Accountability? and Specific. Program CoaChes Selected, trained. and deployed to June provide PD in MEQEP Program Components, MPAS, and Evaluation Models 83 2011 .- 2012 March Sept Initial Implementation of Components with ongoing' regular evaluation, indicated revisions", and progress.monitoring/reporting Aug June Full Implementation of all MEQEP Components with formal. evaluation/feedbacldrevision process and progress monitoring/reporting in place. Aug-? Dec Coaches? Continue to deliver follow-up'PD', and ?Recalibrat'ion'" training based upon Program Evaluation data Implementation Phase Jan March Progress. Data analyzed to determine further PD needs and/or program revisions needed. PD/program revisions implemented with measurable goals/timelines set. I 2.012 2015 All Program Components/Evaluation/Progress Reporting continues with public reporting 2015 Final Evaluation Data submitted/analyzed and programs promulgated State-Wide Complete Implementation of all programs- MPAS Project Goals Measurable Objectives Benchmarks Timeli'nes/Reporting Providing high?quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals Review Hof State Regulations A. governing Alt. Rte. Programs and the federal de?nition. Alt. Rte. Program standards adopted. Stakeholder's Group meets to provide recommendations for B. At least one High Quality Alt. B. Rte. Program approved and implemented. and 115 to design Alt. de?nition reviewed and revisions to Chapters 114 Rte. Programs? Approval A. During School -- 2010 2011 school -year, State Board of Education reviews standards and begins rule making process. B. First Alt. Rte. . Program Approved . and implemented during 2012. 7 Improving teacher'and I A. principal effectiVeness based on performance Research and develop growth A. metric- and performance standards by fall of 20-12. quality embedded. Implementati on of high professional development A. ?Quarterly Pilot Progress Reports A. MECAS Student 84 Not less than 20% increase in student academic achievement from the baseline by end of grant. 75% of students with not less than one year academic growth measured using Measured Progress projections. Identify and quantify- observable characteristics of teacher and principal ?effectiveness? that support. Student learning goals. Reduction of teachers each year I from the baseline. toward the long?term goal of. 10% (rated as - non?effective). Reduction of principals eaCh year from the baseline t0ward the long-term goal of 1% (rated as non- effective) Implementation of teacher and principal evaluation and coaching cycles . Annual student achievement and . performance data linked through to schools, teachers and principals. Data; other approved asseSsment measures Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals Increased. equitable distribution of Highly Quali?ed and Effective Teachers and Principals in "High Need Schools" by 50% by end of grant . Full funding and implementation of research based strategies outlined ?in Maine's Teacher Quality Equity Plan - A. Annual Performance Report Data increased equitable distribution of - Highly Quali?ed and Effective? Teachers and Principals in "High ?Need Schools". I B. Quarterly Pilot 85 Progress Reports - c. MECAS Student Data Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs Maine?s SLDS Grant creates MPAS linking teacher preparation institutions to graduates? student achievement data. (see (D) (1) above) Teacher preparation programs receive data "on ."effectivenes's? of graduates. (See (D) above) A. Annual HEA . SAHE Reports B. (see (D) mam) Providing effective support to teachers and principals 3-: 75% of students with at least one year academic growth measured using Measured Progress, projections. 80% increase from the baseline year in the use of professional learning communities. 25% increased access to content specific professional activities providing the knowledge and skills 'to teach and lead an increasingly diverse student and . teacher population .by end of grant. 50% increase in the retention of new teachers. 95% of teachers demonstrate increased evaluation score by end of grant. B. Increased participation of staff in targeted, student. learning content?focused PD. A. B. Quarterly. Pilot Progress Reports A. B. MECAS Student Data; other approved assessment measures 86 Performance Measures Notes: Data should be reported 1n a manner consistent With the de?nltions I contained 1n this application package I111 Section Qual1fying evaluation systems are those. that meet the criteria describedin most recent) Actual Data: 2010.201] 12011?2012. 3 End ofSY . End of SY :2 0 i1 2:201: 3 Criteria General gaals tIo beIprov1dedIat time of application' Baseline'dataand annual targets Baseline (Current Percentage of part1c1pat1ng LEAs that measure student growth (as de?ned 111 this notice). 0% 0% 30% 90% Percentage of participating LEAS With. evaluation systems for teachers. 5% 20% 30% 35% Percentage .of part1c1pat1ng LEAs with qualifying evaluation II systems for 5% 30% 35% Percentage of participating LEAS With'II Iqua'hfying evaluation systems that are used to mform re Developmg teachers and pr1nc1pals 50%- 100% 100% 100% Compensating teachers and. pr1n01pals 0% 5% 10% 10% Promoting teachers and princlpals. 0% 10% 15%. 25% Retaining effective teachers and I I 50% 100% 100% Granting tenure and/ or full certi?cation (Where applicable) to teachers and prmc1pals -- 0% 25% :-100% 50% 100% .Removmg ineffective tenured untenured teachers and pr1nc1pals i0% 0% 10% 20% The Department does not currently collect this data General data to be provided. at time of application: '82 Total number of 87 TOtal number of principals injpartic'ipating 4-00 .. Total number of teachers in participating LEAs. 1 1.7.10 In Maine School Unions consist of multiple LEAs operating under one administrative of?ce; there are two such units counted in the total above (82) that ?led only one MOU for the Union For that reason, we may be reporting for 97 LEAs for RTT-T purposes. Criterion Data to be requested of grantees in the future: I Number of teaCher-s and pr111c1pals 1n part1c1pat1ng LEAs with qualifying evaluation . Number of teachers and principals in part1c1pat111g LEAs with qualliymg evaluation systems who Were evaluatedas effective or better 111 the priorm academic year (1111211111) Number oi: teacl1e1s and principals 1n pa1t1cipat1ng LEAs With qualifying evaluation systems who were evaluated as ineffective in the prior aCademic year. . Number of teachers and _p_r1nc1pa1 S. in participating LEAs with qualifying.evaIUa?tionisystems whose-walnations were used to informcompensation- decisions: year. .yeal'? Number of teaChers and p1incipals 1n participating: LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems Who were evaluated as effective or. better and were retalned 1n the p1ior academic (1312101002) Number of teachers 1n part1c1pat1ng LEAs w1th quahfying evaluation systems who were eligible for. tenure in the prior academic year.. (13112111111112)? Number of teachers 111 pa1t1c1pat1ng LEAs with qualifying evaluation. systems Whose evaluatlons were used to; inform tenure decisions in the prior academic year 88 Numbei of teachers and pr1nc1pals 111 partic1pating LEAs who were. removed for being ineffective 1n the prior academic; year1 . Ensuring equitable distribution- of; effective (2.5 points} The extent to Which the State, in collaboration with its, participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets tow Ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and by developing a plan, infornied by. reviews of prior actions and data, effective teachers and prinCipal 51. (both as defined-inthis notice) and are. not served by ineffective teachers and prInCIpals at higher rates than other students; (15 paints) and. (ii) Increase the number and percentage of effective teachers. (as defined in this notice) teaching hard- to- staff subjects and. specialty areas including mathematics;sc1ence and spe01al education teaching in language instruction educational programs- (as defined under Title of the ESEA) and teaching in other. areas as identi?ed by the State or LEA. (I 0 points) Plans for and (ii) may include, but are-not limited to1 the: implementation of 'inCentives and strategies in such arbas as recruitment, compensation, teaching. andlearning development, and Ihnrnan resources practices and processes. The State. shall provide its detailed plan for this criterion in the text. box below he plan should include, at a the goals, activities, timelines, and respon sible- parties (see Reform Plan Criteria elements in Application Instructions or Section XII, Application Requirements (6), forfariher detail), In- the; text box: belong. the 51?01?6- shall deserihe its current stains in meeting the criterion. he narrative or attachments Shall also; include, evidence-listed below, and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the State?s success in meeting the ?criterion; The-narrative and'aitachments. may also include any additional information the State believes will he helpful to peer reviewers; the-Appendix, note. _inthe narrative the location where the attachments can befonnci. Evidence for De?nitions of high-minority and low-minority .schools .as defined by the State for the purposes of the. State 5 Teacher Equity Plan. Recon/animate? d? aiaximum response: length-5* Ilmeespages As background information through implementation of the Department Title IIA Teacher Quality and Equity Action Plans 2006-- 2010, Maine identi?ed and delivered monetary and technical assistance to a number of ?Higtheed" schools/LEAs to increase the equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers, and decrease the number of under quali?ed and/or inexperienced teachers teaching in high poverty schools. 2007-2008 data Show that there is. a great shortage of highly quali?ed special education, alternative education, foreign/world languages, and. English as Second Language teachers; thus, our technical assistance focused on these needs by offering professional development opportunities to address thoSe areas. [The 2004-2009 data is publicly available on the Maine State Department of Education strategies aim at increasing the equitable distribution of teachers to identi?ed "high need schools." Currently, Maine?s. Teacher Quality Equity Plan has- been underfunded and understaffed due to the current state'?nancial curtailments in state government. Plans are to use the Race ToThe. Tepfunds to fully implement these . research proven strategies to increase the equitable distribution of Highly-Quali?ed and effective teachers and principals throughout . these "high-need schools?. Definition: "High?Need School?: a high~need school is de?ned as an LEA: Category A ?High Need? Schools A. for which. not less than 49.9. percent of the children served by the agency are from families that qualify for Title: I eligibility, AND B. which are 5 percentage points or more below theMaine State average for HQT and have been for three years or more; 90 Category ?High Need? Schools. A. for which not less than 49.9 percent of the children served by the agency are ?om families that qualify for Title I eligibility AND, B. with more than 12.8 inexperienced teachers (less than 3 years teaching) on staff (-5 percentage-points or more above the State average the SAU has not met its Annual Measurable Objective for HQT for three years or more, AND is :5 percentage points or more below the state average of 95.88%. . I I I MPAS, as outlined in Our implementation schedule and proposed components (see (D) (2) above),- includes measures to promote equitable distribution of effective and experienced teachers and leaders. The inclusion of :a career advancement component provides the opportunity for highly effective teachers to take on expanded roles and responsibilities without having to leave the classroom. Currently there is no provision for performance compensation for teachers or principals. This is an area that will be coordinated with applications for the Teacher Incentive Funds. Discussion. and'work with the Maine EduCation Association and the Maine Principals? Association will take place in this context to develop plans and determine directions to build on local and state systems. At present, teachers who are Nationally Board Certified do receive additional compensation per Maine statute. The State grants between $2000 and $3000 to these teachers (Appendix D-S). As part of the process the Department will look at how and what incentives for teachers will have a positive impact on the quality of teachers who stay in these hard to recruit schools. Different incentives draw teachers to rural areas. '91. Performance Measures for Note: All information below is requestedfhr.Porticzpating LEA-s. . 5011001 Year eel-ins (Gui-rent Actual. Data:- 2011 End of 2010?: 2.01.12 End of SY 20131,.- .2013 End of SY 2012? 2014 End of SY 2013- General goals to be provided at time of Percentage of teachers 111 schools that are high-poverty, high- -niinority, 01 both (as de?ned In? this notice) Who are highly effective (as de?ned 111. this notice). 3 Baseline- data 20 and-annual targets 30 Percentage of teachers 111 schools that are low-poverty9 loW-minority, or both (as de?ned 1n 30 50 Percentage of teachers 1n schools that me- lngh-poverty, high- -1ninority, or. both (as de?ned .111 __this are 20 10 Percentage of teaCj-he'rs 111 schools that ale=10W-pove1ty, low-minority, or both (as, de?ned in this notice) Who are ineffective. 20 10 Percentage of principals leading schools that are: h1gh~poverty, h1gh-m1nority, 01: both (as de?ned in this notice) Who are highly effectiVe (as de?ned' 1n this notice) 20 .30 Peicentage of principal-s leading schools that are low?poverty, low?minority, or. both (as de?ned 111 this notice) who are highly effective (as de?ned in this notice) 3o 50' Percentage of principals leading schools that me high-poverty, hlgh-lninonty, 01-13th (as de?ned In this notice) Who are ineffectiVe. 20 15 Percentage of principals leading schools that are low-poverty, low?mlnority, both (as de?ned 1n this notice) who are ineffective. 20 10 Maine Will have a growth model 1n place-n0 later than Fall 2010. General data to be provided at time of application: Total number of schools that are high- poverty, high- elninority, or both (as de?ned in this notice). 159 Total nurnher of schools that are low?povelty, low~1111norlty, or both (as de?ned in this notice). 159 92 Total number of teachers 111 schools that are h1gh-pove1ty, high-:minmity, or both (as de?ned in this notice). Total number of teachers 1n schools that are low-poverty, low?mmorlty, or both (as de?ned In this notice): Total number of leading Schools that are high-poverty, high-mmorlty, or both (as de?ned in this notice). Total number of principals leading: schools that are low?poverty, low-minorlty, 01 both (as de?ned 1n this notice), Data to be requested of grantees in the future; Number of teachers and principals 111 schools that are h1gh-poverty, high -1_11ino1ity., or both (as de?ned in this notice) who were. evaluated as highly effective (as de?ned 1n this not1ce) 1n the prior academic year Number of teachers and principals 1n schools that are low-povert low-1n1no11ty, or both (as de?ned 1n this notice) who were evaluated as highly effective (as de?ned 111 this notice) 1n the- prior academic year. Number of teachers and principals 111 schools that are high-poverty, high- -n1i11or1ty, or both (as de?ned this notice) who were? evaluated as 111effect1ve 1n the prior academic Number of teachers and principals 111 schOols that are lo-w p?overty, low?1111110rity, or both (as de?ned 1n this notice) who were evaluated as ineffective 1n the prior academic year. Performance Measures for Note: All information below is requestedfor Participating year'- or Actual Data: Baseline: End of-"SY 2010-201 1 and of-SY 2011-21112. End or-sv 201120.13] End of 31" 2013-2014 General goals to be provided at time of application: - Baseline data and annual targets 40 .50 93 Percentage of science. teache1s who were evaluated as effectiVe- ..or better Percentage of special education teachers Who Were. evaluated as. effectlve oi. bettei I I 67 72 Percentage of teachers 1n language instinction educational, programs who were evaluated as- .. 70 '75 effective" or. better. - .. . an. General data to be provided at time of applicatlon' Total number of-mathernatics - - 1350' Total number of-scienceteachers I I I- - .1237 Total number of special education teachers I .. I I I I 2372 I Total number of teachers in language instruction educational programs 773/ ESL Teacher positions counted as if- a teacher works at three schoOls they are included three times Data to be requested of grantees In- the future. I Number of mathematics teachers in partiCipating LEAs who Were evaluated as effective or better 111 the prior academic year Number of science teachers in part1c1pating LEAs who were evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic year. Number of special education teachers 1n participating LEAs who were evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic year, Number of teacheis in language instruction educatlonal programs in participating LEAs who. Improving the programs (141201711139 The extent to which the State has a. high~quality plan and ambitious ye.t..ach1evable annual targets (1) Link student achievement and student growth (both. as de?ned in this notice) data to the students teachers and principals, to link this information to the Where those- were prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report 94 the data for each credentialing program .in the State; and (ii) Expand preparation and credentialing options and programs that are successful at producing effectiVe teachers .and principals (both as de?ned' "1n this notice) The State shall provide its detatlecl plan for this criterion in. the.- text box below The plan should 111el11de at. a 111i11111_,111111 the _,'g0als activities, lirhelines, and responsible parties (See Reform Plan. Cr1ter1a elements 1111 Instrucnons 'or Section XII, Application Requirements supporting evidence. the State heheves Will. he; .hehyfal 1?0- peer reviewers must be described and, included 111 the Appendix. For attachments moladecl 111. the. Appendix, note 1'11 the narrative the. location where the. attachments can. he found Recommended 111ax1'11111111 response One page Maine is presently in the process of transforming education. Many of Maine's public and private educator preparation programs have agreed in a "Statement of Purpose" to transition to a system based on Maine?s 10 Initial Teacher Certi?cation Standards linked to standards, and Maine?s content standards and using in .a true standards-based assessment system. This clearly indicates the Department?s commitment to transition to a truly standards?based educational system from Pre? Kindergarten through our teacher preparation programs. Maine's newly designed Student Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) is designed to link s'tudentperforrnanCe and, growth information with individual teachers and leaders in the ?eld as well as to educator preparation programs throughout the state.- Using data from the SLDS, the M-PAS will provide data on teacher and principal effectiveness that Would be linked to educator preparation programs. These data will assist the Department, II-IE, and others in determining which programs are best preparing educators. - The move of many. of Maine 5 educator preparation programs to a standards- based system of assessing their students and graduates will contribute to the effectiveness of new educators. Using data on effectiveness, .including student achievement and '95 growth, successful educator preparation programs Will be identi?ed. Teachers and leaders 1n these programs will have their internship placements with other effectiVe teachers and leaders. In addition the state? 5 higher education specialist in the Department is working with college deans to discuss changes 1n their programs. a'iThese changes Will enhance. their effectiveness in preparing educators to teach and lead in support of innovative schools and in support of 21St century skills and knowledge (Appendix This work is supported through a newly awarded competitive grant from supported by the Stupski Foundation, for the Partnership for Next Generation Learning, Innovation Lab Schools. Performance Measures .. recent)? schOOisyear 'or most 2 Baseline (Current. ActualDatai- 2011 End? of Sir 201101.. 2012 End 0158: 211i 1- 2013 End 2012- .2014 End of's'Y 2013.. General goals to be provided .at time of application' Basehne data and Ian-nu a1. targets - Percentage of teacher preparation programs in. the State for which the public can access data on the achievement and growth (as- de?ned .this- notice) of the:- graduates students. 1 25% 50% 75% 100% . Percentage of principal preparation programs in the State for which "the- public can access data on the achievement and growth (as defined' 1n this notice) of the. g1 aduates students. 25% 50% 75% 100% General data. to be provided at time.- (if-application: Total number of teacher c1edentialmg programs in. the; State 16 Total number of principal credennahng programs :.in the. State. '8 Total number of teachers in the State. 26,786.* Total number of principals in. the. State I 1,400rt 96 Maine has 6 teacher credentialing programs offered at public., institutions of higher education and 10 programs Offered through private institutions. Maine has 8 programs that lead to principal credentialing. *This figure includes both conditional and. targeted need teachers; the number is 16,786 if these are not included. **This figure includes both public and private school principals Data to be requested of grantees in the future: Number of teacher credentialing'pro grams- in the State-.fOr 'WhiCh' the information I (as described' in the criterion) is reported Number of teachers prepared "by each Credenhalmg program i11t11e State for which the information (as described 111 the. cr1terion) 1s reported. Number of principal credentlaling programs in the: State for winch the i11f01111ation (as described in the criterion) 15 publicly 1eported Number of principals prepared by each credentiahng program in the5;State for which the information (as descr1bed 1n the cr1terion) is pubhcl reported Number of teachers 111 the State whose data are aggregated to produce publicly available reports on the State? 5' credentialing programs Number of principals 1n the State Whose data are aggregated to produce publicly available reports on the State:? 5: credentialing programs. Providing effective support. to teachers and principal-sir II I The extent to which the State in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as defined 1:11 this notice) has a high quality plan for its participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) to? Provide effective, data-informedprofessional development, coaching, induction, and Common planning and collaborationtime to teachers and principals that are, where appropriate ongoing; andjob- embedded. Such support might focus on, for example, gathering, analyzing, and using data_;desrgn1ng 111structional strateg1e35f01: impiovement differentlating inst1uction, creating school environments supportive of. data-informed decisions, de51gn1ng'1nst1uct1on to: meet the spec1?c needs of high need students (as de?ned 1n this. notice); and aligning systems and removing barriers; to effective- impleinerltatlon. of practices. designed to improve student learning outcomes; and (ii) Measwure evaluate and .continuOUSlyi' improve the effectiveness of those supports In order to. improve student achievement (as de?ned in this notice). he State shall provide its detailed plan for this criterion in, the text hex below The plan should include, at a 111111111111111 the goals, activities, timelines, and respons1ble pat! t__1_'eS (See Reform Plan .Cr1teria elements in. Application Instructions or Section XII, Application Requirements for further detail) Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers must be described and, where relevant, 1ncluded 111 the Appendix or attachments _included' 1n the _,.Appendix_ note in the narrative the location where the attachments can; be found Recommended maximum. response Five pages The driving emphasis on standards, accountability and tangible student outcomes has imposed new expectations. .on school administrators. Principals are the ?instructional leaders?- in their schools. Strong effective instructional leaders are at the core of schools that have shifted to become centers of learning for students and adults. Maine has developed clear priorities and a plan for professional development that is aligned to its primary objective of preparing, developing, and mentoring teachers and leaders. The Department plans for all participating LEAs to select models of leadership and teacher develOpment that are research and standards- based ?and focused on student achievement data. Professional development provide in depth learning. modules on performance-based learning, the use Of data, 'implementati?On of. initiatives COmmon-Core Standards and common aSsessments), curriculum pathways, mentoring and induction systems, and Whole school improvement. In the initial six~months after grant award, the Department, with stakeholders, will evaluate and vet comprehensive models of teacher and leader. development for districts to select and implement. A number of; models will be vetted and customized as'necessary to align with, support, and be informed by the new evaluation systems discussed in above._ In the state funding formula, each district is allocated $57 per student for professional. development. Therefore, the Department 98 plans to use the Race to the Top grant funds to- fully implement a full teacher induction system by: providing additional training to increase the state's capacity; providing LEAs funds for mentoring and induction activities and related evaluation activities; and offering technical assistance in support of implementatidn. Leadership Development: Leadership: development is an essential component of the. state?s overall strategy to promote school improvement and innovation-The Departmentwill develop and provide educator leadership-academies (Academies) for current and. aspiring leaders. With funding, the Department will organize and conduct. a series of- ongoing state-wide cohort-based leadership academies that support up to 30 sites each year to develop the critical knowledge and skills needed for leading change and turning around underperforming schools. The Academies will be based on models such as the Governor?s Academy in Maine organized by the _Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance, and on the national leadership models. These models provide in?depth learning for teams of educators from districts, including central office staff, principals, and teacher leaders coupled with ongoing implementation of improvement plans in the local sites. The planned curriculum for the Maine Leadership Academy includes the following-content: Leadership. for'High Performing Schools: An overarching goal of the Maine Leadership Academy'is to develop-a common understanding of effective research based instructional leadership as well as standards-based instruction in each of the content areas. Leaders will apply these leadership skills and support teachers to use standards based instruction through ongoing feedback, classroom observations, the effective use of data, coaching and mentoring. - Leadership for Local Accountability and Commitment to Learning: Leaders will engage in a process to create and implement research-based standards, ongoing classroom assessment, and interventions for a comprehensive accountability system. This system allows educators to tailor curriculum to quickly and effectively boost performance. ensuring that all students meet state and federal requirements. It Will help principals and teachers focus on essential standards and develop a 99 coherent curriculum delivery and intervention calendar to boost perfonnance. Leaders Will be trained as data coaches and lead school based data teams to use data to investigate student learning problems and intervene to im?proveaoutcomes. 0 Professional Learning Communities: Continuous collective learning for all adu'ltsis a necessary ingredient to promote growth and heightened achievement of all students in scho.ols._ The Maine Leadership Academy model draws on work in the areas of teacher collaboration, professional learning communities and effective. organizational culture to build leader?s capacity to enable all teachers to- collaborate on learning, use data effectively, intervene when students do not learn, and continuously deepen their. own knowledge and skills as expert teachers. 0 Collaborative Coaching to Strengthen Teachers? Practice and Retention in the Professioni This course within the Academy is designed to help principals and other leadersunderstand-the roles of effective mentors; understand the needs of new teachers and implications for a mentor?s role; engage with research-informed practices and criticalelements of effective mentoring and coaching; enhance understanding and ability to apply essential, mentoring skills in schools, and promote the growth and effectiveness of new and experienced teachers, 0 Promoting Teacher Leadership to Strengthen School Culture that Supports Student. Learning: Speci?c and content focused. cOurses will support teachers who are ready to contribute as leaders in their buildings to clarify their roles and develop the mentoring, professional development and other skills they can use to work with their peers to improve teaching and'learning. These major focus areas for the Academy will be augmented by other speci?c programs that address the following content: Specific school/ turnaround leadership skills including engaging the public and stakeholders, investigating innovative models for effective learning personalization) - Conducting classroom observation and other data'collect?ion to inform continuous improvement of instruction. 100 - Implementing new teacher evaluation systems - Achieving equity and cultural competence: Strategies for Closing achievement gaps Differentiation, including establishng effective models for intervention andthe effective instruction of English language learners and students with disabilities 1 0 Bridging general and special education through professional development in the. area of Response; to Intervention offered to school teams including general and special educationIteaChers and leaders I 0 Using models and tools for leading change (e g. using the Concerns based Adoption Model, simulations) The Department will operate the Leadership Academy regionally, draWing on state and regional experts and other resources, as needed, to establish and sustain the program. By situating the Maine Leadership Academies regionally, the state will bu1ld the capacity needed among people in the state'to, continue the Academies-once they are developed and operating. Cohorts of leaders from each of the participating districts will attend-over 200 hours of leadership development sessions over two years. In addition, the Academy staff will offer support through of resources, and professional development, as appropriate, to support transformation and build the capacity of highly effective instructional leaders across the State. Leadership Academy GoalsIand Timeline Leadership Academy Goals: 0 Increase the number of effective leaders practicing in schools across the State of Maine but especially 1n the lowest performing schools, 0 Complement other state initiatives for school turnaround and school improvement, and Ongoing improvement of the Leadership Institute effectiveness oughII formative and summative evaluation. Year-1 . Year2 I Year3 Year 4 Summer Winter/ Summer Winter/ Summer Winter/ . Summer I Winter/E 2011 Spring 2012 Spring - 20-13 - Spring 2014 Spring 2015 101. 2012' I 2013 - I 2014 Cohortl Session Session 'Session3 SessiOn-4 1 2. 30 - participants Cohort2 . Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 I Session 4 30 . participants Cohort 3 - Session 1 Session-2 Session 3 Session 4 30 Any quality professional development syStem must have a plan for continuousrevaluation and improvement. The Department and participating LEAS will ensure professional development meets the highest standards by designing high quality professional development, mentoring and coaching activities that are informed by the National Staff Development Council-is Standards for Staff Development, and include: I The uselof disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and: help sustain continuous improvement. (Data-Driven) I 0 The use of multiple sources of information to guide improvement and. demonstrate its impact. (Evaluation) I The use of applied research to prepare educators in decision making, I The Standards include building evaluation of effectiveness into the professional development. To ensure evaluations are used for continuous improvement, professional development, mentoring, and coaching programs will have evaluation built into 102 '1 his? them. Evaluation designs Will be informed by desired outcomes and evidence/data needed to make c-ontinuous improvement decisions. To assist in the development and execution of evaluating funded professional development, mentoring and coaching programs an external firm or consultants will be engaged. Performance Measures Performance measures for this criterion are optional If the State washes to include performance measwmes please enter them as rows in this table and for eaCh. measure, provide annual targets in the columns provided. meant)" . - S?h?oi year or most 2 Baseline (Current: - Actual Data: 2011 End of. SY 2010- . .. 20121 End of'SY 2011? 2013 End of SY 2012? 2014 End of SY 2013? Professional development quality and effeCtiveness survey (developed) No data Number of teachers and principals participating in Leadership Academies providers Number of contact hours provided to teaChers by approved professional development (E) Turning. Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (-50 total points) State Reform Conditions Criteria Intervening' 1n the. lowest-achievmg schools and LEAS (I 0 points) The extent to which the State has the legal statutory, or regulatory authority to intervene directly In the State persistently lowest? achieving schools (as de?ned In this notice) and in LEAS that; are in improvement or corrective action status. 103 - In the text box below. the State shall describe-- its current. status in meeting. thecriterion. The-narrative .or- attachm'ents'shall alSo include at a minimum the evidence listed below, and how each piece ofevidencie demonstrates the State? success ?in meeting the criterion. The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the State.- believes will be: helpful to. peer reviewers For attachment-s included in. the. Appendix note in the narrative the. location t1=here the attachments can he found Evidence for 1) 0' A description of the State 5 applicable laws, statutes regulations .or other relevant legal documents. Recommended maximum response The State of Maine?s current statutory and regulatory language to support intervention _p'royi?des for multiple: junctures at which the State may intervene directly in the state?s lowest performing Schools. The power of the Commissioner to intervene in low performing schools comes from the Department of Education, Chapter 125, Section '13 and 14 (Appendix Speci?cally, Section 13.02 states, ?The Commissioner will initiate a comprehensive review of a school administrative unit when student performance in a school indicates that a review is- warranted, in accordance with-.Me. Dept. of Ed. Reg. 127. The purpose of the review'shall he to determine how to improve student performance on the content standards of the system of Learning Results. In additi0n, Section 13.03 provides parents, registered voters, school board members and superintendents with the option to petition the Commissioner to, ?inspect a school administrative unit. ?The Commissioner may inspect any of the areas governed by school approval provisions of this rule in addition to the items in the petition or request. Rule 13.03 was utilized in 2003 and 2005 to review school and district operation and create a plan for improvement. Other statutes addressing legal authority follow: 104' (1) Maine ReV-ised Statute 20-A Chapter'222 ?4502: I ?Eleme-ntaiyand secondary- schools and school administrative shall meet all requirements of the system: Of learning results as established in section 62.09 as Well as other requirements of this Title and other statutory requirements applicable to'the public schools and basic school approval standards. Each school administrative unit shall prepare and implement a comprehensive education plan that is aligned with the system of- learning results, focused on the all students and oriented to continuous improvement. (Appendix 13-2) (2) Maine Revised Statute Chapter 206 ?4504: ?The commissioner shall determine which schOols and. school units are in complianrfe with the basic school approval standards, in accordance with the procedures of the basic school approval rules and the provisions of this The commissioner shall conduct a comprehensive review ofa school administrative unit in accordance with the school assistance process established in section 6210; based on a review of the school administrative unit?s comprehensive education plan: and student achievement data, or as part of an inspection in accordance with section. 258-A. (Appendix. 13?3) I . (3) Maine Revised Statute ZO-A Chapter 222 ?The commissioner shall validate each school administrative unit's comprehensive education and ?The con-amissioner shall annually report the status-of each school I administrative unit in inmlementing the comprehensive education plan. (Appendix (4) Chapter 127 9.01 ?When student performance in a school indicates that assiStance is needed, the Commissioner shall provide assistance to the school administrative (Appendix E-S) (5) And ?nally, Chapter 22?. ?6210 requires that ?the commissioner shall provide assistance to a school administrative unit when student performance in a school in the school administrative unit, or when a review of the comprehensive education plan conducted under section 4-504, subsection 2, indicates that assistance is needed. This may include assignment of an assistance'team by the commissioner to work with theschool administrative unit over a period of not less than one year. (Appendix E-6) 105 Reform Plan Criteria Turning around the lowestaachieving.schools (4019011113) The extent to which the State has a. high~quality plan and annual. targets-t0;? Identify the persistently lowest-achieving schOOls (as. de?ned-inthi-s notice) and, at 'its discretion I eligible secondary . schools that would be conside1ed peISistently lowest-achieving schools (as de?ned 111' this notlce) if they were eligible to receive Title I funds; and (5 points) (ii) Support its LEAs in turning around. these schools by (asd'escribedfin Appendix C): turnaroundmodel, restart Closure, or transformationiinodel' (providedthat anfLEAgwithginore than nine persistently lowest-achieving schools may-not "use; the. transformation more than 5 0. percent of?its; schools), The State shall prowde its detaIZed plan for tZ11s crzter1on 1'11 the. text box should 1nCZ11a?e, at a 111111111111111 the goals, activities timelines and part1es (see Reform Plan r1terza elements 1'11 Application Instructions or Sectmn XII. Apphcanon Requirements for further 1?Z1ejr1.?ex?t box below .the3 State shall describe its current status 1'11 meeting the criterion The narrative or attachments shall also 111clude at 11.111111111111111 the ewdence listed below, and how each piece of e111de11ce de111011stratesthe- State? success 111 meeting the cr1te1?1o11 The narrative. and attachments 111C131 also include any additional 1njormat1on the State- believes - will be helpful to peer reviet-vers; F01 attachments 1ncluCZeCZ 111 the Appendm the in the narratwe the location 111here the attachments- can befouncl. Evidence for (please ?l'l in table below): 0 The State 3 historic performance on school turnaround as ev1denced by the total number. of permstently lowest?achlevmg schools (as de?ned' 111 this notice) that States or attempted to. turn. a1 ound 1111. the last ?Ve years, the approach used, and the results and lessons learned to date: - ..Eigl1t pages 106 1- sea-Ea; (maxi) Maine de?nes ?persistently lowesteachieving schools? as those schools ranking lowest based on-a three year- average of pro?ciency in Reading and Math combined also demonstrating a level of progress less than the median rate of progress of all - schools ranked. The level of progress is'deterrnined- by Calculating the change in the. yearly averages for pro?ciency in Reading and Math from 2007?t0 2008, 2008 to 2009. This de?nition was used-to generate a list schools identi?ed as Tier I or Tier II schools eligible for school improvement funding-through the Title I school Improvement Grants (SIG) program authorized by section 1003(g) of the Elementary and secondary Education Act (if-1965 (ESEA). Schools Will be considered for eligibility under two categories, designated as Tier I and Tier II as follows: Tier. I schOols are de?ned'as any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that Is among the lewest-achievi-ng ?ve percent of Title I 'schOols- in improvement, cOrre'ctive action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving ?ve Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number 'of schools is greater; or (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as de?ned in 34 CPR. 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over the last three years; In 2009?2010, Maine identi?ed 5 schools in Tier I. Tier II schools are de?ned as any secondary school'that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that Is among the lowest-achieving ?ve percent of Secondary schoOls or the.loweSt-achieving ?ve secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, Whichever number of school-s is greater; or . 107 (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as de?ned 1n 34 C. F. R. 200. l9(b) that IS less than 60 percent over a number of years. In 2009 2010, Maine has 5 schools in Tier II. In addition to the two tiers outlined above, Maine will identify an additional group of secondary schools not currently eligible for Title I funds. Schools in this group are de?ned as any secondary school not receiving or eligible for Title I funds that is among the lowestyachieving ?ve percent of in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving ?ve schools in improvement, Corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools-is greater; or is a high school that has had a graduation rate as de?ned in 200.1.9(.bj that is less-than 60 percent over-of the past three years; Please see Appendix Which provides the sequence of steps-used to identify the Tier I'and Tier II schools. Our efforts to turnaround the lowest performing schools will build onour current model thathas been successfully used for Title I School Improvement. In the last 5.. years we have seen sustained improvement in 20 of 34 low performing schools that have received support from our intervention teams. This improvement has. resulted from identi?cation of school needs and targeted support. The . foundation of this model utilizes a cadre of school improvement consultants ?Who are assigned to work directly with identi?ed schoOls. This cadre of consultants includes former principals and superintendents who have direct expertise in working with school improvement initiatives, and, a clear understanding of the elements of a school system and what leverage points can result 1n change to . impact and sustain practices to improve student achievement outcomes. We have found it successful to match the unique skills of consultants with the identi?ed challenges of. underperforming schools. This match of the skill sets, egg. former high school administrators to high schools or expertise. in Math with low perfOrmance 011. math Scores, former rural school administrators to small 108 rural schools, has helped build appreciation and targeted expertise to the process. In their role, consultants previde guidance and support to school improvement teams and guide the school improvement planning and implementation process, regularly checking to make sure the plan is followed. This enables them to assist school improvement teams in'addr?essing challenges thatsurface and help administrators ?nd alternative strategies. In addition, these consultants work as liaisons to the Department, regularly consulting with other department personnel. and planning strategically to determine what additional actions or resources could best support the schools they work with. Since implementation of NCIB through 2008-09, Maine has identi?ed 34 Title I CIPS (Continuous Improvement Priority) schools. Twenty of these schools have exited CIPS using the {intervention model?. While this is a very positive outcome, one of the biggest lessons we have learned is that changes in systemic practices aligned to student achieve goals is necessary and requires even greater supports for those schools. still struggling to meet achievement targets. Maine will support participating .LEAs in turning around our lowest and low-performing- schools by utilizing amulti-leveled' approach that includes the following. strategies; (1) We will support the efforts of the 15 schools identi?ed in through the support of the state ?Turnaround Team? that will initially assist these identi?ed lowest performing schools in their implementation of one of the intervention models; Turnaround, Closure or Transformational, as outlined in the regulations for Title. I School Improvement Grants, 34 CFR Subtitle 13, Chapter II School Improvement Grants;- Final Rule Federal Register. As mentioned earlier, our cur-rent support system for underperforming sChools has utilized expert consultants whose interactions have resulted-in positive. changes; We anticipate that instituting even greater sustainable change: in our lowest performing schools will require additional resourcesand eVen more intensive support then what we have previously provided. 109 Our lowest perfOrming schools will be supported by a new structure of "Turnaround Team? specialists who will provide more comprehensive and resource supported efforts to address the systemic roOt causes leading. to repeated poor perfOrmance. (2) The 15- identi?ed lowest achieving Schools will be required to participate in an ?Improvement Network? With other identi?ed schools and the state Turnaround Team. This partnership will focus on implementing programs and strategies described below. (3) We will expand our effective? intervention? model currently used for school improvement to other schools demonstrating low levels of student achievement on state assessments. For all schools identified as having :a 3 year average of pro?mency 1n Reading and Math that is 30% or less, and'demon'strates a rate of progress that rs less thanthe' median rate of change for all Maine schools we will continue to use the intervention mOdel that will assist these schools in developing an improvement plan and instituting strategic changes in practice. Consultants will be utilized to meet the individual needs of identified schools. These schools will agree- to. review: establish and aCt upon recommendations received from the state cadre of intervention consultants. They will develop a corrective action plan for submission to the Department for review and agree to partiCipate. in state level training opportunities, such as those relating to the use of data, performance-based initiatives, and personalized learning. In addition, they will participate in ?Improvement: Network? . activities and communicate ways to- improve the network. The state Turnaround Team will provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to our lowest performing schools by targeting high needs SAUs on multiple fronts toimprove. ed-Ucation for all students, particularly underrepresented youth, youth in poverty and females. This will Occur through a combination of teacher professional development focused. on: implementing performance~based curricula; implementing initiatives to personalize learning; student after school and summer programmingi' and programming to include integrated STEM instructional activities annually-from grades 3-8 and high school in high needs SAUs. In . addition, the team will provide State level training and professional development modules 1n key areas, i. e. school improvement process (Lazotte), assessment literacy etc. that allOws on demand access, scalability, and cost sustainability. 110 The state will create and support an f?Irnprovement Network? to support the principals and other educational leaders in schools" working with the Turnaround Teams and the intervention consultants by: utilizing technology to cemmunicate. and disseminate knowledge, tools, and practices shown to. have positive impact on school improvement efforts, I - using longitudinal data systems in developing growth models to inform improvement plan strategies, - using data systems to inform instruction, i . I - assisting the development of assessment and intervention practices. through research, consultation and training, - identifying and sharing expertise-relative. to the alignmentof ?SCal resources and professional development services toidenti?ed improvement goalsthe development of leadership engagements and activities to increase both state and regional opportunities for principals, teachers and others engage in improvement efforts to develop skills for deepening and sustaining school improvement efforts. This network would support targeted professional development after reviewing data and identifying needs that improvement schools could address collectively. Due to the rural nature of many of our targeted schools, our Turnaround Team and Improvement Network will utilize technology and a variety of supports that will enable delivery of research, training and consultation in a timely manner whenthose supports would be most beneficial to school improvement plan activities and goals. By building a targeted on line system supported by expert staff from the Turnaround Team, our improvement schools will receive individualized and timely assistance to maximize. their improvement efforts. Speci?cally, support from the Turnaround Team members and the Improvement Network will provide information on: 0. Support the use .of adaptive computerized assessments, I 0 Provide comprehensive training on data us,e 0 Provide professional development on the use of STEM assessments, and 0 Provide professional development on the adoption of a Board Examination System such as the Cambridge International Examination?s International General Certi?cate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) and their AICE program, the College Beard?s Advanced Placement (AP) program, the International BacCalaureate (IB)Diploma program, Quality Core or IGCSE and A- level programs. To support the identi?cation and dissemination of support structures that enables all students to achieve standards. The team will; 0 Validate practices'vvhere students can demonstrate meeting the. standards, 0 Identify exemplary practices to be included in. a system of intervention, 0 Identify open source virtual personalized learning systems (PLS), 0 I Secure funding for dual enro-llment/ early college programs, . 0- Develop innovation labs that can serve as models for other-schools, and . Provide technical assistance to developing and implementing innovative schools. In addition, a critical element for success within identi?ed schools Will be to support new leaders responsible for implementing school improvement plans through cohort- based leadership institutes for current and aspiring leaders in participating SAUs, as described in Section of this application. Information will be provided to assist with analysis, selection (or adaptation) and implementation of models of performance-based leadership development rooted in adult learning theory. Some of this support will be provided through online learning opportunities. 112 Our Turnaround Team will be lead by-a cadre of our most expeiienced School Consultants, often former administrators, who will be supported by a variety of expertsidenti?ed for their ability to successfully address ?root causes? of failure within learning systems. Following a review of data and identi?cation of similar challenges, Turnaround Team members will Work Closely with regional improvement teams to review research, initiate changes in practice,- and evaluateoutcomes on a regular basis. This structure will support the development of regional- expertise and capacityas well: as identifying i-successful improvementpractiees to be shared throughout the state utilizing the online resource website. These regional improvement networks Will not only benefit from access to Consultants focused on common challenges but will also provide the opportunity to interact with peers, identifying which strategies are most helpful and under what circumstances Finally, for those schools identified due to low graduation rates, the team will provide research and intensive support on dropout prevention. An annual dropout conference will be the catalyst for continued work with local dropout prevention teams focused on reviewing data, analyzing cause, and researching strategies for implementation. Department experts able to address :dropout related issues including homelessneSS, mobility, 'at risk families, ELL and Special Education concerns, will support work at=the conference and with individual schools. They will be able 'to assist schoolsin addressing the unique challenges of disengaged youth in both urban and rural communities. In._addition, supportwill come from the. identification, implementation and expansion of successful and researched based programs such as ?Jobs for Graduates-?. I obs for Maine?s Graduates been used in some of the lowest performing high schools. JMG is a partnership-with schools, where students engage in a JMG class which 15 included 1n the course schedule for students. In this four credit course, which 13 provided to students who. both apply or might be recruited for if identi?ed for being at-risk, there 1s a full time JMG specialist who mentors and keeps track of each student, during, and one- -full year past enrollment 1n the program. Currently there are 64 programs (classrooms) in the state. We would plan to add up to 20 more. Currently, JMG has a waiting list of 20 schools that would like to offer the program and partner with JMG. The JMG objective is to improve graduation rates and post 113 secondary enrollment, retention, and attainment, and improve student achievement. 0 During the 2008-2009 SY 96% of seniors enrolled in (students identified as at risk for failure to complete), graduated from high school. We have found that 47% of JMG graduates. enroll in a two or four year college immediately after graduating. Supported by the new data systems. that we will be implementing, Turnaround Team and-Intervention staff will regularly review school programs and models to insure that the schools are implementing and realizing the-goals of their improvement plan. The ability to monitor improvement through access to new student achievement data systems, will provide Turnaround Team members and intervention consultants with timely. information so that they are better able to. assist in the creation and modification of action plans and identi?cation of individual school supports to be utilized for the greatest immediate and effective impact. As noted earlier, the state Turnaround. Team Will provide targeted, intensive support to our lowest performing schools by targeting low performing schools on multiple fronts. Turnaround team experts will focus on the following speci?c leverage points tobuild capacity, knowledge and success in improving educational outcomes: (1')Provide research, support and guidance on selection and implementation of intervention models and supports. The task of implementing new structural models required by intervention models will require the engagement. and commitment from numerous stakeholders To enable the .most successful implementation of the models- being implemented, Turnaround Team members. will initially work closely with district board's, administrators,associations, school leaders,.and parents to establish I critical communication processes and commitment to new challenges and-strategies. (2)Provi.de toOls and assistance with initial investigations into root causes of nnderperformance and platforms to support the transparent presentation and monitoring of on-gomg implementatiOn plans. I Building community commitment and accountability for the development and implementation of turnaround efforts will necessitate a deep understanding of the. failure of the current system to meet student needs. Turnaround team members(trained and supported by experts in root cause analysis) will have the primary responsibility to utilize tools and processes to help schools look 1'14 c-loselyat multiple sources of data to identify-the root causes for system failure. The process of working With all stakeholders and building the implementation plan-addressing identi?ed needs and system changes will be a ?rst step in building the necessary foundation for improvement efforts going forward, Posting implementation plans publicly, so that all stakeholders see and monitor progress, will build commitment and accountability while alsokeeping the process open and transparent. (3)Assist with the process ofidentifying- [and implementing new Leadership and Teacher evaluation models to be utilized within participating lowest achieving schools. . The implementation of new leadership and teacher evaluation models approved by the state stakeholder?s groupwill be most successful if initiated with as-much broad based local understanding and support as possible. The inclusion of student growth data- as a component of some of these models has resulted in significant discussion and Concern among various stakeholders. For this reason, Turnaround Team members will be supported'in developing their expertise in understanding staff evaluation models and supporting research to facilitate local discussion and adoption efforts. Evaluation systems in themselves will not matter unless . they are implemented effectively and consistently utilized. A critical role for Turnaround Team members will be to support and guide models that provide useful data and facilitate program adjustments leading to liigh quality received by all students. This support will remain in place until participating schools reach AYP targets and evaluation/feedback systems are fully operational. I (4)Snpp0rt recruitment, Professional Development and Leadership engagements aligned to strategic implementation plans, dropout prevention and new expectations. - I I I Competent and knowledgeable staff .able' to support strategic plans and transition model implementation will require the support of on?going training, mentoring and recruitment efforts to deVelop and sustain positiveoutcomes. The task of leadership and staff development efforts for our participating lowest achieving schools will be coordinated by a team Iof two individuals on the state?s Turnaround Team. These individuals will be responsible for the development and implementation of both regional and on?line engagements to develop the skills and practices of staff from our lowest achieving schools. Initially, this effort: will focus on the 115 development of leadership engagements and activities to increase both state and regional opportunities for principals, teachers and others engage in improvement efforts to develop skills for deepening and sustaining school improvement efforts. Continued I opportunities will focus on dropout prevention and other challenges raised during initial root cause analysis wor?k. Working with the state?s higher education institutions, TurnarOund Team members will review the ?ndings from the root cause analysis, and use this data to provide information relative to discussion, development and alignment of teacher preparation pro grams to the need for specific knowledge and skills necessary to provide leadership and teach successfully within low achieving schools; (5)C00rdination of online supports and the web-based elements or our'larger ?Imprevement Network? As stated earlier, the rural nature of some of our SAUs, makes communicationand. distribution of information on best practices challenging. One important aspect of the state?s turnaround team will be the development of an ?Improvement Network? online site where research links, resources, tools, practices and archives from profeSsional development engagements can be accessible to network schools and districts 24 hours" a day. This site, informed by the-work of turnaround team members and low achieving schools, will support dissemination of knowledge, tools, and practices Shown to have positive impact on school improvement efforts across the state. 116 Evidence Approach Used. SY2004 .05. #o'f'Scljiecis Since; . Results and Lessons Learned Intervention Teams 20/34 The foundation of this model is teams of school improvement consultants who are assigned to work directly. with identi?ed schools. This cadre of consultants includes former principals and superintendents who have direct expertise in working with school improvement initiatives and a clear understanding of all of the aspects included in leading a school._ The unique skills of the consultants are matched with the schools. These consultants not only provide guidance and support, but act as direct liaisons to the Department. Since implementation of NCLB through 2008-09, Maine has identified over 30 Title 1 CIPS schools. 20 of these schools have exited CIPS status and have continued to make AYP. Some of those remaining in CIPS have seen marked improvement in individual student progress. 3' 2 End of we ofSY 20134014 ;.2o.ne2'o.1' 2 The numbel of schools fo Wthl?l one of th fou and each yeal i0 schools identi?ed as? Tier 1 and Tier 10 . 8 8 6 2 Schools (7 of ten accepted) Schools identi?ed as eligible for Title 1- School improvement Grants this year and p1o~1ectlonsithrough the end of the grant period. The following chart provides an overview of major activities, outcomes and timeframes supporting the initial work by state turnaround team members with our lowest achieving schools. '1 l7 Chart 1: Turnaround Support Activities, Outcomes, Timelines and Responsibility support 1: Intervention Model r: Turnaround Team will work wit :11 district staff to present intervention model information to various stakeholder groups. Assist lowest achieving schools 1n selecting model to be utilized. September . December, 2010 Assigned Turnaround Team - Staff. Assist lowest achieving schools in selecting a turnaround model. Outcome: Lowest achieving schools will have selected intervention model and begun process of implementation. January 2011 District and School leaders with input from stakeholders. Support 2. Root Cause Analysis Provide training to Turnaround Team members in processes and tools that support school root cause analysis - September - November 201-0 State for Low Performing Schools. Facilitate root cause analysis work with lowest achieving school leadership teams. December 2010 March 2011 Assigned Turnaround Team Staff. Continued on-going analysis and intervention planning based on ?root cause.? ?ndings and additional implementation data informing effectiveness and necessary improvement plan adjustments. 111nm December-? March 20-11 and on-going data review cycle. Turnaround, Team Staff, district and school leaders.- Development of on-line system for posting initial and modi?ed lowest- achieving school implementation plans. Outcome; Stakeholders will see transparent plan for improvement efforts, evidence'of effect-and on-going plan adjustments modi?ed due to additional data findings. June'ZO-l -1 Longitudinal data team, assigned Turnaround Team members and district leaders. 118- (F) General (55 total points) 'State Reform Conditions Criteria Making education funding-hpl?lorlty (10p01nl?5) The extent to Which? Th epercentage of the total revenues available to the. State (as de?ned in notice) that Were used to support elementary, secon ndary, and public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than; 91?; equal tQ the. percentage Of the total- revenues available to the .Statea (a de?ned in this notice) that Were- used. to support. elementary, secondary, ;_and public higher education for. FY 2008; and (ii) The State 5 policies lead to equitable betWeen high- need LEAS (as de?ned 11?} this not1ce).and other LEAs, and Within LEAs, betWeen .high? poverty schools (as de?ned 1111 this notice) and other scth'l's.. In the text box below, the; State shall describe its current status meeting the criterion The narrative 0r attachments shall also include, at a minimum, the evidence listed below, and how each piece .ofevidence demonstrates the State success in meeting the crater on The narrative and attachments may also include any additional iry?ormation the State believes will be helpful to. peer reviewers For attachments included in. the. Appendix note in the narrative the location where the attaclmients can he found 'Ev iend nce for - Financial data to shoW whether and to what extent expenditures as percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as de?ned 1n this notice), increased, decreased, or remalned the: same . Evide ence for 0 A11 11y supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer; rewewers Re commended maximum response length-5*- ;fhree page-S.- The percentage of total revenues aVailable to the State that were used to support elementary, secondary, and public higher education for the FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the percentage of the total revenues available to the State that were used to 119 support elementary, secondary, and public higher -.education for FY2008 (Appendix Beginning 1n 2003- 2004, Maine school funding formula became an adequacy-based formula entitled Essential Programs and Services (EPS). Using a cost analysis, the State establishes the amount, leveland cost of education components needed in each school to ensure all students have equitable- opportunities to achieve pro?ciency in state-learning standards. The'essential programs and services allocation calculated for each depends upon student, staff and school characteristics, resulting in unique EPS foundation operating cost rates for each LEA. - The Essential Programs and-Services funding model is designed to ensure that adequate and equitable resources are provided for all students and includes additional state and local allocations for specialized student populations of economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students, and grade span students. These allocations are provided in addition to IDEA and Title I funds. I I The State follows the ranking and distribution regulations outlined 1n and does not have any additional policies leading to equitable funding for high-poverty schools The extent to which-? The State has a charter- school. law that does noti; prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high?pei forming charter schools (as de?ned 1n this notice) in the State measured. (as set: in Appendix B) by the percentage of total schools 1n the State - that are alloWed to be charter schools .or otherw1se restr1ct student enrollment in charter schools; 120 1.33.2 (ii) The State has laws, statutes, regulati?nsr Or. guidelines regarding how charter school authorizersiapprove, monitor, hold I accountable, reauthorize, and close-charter; require that student achievement (as de?ned. in this notice) be one signi?cant factor, among others, in authorization encourage-charter- schools that serve student populations that are similar to local district student populations_;, especially relatiVe- (as de?ned. in this notice); and have closed or not renewed ineffective charter schools; - The State 5 chaIter schools receive (as set forth in Appendix equitable fundmg compared to trad1?nonal public schools and a commensurate share of local, State, and Federal revenues; (iv) The State provides charter schools with funding for-facilities (for leasing facilities, purchasing facilities, or making tenant improvements), assistance. With facrlit1es access to publlc facilities, the ability to share In bonds and mi2ll? levies, or other I supports; and the extent to which the State does not impose any fac111ty-1elated requirements on charter schools that are stricter than those applied to traditionalpublic schools; and The State. enables to Operate innovative, autonomous. public- schools-(as defined? :ingthi's: notice) other-than- charter schools. In the text box below, the Store'shail describe. its-icurrenmtams in meeting the criterion. The narrative or offael?iin'enrfs shall-also include, at a minimum, the. andlhoi-r of evidence demonstrates the State "5 suceesstin- meeting the. criterion. The narrative and attachments: may information-the Stale believes willbe- to peer reviewers. For cit-melamine included'ainthe-etAppendin 'nan-ntive'l'thelloeatim i-rhere the attachments found; Evidence for A description of the State applicable laws, statutes, regulations or; other relevant legal documents 0 The number of charter schools allowed under State law and the percentage-,thrs represents of the total number of schools in. the State,? 0 The number and types of charter schools currently operating in the State. Evidence for A description of the State 5 approach to charter school accountability and authorization, and a description of the State applicable -,laws statutes, regulations, or other relevant legal documents 0 For each of the last ?ve years: 0 The number of charter school applications made in the State 121 The number of charter school applications approved 0 The number of charter school applications denied and reasons for the denlals (academic ?nancial low enrollment other). The number of. clfla'r'ter schools closed (including charter schools that were not reauthorized to operate) Evidence for A description of the State.? '5 applicable statutes regulations, or other relevant legal documents. I A description of the Stater? s. approach to charter school fuuding, the amount of funding passed through to charter schools per student and how those amounts compare wnfh; traditional public school pei- -s__t_udent funding allocations. Evidence fOr A description of the State applicable statutes, regulations or. othel releVantj legal documents 0 A description of the statewide facilities supports schools, if an Evidence for A description of how the State enables LEAs to operate 1nnovat1ve autonomous public schools (as de?ned 1n this notice) other than charter schools Recommended maximmn expanse length Sax pages iV) These are not applicable in Maine Maine recently enacted a law to promote the development of ?Innovative Schools? by LEAS across the state. (Agppendix The law gives any Sohool administrative Unit the authority to? ?establish and operate an innovative autonomous public school? that: is open enrollment for all students in a district; I has higher student accountability standards that do not con?ict with theIState?s accountability and assessment system; 0 has ?exibility to innovate with instructional design, staff selection, school calendar, and methods for assessing progress that are not in con?ict with applicable __.state statutory or re gul-atory requirements. 122 To further demonstrate the State?s commitment to the idea of innovative schools, Maine-has. been selected to join the Council of Chief State School Officers latest initiative, the Partnership for Next Generation Learning, funded and supported with resources from the 'Stupski Foundation, through which the state commits to develop and create a system of learner-centered public education designed to ?prepare every child for lifelong learning, meaningful work-and informed citizenship? (Appendix Participating in- this initiative dovetails with and advances the Department?s vision, stated at the outset of this application: All Students will Graduate from Maine High Schools Preparedfor Post?Secondary Education, Careers and-Citizenship, Through this agreement, Maine will initially work with School Administrative District 15, Gray- New Gloucester as a lab at the state, local and school level - to transform the entire education system. The goal of the Partnership is to create a personalized system of education that engages and motivates each student regardless of his or her circumstances to be'prepared .fOr life, meaningful work and citizenship. A perfect match to the goals of Maine. Using powerful diagnostic tools to inform educators as to how to precisely reach each and every student and make the most of all learning opportunities, this work will center on the student experience and measuring progress, the lab will address the areas of transformation needed to truly create a school system for the next generation Throrigh research, design, and dissemination (RDD), the labs of the multi- state partnership Will learn from each other, utilize the expertise of national and international leaders 1n innovation, work together to develop performance assessments aligned to the Common Core I standards, and design new models of learning at the district and state levels, and then scale these effective learner-centered approaches. In Maine, the work will center on the performance based system (SAD 15 is a pilot site for the RISC work), communication with the community (multiple stakeholder grOups), a new paradigm for leadership (of students, teaehers, and administrators), and Maine Course Pathways (SAD 15 is a pilot site. for the MCP project through EPIC). In addition, the system will design and implement new data systems- that will track student progress of the standards. as the district and State move from Carnegie credits for- graduation to awarding diplomas once students. have demonstrated achievement of the State?s standards._ While there Will be one school supported for full participation, affiliate school districts will also be invited to participate in activities at varying levels'(in the same way there will be af?liate states at the natiOnal level). Wewill plan to add one fully 123 participating school. district each year, pending-adequate funds and support. In addition to Innovative Schools and Innovation Lab schools, Maine has'the 'oldestioperating local school choice program in the United States. Since 1873, many small, rural towns that do not operate their own high schools (or sometimes elementary'schools) provide tuition payments to schools for parents who send their students to attend public schools in other towns and nonsectarian approved private schools, including out- of-state schools Over 9, 000 students exercised school choice 1n 2010. Online Learning. and AP4ALIL The popularity of online learning has never been greater, with a considerable number of students choosing to take advantage of the opportunity to learn in an online environment. Across the nation, the number of online enrollments in K-12 education is growing at a significant-pace, with an estimated 25% .of public schools offering online-learning options, and. 1,030,000 students engaged in online and blended courses in the 2007?08 school year In addition to providing students. with opportunities that they might not. otherwisehaveaccess to because of where they. live, online learning can be much more than a. solution to equity issues caused by geography and Shrinking budgets. Highly quali?ed teachers can reach and teach their students online, all the while free from the constraints of time and place. Innovative pedagogical approaches using a myriad of digital resources and instructional content can be used to support student learning. The proliferation of powerful and easy to use digital communication tools allows for a high level of interaction between students and teachers, students and students, and teachers and parents, irrespective of physical locations. From 20074010, AP4ALL was a cooperative venture betWeen the Department and the'University of Maine that was established to provide equity of access solely to Advanced Placement coursework for low-income students in Maine, regardless of where they live and the resources available within their local school district. Many high schools in Maine have small enrollment ?gures, and 124 quite often they do not have the resources needed to offer-Advanced Placement level coursework. Over the past three years AP4ALL addressed this inequity-of access ?to demanding, college-level courses by using online. technologies to help offer such courses to every student in Maine. Students who participated in AP4ALL were taught by Maine Certified teachers who received extensive training not only in their speci?c AP content area, but also in the pedagogy of effective online teaching. AP4ALL provided teachers with-significant support in the areas of integrating technology, effective online communication, and all aspects of - teaching and learning related to an online course. Mirroring national trends in the growth of online learning, enrollment in the AP4ALL- program rose Significantly from 2007- 2008 when if offered 6 courses with. 44 enrollments, to 11 courses in 2003-2009 with 100 enrollments, and an all-time high of 187 enrollments in 14 courses during the 2009-2010 school year. It was anticipated that this growth would continue in 2010-2011, with an estimated 20 courses being offered, and a total of 250 enrollments being-accepted, but since AP4ALL was funded by a federal grant that ends June 30, .2010, the program will be suspended at that time. AP4ALL has clearly demonstrated a need for online learning opportunities to be made available to students in Maine, providing- them with rigorous and challenging coursework that they would not otherW'i'se have had access to. Due to the nature of funding, this project was speci?cally targeted towards Advanced Placement courses only. However, the. potential to use online learning . technologies to provide a- wide range of choices for Maine students in all. content areas 4 not merely Advanced Placement courses is signi?cant. Regardless of grade level, and regardless of content area, online learning offers tremendous promise for allowing students to take advantage of a wider array of choices and learning environments all free from the constraints of time and place. Students can participate in online learning to earn college credit,- to be able to work at their own pace, to be able to take classes not offered at their school, .to be able to complete HS requirements, to get extra help in a subject, to fit their schedule, and because it is easier for them 125 to learn in an online .class. or these reasons, although once seen as a methodology on the fringe, online learning has migrated into the mainstream of education, and for many it is seen as a potentially transformative educational option. Demonstrating otherIsignificant-reform conditions (5p01nt9) The extent to which the State? in addition to information provided-underother-State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created, through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions. or innovation that have increased student- achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps,- orszresulted. in other important outcomes. In the'text box below the State shall describe its- current statiis- in meeting the criterion. The narrative or attachments shalt also .inchide, at a minimum the evidence listed. heiow, and how each piece ofevza?ence demonstrates the State .3 success in meeting the criterion, The narrative and attachments may also include any additionai information the State believes wilt he heip?ti to peer reviewers. or attachments included in. the Appendix, note. in, the: narrative the iocatiOn where the attachments can befozrnd. Evidence fer 5? I 0 A description of the State 3 other applicable key educat1on statutes, legulations, or relevant legal documents. 6. Recommended maximum response length Two pages Maine has undertaken several initiatives designed to raise the level of achievement of all its students through the overarching Learning Results System. All educational initiatives that the state undertakes must be related to the Learning Results. years ago a major initiative for secOndary educatlon began. Promising utures, is a reloOk at our high schools and a redesign that supports a secondary system that moves all students to higher standards through restructuring. The Department received a waiver from the USED to use all of its Obie-Porter funds to support Whole school: reform at the high school. In-addition, the AP incentive program prov-ides students in Maine?s high schools With a high quality option to prepare for postsecondary education. It is critical that AP 126 .I classes be accessible and open to any Student who wishes to. meet the challenge and wOrk-hard. Maine has had success in increasing the number of students taking AP classes through the initiative which supports equitable access to high level courses. Many of the AP- programs in Maine are supported with Gifted and Talented funds, but these classes are limited to students who have been identi?ed as gifted and talented. This was of great concern to the Department wherewe, are committed to making all classes available to all students. Thus the AP4ALL improved access to AP courses in Maine. Other reform conditions include the adoption of a rigorous graduation rate, a focused state:Wide STEM plan, and a focus on early education: I I I I In 2010 the Legislature. set a goal of 90% graduation by 201.6 and the requirement for technical assistance plans for those not meeting 80% by 2012. Corrective action for high schools that fail to achieve acceptable graduation rates is required. Enforcement of this policy will. lead to improved outcomes for the most at-risk and lowest performingstudents because schools and districts will be motivated to work with these students to prevent their dropping out. The stateSTEM plan targets highneeds-LEAS on multiple fronts to improve-education for all students, particularly underrepresented youth, youth in poverty and women. This Will be accomplished through combination of teacher professional development; student after-school and summer programming and programming to include integratedS-TEM instructional activities. annually from grades 3-8' and high school in high needs LEAS. In addition, the effective 1:1 laptop initiative will be expanded to all Maine students and teachers in grades 3-12, in these high-needs LEAS. I Through a system of ?nancial incentives, the state has supported the expansion of high quality public-preschool for feur-year? olds in districts throughout the state. The statefis working to develop early education standards and standards-based curricula for early childhood education. The state and private foundations have supported the development of an Educate Center in- Waterville, ME, a high need district with high poverty rates and high rates of special: education identi?cation among students. Maine has also enacted reforms in the structure of its public school system. In 2006-, Maine had 290 school administrative units 127 (SAUS) which are essentially LEAs. An SAU may be a community or local school district or it may be aschoOl administrative district that serves two or more communities. In addition, the SAUs are nested in 16 counties and 9 ?superintendent regions.? In June of 2007, enacted as part of the two-year state budget, the school administrative reorganization law (Appendix set forth policy to ensure that schoolsbe organized .35 units in order to provide. equitable educational opportunities, rigorous academic programs, uniformity in delivering programs, a greater uniformity in'taX rates, more ef?c-ientand effecti-Ve. use of limited resources, preservation of school choice and maximum opportunity to. deliver services in an ef?cient manner. The reorganization law has resulted in opportunities for students in districts. that have reorganized, adding and expanding programs such as pre-kindergar-ten, world languages, music and arts, and AdvancedPlacement courses. The goals of equal opportunity, rigorous programming, sustainability, and more ef?cient use of funds are being achieved. Teachers are sharing resources and best practices with colleagues, They are implementing successful transitions, aligning curricula and developing cohesive Visions for their new school units? educational futures. The evidence is clear and mounting that the reorganization law is meeting'each 'of the Hobijectives set out in the reorganization law. As a result of the reorganization law, Maine is better prepared to meet the current. economic and educational transformation challenges facing our state. Because of the local planning required under-the. lavv, districts are better ableto diversify and expand their educational programs, ensuring all of their students have equal opportunities for success. 128 v11. COMPETITION PRIORITIES Priority 1: Absolute Priority Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform To meet this priority, the State? 3 application must comprehensively and coherently address all of. ?the feur education reform areas speci?ed in the ARRA as well as the State Success Factors Criteria 1n order to demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a systemic approach to education reform. The State must demonstrate in its application suf?cient LEA participation and commitment to successfully implement and achieve the goals in its plans; and it must describe how the State, in collaboration with its participating. will use Race to the T01) and other funds to inerease student achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across Student Subgroups, and 1ncrease the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. . - The absolute priority cuts across the entire application and should not "be addressed separately. It is assessed, a?er the prOposal has been fully reviewed and evaluated to ensure that the application has metz?he priority. - Priority 2. Competitive Preference Priorlty -- EmphaSIS on Seience, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (15 points all or nothing) To meet this priority,- the State 3 application milst have a high-quality plan. to address the need. t0 (1) offer rigorous course of study in mathematics, the sciences, technology, and engmeermg, (11) cooperate with industry experts, museums umvers1t1es research centers, or other STEM-capable d1301plmes -1n promoting effecuve and relevant mstruction and 1n. offering apphed learmng opportunities fer students and (111) prepare more students for advanced study and careers in the solences technology, englneermg, and mathematlcs 1nclud1ng by addressmg the needs of underrepresented groups and of women and girls in. the areas of sc1ence technology, engineering, and mathematics - The competitive preference priority Will be evaluated in the context of the State?s. entire application Therefore .a State that is. responding to this priOrity should address it throughout the application "as appropriate and provide a. summary of its approach to addressmg the priority in the text box below he reviewers will assess the priority as part 0ftheir review of a .State? application and determine whether it has been met Recommended maximum response length, if any One page Maine has unique collection of human educational, and natural resoUrces. These resources include:- 0 the Maine STEM Collaborative (a collective of I non?pro?t, government and business 129 interests committed to improving STEM learning), I a unique one?to?one student and. teacher laptop initiative, and a growing statewide business and cOmmunity focus on sustainability that includes a $30 million. dollar Sustainability Initiative. I I Just miles off the coast of 'our rocky shores lay some of the richest resources" in Our country. Maine is poised. for signi?cant changes; changes that will be ?fueled? by alternative energy and the development of green jobs. Tn this context the success of STEM learning in our 12 settings, our Career and Technical Centers and our institutions of higher education are coupled to Mame? 3 future economic productivity over the last three years STEM partnerships across Maine haVe been strengthened and created. The Maine STEMCollabOrative has funded and ecordinated two. STEM Statewide STEM Summits. The collaborative has also generated a working draft iofia strategic plan and - virorking with Maine the REL, the D'epartinents of Education and Labor and men?profits, efforts are well underway to deliver a STEM Landscape study. This study will focus on student - achievement, teacher certi?cation, and an evaluation of statewide STEM Capacity. A partnership - among the Departments of Education and Conservation, the Maine Environmental Education I I Association and Maine Audubon is developing an Environmental Literacy Plan that will blaze the way for the small army of agricultural, forestry, recreational and environmental education providers to work inmore coordinated efforts to serve Maine?s underrepresented youth and improve environmental literacy. The STEM community is working on and/ or awaiting judgment .on several collaborative STEM grants from and NASA and. the Department of Education has outlined a plan for a Strategic Plan the builds on the work of our other partners in STEM. As a rural state with limited resources we have learned that 'we are both smarter and .haVe - the potential to be more effective if we work together. We have made important strides but we are not yet at the tipping point. We must build a strong statewide network of support on this expectant foundation. Support through the Federal Race to the Top grant Would give Maine the resources to continue to build, support and go to scale with the ideas and programs we have worked to envision and have begun to develop: Goal 1: Increase overall student achievement in science and mathematics by decreasing the 130' combined overall percentage of students in the ?Does Not Meet? andPartially Meets? categories by 15% within two testing cycles.- Goal 2: Increase overall student aspiratiOns to pursue STEM related careers by 20% (from 33% to 53%) percent within four years as reported on the PSAT and SAT student survey, Goal 3: Increase teacher access to online training and resources to 100% of Maine?s teachers and the use of Laptops to delivered STEM resource, professional development and classroom experiences to students and teachers. - Prlorrty 3: In?wtatlonal Pnorlty Innovatlons for Improvmg Early Learnmg Outcomes I (1101111011111) I The Secretary 15 particularly interested 1n applications that include pract1ces strateg1es or 1 programs to 1mprove educational outcomes for. high-need students who are young children (prekmdergarten through third grade) by enhancing the of preschool programs Of .2 particular interest are proposals that support practices that (1) nnprove school readmess (including, social emot1onal and cogn1t1ve), and (11) 1mp'rove the transnion between preschool and kindergarten. - he State 1S. minted to provide a dzscusswn ofth1's 1911011132 111 the text box below but such description is apt1011al Any supportmg evidence the State belteveS W111 be helpful must be and where relevant meluded 111 ?the? Appendzx 01 attachments included 111 the Appendm note 1'11 the narratwe the 2061111011 where the attachments can be found. Recommended maxzmum response length, 1fa11y Two pageS Maine has a long- standing commitment to early childhood education to support the I development of school readiness andhe'althy outcomes for all children. This commitment is evident in the long-standing inter-agency Governor?s Children?s-Cabinet, authorized in statute - (199.8) and. currently chaired by the First Lady of Maine, with the Commissioners of Education, Health and Human Services, Public Safety, Corrections, and Labor serving as members, alongside the Governor?s Senior Policy Adviser. The Cabinet coordinates approaches to service delivery, establishes administrative priorities acrOss departments/agencies/bureaus,_ and Operationalizes the GovernOr?s commitment to better outcomes fer all children and youth in Maine. Early Childhood Education is an established priority of .the Children?s Cabinet. In addition, the Maine Children?s Growth Council, building on the established Work of the Maternal 131 and Child Health Early-Childhood Systems Initiative, was authorized by state Statute in 2008 to look at and act upon the critical economic issue of early childhoodlhe Council was Charged to achieve sustainable social and ?nancial investments in the healthy development of Maine?s young children and their families and is the governor?s designated Early Childhood State Advisory - Conan} s-per the Head Stai- Rea-u thcriz tion Act. The COu?Cii works with a diverse g-ro up of legislators, business leaders, providers, parents, researchers, community leaders and government of?cials to implement Invest Early In Maine: A Working Plan for Human Early Childhood Systems, Maine?s plan for a uni?ed, statewide early childhood serVices system. The Council reports to the Governor?s Children?s Cabinet. Building on this uni?ed plan, the Department has three-priorities to increase inclusive quality early education for all students, but especially f0r I those with highest needs: 0 Expand state-Supported public preschool (4-year old) programs so that each district has at least one'such program, with a goal of statewide, universal access in a diverse delivery system. . . Require; public preschool program standards of practice based on state and national criteria of best practice for early learning. 0 Fund the development of a comprehensive Birth? Five Early Learning hub which advances .. the philos0phy and quality principles of Maine Educare site. Each Of these priorities is described in more detail below. Since 1982, Maine 5 school funding formula has included state support of public preschool programs for 4 year old children offered through school administrative units. At this time, there are 162 approved public 4-year old classrooms throughout Maine, representing 29% of universal capacity. Use of federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds made a sMigni?cant 1ncrease in public preschool capacity, but start up costs remains a barrier to implementation for many districts. These programs also provide access to early learning opportunities for students with Special needs in inclusive and least restrictive settings and support the smooth transition to kindergarten for children by the nature of their integration into school districts. Maine?s community approach to public preschool encourages schools to work with 132 quality community programs for diverse delivery models to establish comprehensive community links. These programs become sustainable within the state?s Essential PIrOgrams and Services (EP S) School Funding formula after a full year of Operation. The state is c0mmitted to using funds to improve the quality of public preschool I programs The Maine Early Childhood Learning Guidelines are currently required by statute to guide. curriculum practice and are intended to effect greater integration among sectors across all early childhood settings and the-early grades. Increased quality standards of program practice I i based on national research combined with technical support. for implementation will align public preschool programs with the Maine Department of Human Services research based Quality I Rating System for early care and education programs (one of 21 nationwide,) further integrating a state professional development system and transitions for children across programs and into the elementary years. Maine Educare is a. public/private partnership" for comprehensive, high qualityearly. education that is designed to serve between 150 ?and 200 mostly low?income children from prior? to-birth to age 5. The gOal is to measurably increase their school-readiness and significantly I reduce unnecessary special education costs. Maine Educare will serve as a state-of?the?art professional development and resource center for early childhood professionals across the state, as well as a teaching lab for students seeking an early Ichildhood'degree in Maine. The program supports parents and caregivers with education and comprehensive supports to improve health, self-suf?ciency and long-term parent. and child well?being and success. Priority Inv1tat1011alPr10r1ty Expansmn and Adaptatirm of Statewrde Longltudmal Data Systems (not scored) . . The Secretary is particularly interested in' applic'atiOns in which the State plans to e'Xpand Statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from? special. education programs, English language learner programs, early childhood programs, at-risk and dropOut prevention prOgra'ms, and. school climate and culture pro grams, as Well as information on. student mobility, human resources information on teachers, principals, and other staff), school ?nance, student health, postsecondary education, and other releVant areas, with the purpOse of Connecting and Coordinating all parts of the system to allow important questions related to policy, practice, or overall effectiveness to be asked, answered, and incorporated into effective continuous improvement practices. I The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in which States propose working 133 together to' adapt one State?s statewide ldngitudjnal data. system so 11111111111113; be. used, in whole. or in part, by one or more-- other States, rather than having each State build or continue bin'lding such systems independently.- he State is invited to provide, a diseasSion ofthiS p1iority in the text box below, [1111 such __deSc1*ipti0n is optional Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful 11.111St be described and,? wnere 111161111111, incmded 111 me Apperdm F01 attacrnerts ireladed 111 the Appendix note in" the. 111111111111 the location where the. attachments can be found. I Recommended maxImam response length if any Two pages The 2007 SLDS grant Iproj ect (Tools for Educational Achievement in Maine) established the core compenents of the Maine longitudinal data system and was designed to meet . or exceed the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) EsSeritial Elements for state longitudinal data systems, enable timely and accurate federal and State reporting, and provide training to Stakeholders on collecting and reporting quality- data and how to interpret data to make well- informed decisions for improving student achievement; Maine recently million to expand this system by including linkages to early childhood, poetsecondary and. workforce data. Educators and policy makers and researchers will I be able to conduct longitudinal studies and determine the effectiveness of early Childhood programs, curriculum, teaching practiCes and other interventions throughout a person?s life that impact education and workforCe outcomes. I The ?ve following focus areas and key underlying - components describe the system. 1) Improve eacher E?ectiveness through implementing a new web- based Educator Credentialing System and a new web- based Teacher Quality Management System. 2) Expand the SLDS Education Data Warehouse from a Pro?K through 12 to an Early Childhood through 20 system by Linking to Early Childhood Program's; Linking with Postsecondary Data from the University of Maine System; replacing the existing Adult Education System with a comprehensive centralized statewide system; and Linking to Department of Labor Data Systems to evaluate the relationships betWeen employment earnings outcomes and entry into Maine growth industries. 3) Deliver Compi'ehensive Data Use Training Programs by expanding the current SLDS Data Quality Certification Program to a wide range of stakeholders including the general public. I 134 4) Partner with the Maine Education Research Policy Institute (MEPRI) to conduct - Longitudinal Research Studies utilizing the expandedTEAchME longitudinal data. This expanded grant project is a coordinated effort among partners from the Maine - Department of Education, the State Of?ce of Information Technology, personnel from other State - ?geneies, rese reh- organiz eat-ions, cont? cred providers, 1ocl sohooi ?dm-ir?-strotive- units,and public and private higher education institutions in Maine. Each compenent Will add value to the existing longitudinal data system and address needs identi?ed by stakeholders. Maine has the. tools to meet or exceed the 2009 Recovery Act grant requirements. All new SLDS applications Will be'acce'ssed through the education portal leveraging the State enterprise security model. We have the capabilities-for direct linkage to the eduea'tion data warehoiise and decisiOn support business intelligence applicatiOn. Stakeholders Will only need to sign-on to the portal to - gain access to all the applications based on their roles and permissions. .. . 5.: Invxtational Priority'-- P-29 Coordination, VertiCal and Horizontal Alignment '3 (not scored) The Secretary is particularly interested apphcations 1n. the State plans to? address hoW early childhood programs 12 schools postsecondary institutions workforce development '3 organizations and other State agenmes and community partners (ag. child welfare juvenile justice, and criminal Justice agenmes) W111 coordinate to improve all parts of the education system - 3 and create a more semless preschool-through-graduate school route for students. Vertical alignment acress P- 20 is particularly critical at each point Where a trans1tion occurs g, between early childhood and 1.2., or betWeen 12- and postsecondary/careers) to ensure that students - exiting one leVel are. prepared for success, without remediation, 1n the next Horizontal alignment, that is wordination of serViCes across schools State agencies and. community partners, is also important in ensuring. that high? ?nee_d students (as de?ned 1n this notice) have access to the broad array of Opportunitles and services they need and that are beyond the capacity of a school itself to previde. The State is invited to provide a discussion of this priority in the. text box below, but" such description is optional Any Supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful must be. described and, where relevant, included in the Appendix; or attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the attachments can be found. Recommended maximum response length, if any: we pages On April 28, 2008 Governor John Elias Baldacci issued an executive order (12 FY 08/09) establishing a PK-Adult Conncil. The purpose of this Council is to ensure a coordinated and 135 seamless educational system that contributes to Maine?s future economy and qua-lityof life. The Advisory. Council is charged With recommending to the Governor a plan that a. Furthers the goal of increasing the percentage of Maine's adults With four?year college. degrees to 30% of adults; I Fu1111ers the go ofra *11g Maine?s lug-l1 schde-Lte-ee-llege- rate ?c-m 55%10 70%; c. Leverages Pre?K through Adult resources and technologies; and d. Finds further ef?ciencies 1n education administration at all levels. The Advisory Council shall-promote consensus, collaboration, and ef?ciency inthe use of public and private resources on behalf of pre-kinde?rgarten through adult students. - Prlorrty Inv1tat10nal Priority School-Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning (not scored) - - - 1 The Secretary 13 partlcularly interested 111 app11cat1ons 111 WhJc-Iif the: State? _s part1c1pat1ng LEAs (as. de?ned in this notice) seek to] Create the cond1t10ns for reform and i?novation as; Well as the I for learmng by prov1d1ng schools With ?ex1b1l1ty and .autOnomy in such areas as? Selecting staff (ii) new structures and formats for: the school day or year that result in - increased. learning: time ("as de?ned' in. this notice); Controlling the school?s budget; time; (iv) Providing comprehensive services to high-need students (as de?ned in this notice) by mentors and other caring adults through local partnersh1ps With community?based organizations, nonpro?t orgamzanons and other prov1ders) (v1) o1eat1ng school climates and Clil?Jdi?SSL hat remit" obstacles to, and actively support, student engagement and achievement; and . (vii) Implementing strategies to effectively engage families and commumties in supporting the-academic suCcess of their students. he State is? invited to provide a discuss-ion of this priority in the text box below but such description is optional Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful must be described and, where relevant, included' 1n the Appendix. For attachments included' in the Appendix, note imtthe narrative the location where the attachments can be found. Recommended maximum response length, 1fany: 11/0 pages 136 BUDGET . (Budget Requirements and Evidence for selection criterion RACE TO THE TOP BUDGET REQUIREMENTS For Phase 2 of the Fiscal Year 2010 competition, the State? 5 budget must confOrm to the budget ranges .beloW;T We will not consider a State 3 application if its. request exceeds the maximum in its budget range. Most importantly, the State should develop a budget that Is appropriate for and consistent with the plan it outlines 1n its application. Category 1 $350- 700 I California, Texas, New York, Florida million Category 2 $200-40'0? . Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, - million . NOrth Carolina, New Jersey Category 3 $150250 . Virginia, Arizona, Indiana, Washington, Tennessee, milliOn- . Massachusetts, MiSSOuri, Maryland, Wisconsin Category 4 $60?l75 million Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, Louisiana, South I Carolina, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, Connecticut, Utah, Mississippi, Iowa, Arkansas, I I Kansas, Nevada Category 5 45520-75 million New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, - Vermont, Wyoming, District of Columbia Applicants should use their'bndgets and budget narratives to provide a detailed descriptiOn of how they plan to use their Federal grant funds, and how they plan to leverage other Federal g. School Improvement Grant, Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant, Teacher Incentive Fund grant, Title I), State, and local funds to achieve their reform goals. The budget narrative should be of? Suf?cient scOpe and detail for the Department to determine if the costs are necessary, reasonable, and allowable. For ?lrther guidance on Federal cost principles, an applicant may wish toeonsuit 0MB Cirouiar {,See For the purpose of the budget, we expect that the State will link its proposed reform plans to projects that the State believes are necessary in order to implement its plans. Proving additional budget detail through a proj ect?level table and narrative will allow the State to Speci?cally describe how its. budget aligns with its reform plans'in all four areas and how its budget supports the achievement of the State?s goals. Some projects might address one Reform Plan Criterion, While others might address several similarly-focused criteria as one group. For example, the State might choose to have one ?management 137 project? focused on criterion Building Strong Statewide Capacity. It might-have another .?human capital project? that addresses criteria through in the Great Teachers and Leaders section. To support the budgeting process, the following forms. and instructions are included: 1. Budget Summary a. Budget Stn?rnnarv Table. This is the: cover sheet for the budget. States should complete- this table as the ?nal step in their budgeting process, and inelude this table as the ?rst page of the State budget. (See Budget Part1: Budget Sumr'nary Table.) b. Budget Summary Narrative A bud-get narrative that accompanies the Budget Summary Table should provide an overview of the projects that the State has included 1n its budget. The State should also describe how other Federal State and local funds will be'leveraged to further support Race to the T0p education reform plans. (See Budget Part I: Budget Summary Narrative.) 2. Project? Level Detail. This 15. the supporting, pr?Oje-ct -level detail required as back-up .to the budget Summary For each pr0j ect that the State is propOsing in order to implement the plans described in its application, the State should complete the following: a. Project? Level Budget Table. This 13 the budget for each project, by budget category and for each year for wh1ch ?mding is requested. (See Budget Part II. Project?Level Budget Table b. Project? Level Budget Narrative. This is the narrative and backup detail associated with each budget category in the Project- -Level Budget. (See Budget Part II: Project- -Level Budget Narrative.) 13s Budget Part 1: Budget Summary Table Instructions: In the. Budget Summary Table the State should include the budget totals for each budget category and- each year of the grant These line items are derived by adding together the line items from each of the PrOj ect? Level Budget Tables Budget Part I I Summary Budget Table . (Evrdenceforselectron criterion . Project Project Project Budget Categorles Year 1 YearZ .. Year3 1, Personnel . . . . . 2. Fringe Bene?ts I . 3 Travel 1, 20,00 I 203000 I 20,000 2030.002. 80000 . 4. Equipment 10,000 10,000 2 10,000 10 0,00 40, 000 - 5 Supplies 50000 - 5000M . 50,000. 50, 000 200 000 i Contractual .8 6,110,000 7,090,000 6,540,000 7,140,000 26, 880, 000 - 7. Tra1mng811pends . . . . .. . . . . . Other 16161131166106.1113 (lines 13) 6190,000 717000 6,620,000 27,200,000 10. Indirect Costs* 616,620 569,320 620,920 2,339,200 .11 Funding for Involved LEAs I I 532,340 12. Supplemental Funding for - Participating LEAs 1,067,660 1,483,380 2,530,680 2,879,080 7,960,800 213 Total Costs (lines 9 12) 9270000 10720000 17,500,000 14. Funding Subgra'nted to. I 5 Participating LEAs (50% of - Total Grant) 9,375,000 9,375,000 9,375,000 9,375,000 - 37,500,000 I Total Budget (lines 13-14) 17, 597, 000 1,961, 000 - 19,51,621 000 20 ,615, 000 75,000,000 All applicants must provide a break? down by the applicable budget categories shown 111 lines 1-15. Columns through For each project year for which fundm is reqUested, Show the tetal amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section Note that indirect costs are not ailocated to lines 1112. 139 BUDGET PART 1: BUDGET SUMMARY NARRATIVE Instructions: . Describe, in an Appendix, the -_overall structure of the State- budget for a Race to the Top grant including the list of projects for which there IS a proJ ect level budget and a rationale for how these will. be organized and managed. - I The State should also describe how other Federal g. School Improvement Grant Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant Teacher Incentive Fund grant Title 1), State and local funds will be - leveraged to further support Race to the Top education reform plans. The State must. include, on Line .14 of the Budget Summary Table,- the amoUnt of funding to be. subgranted to its participating LEAS based On their relative shares of funding under Part A of Title I of - the ESEA for the most recent year (that 1s,- FY 2009) as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA. States are not required to provide budgets for how the participating LEA-s would use their funds. . HoWever the Department expects. that, as part of the administration and oversight of the grant States will monitor and track all expenditures to ensure that participating LEAs spend these funds in accordance with the State?s plan and the mom of work described in the agreement between the State and the participating LEA. 140 Budget Narrative: Personnel: All personnel costs are part of the regular state budget Salaries andBene?ts Travel: Travel costs are travel expenses processed through State of .Maine for travel in, state and out of state related to the work. Rates are at state approved rates for mileage and the federal rates for lodging and per..diem. I Equipment: Equipment costs are for leases of equipment for contractual Staff located onsite at the Department of Education. Generally this 15 a 5000 per month technology charge and additional phone service (blackberry etc) Supplies:- These costs support the professional development aetivities, printing, mailing, workshop materials etc. As this Work 1n 1s integral to Our own state level Work and other federally ?inded work additional costs for supplies will be covered under other- funds, - Centractual: -- Standards Development and Implementation - $9,900,000 Yearl Year2 Yea-3 Year4 Total Rubric Development 100,000, 200,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Professional I . I 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 DeVelopm'ent on - Rubric use including online delivery and . development of I modules Standards . - 1,300,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 5,050,000 Implementation - Programs state level/training: Standards based local implementation RISC Interdisciplinary performance assessments CTE program standards implementation (added funded to LEAs) 1.4-1. Maine Course Pathways and development 0fonline professional development. modules. . 1,00,0000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 TOtal 2,350,000 I 2,500,000 - 2,450,000, 2,450,000 I 9,750,000 Student Support Systems: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total Training. On InterVentions and Pilot projects. - 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 5,680,000 Jobs for Maine?s Graduates to schools not under Section 1250-000 . 1,250,000 - 1,250,000 - 1,250,000 5,000,000 I Educ are 250,000 . 25 0,000 250,000 250000 1,000,000 Total 2,920,000 2,920,000 2,920,000 11,680,000 2,920,000 Section C: All data costs are covered under other State and federal fundmg Section D: Great Teachers and'Leaders: Yearl Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total Evaluation Models. 100,000 100,000 100,000__ 100,000, 400,000. Teacher Training in Content and Pedagogy, Mentoring programs within Content . 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4,600,000 Principal I Leadership Institutes 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 I 880,000 STEM 11 120,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 570,000 142 Professional Development, including CTE Total 1,440,000 1,670,000 1,670,000 6,33 0,000 1,670,000 Section Turnng Around Low Performing Schools Year 1 Year 2 Year3 - Year4 - Total Intervention Teams 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 5,500,000 Five Low Performing High Schools that'- are?inot - eligible for Titlel 300,000 1,000,000 I 1,000,000 1,000,000 1 3,300,000 Total 2,000,000 8,800,000 - 300,000 I 2,500,000 143 3,500,000 - Budget Part II: Project?Level Budget Table Instructions: For each project the State has proposed in its Budget Summary Narrative the State should submit a Proj ect- Level Budget Table that includes the budget for the project, for each budget category and each 131.] year 01 I116 grant. Budget Part II: Progect?Level Budget Table Project Name: Implementing 21 Standards based System? Re-Inventing Schools Coalition Associated With Criteria: Section and Section I Budget Categories . 1 Personnel. Project Year 1 Project I Year 3 2. Fringe Benefits 3 TraVel 4.Equ1pn1ent '5.Supp11es . 6 Contractual 750,064 75 0,064 750,064 3,000,256 7. Training Stipends 8. Other 9 TetalDHectCOSts (lines- 18) . 75 . 750064 750,054 3,000,256 10-. Indirect Costs* I 11..Fu11d1ng for. InVolved LEAs I 12. Supplemental Funding for Participatlng LEAS 13 Total Costs (lmes 9- 12) 75,0 064/ 750,064 I I 3,000,256 All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories Show in lines 1- 15. Columns through For each project year for which funding 18 requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category Column (6): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information ferm at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines 1112. 144 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Instructions: For each project the State has proposed 111 its Budget Summary Narrative, the Department strongly recommends that the State submits the fellomng information for each budget category. 1) Personnel Provide: The title of each pOSition to be compensated under this project. 0 The. salary for each position under this project. 0 The amount of time, such as hours or percentage of time, to be eXpended by each position under this pr0J ect. Any additional basis for Cost estimates or computations. Explain: The importance of each position to the success of the project, and connections back to speci?c project plans. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location. For example: Personnel. The following requested personnel will all be hired as employees of Base the project. . FTE 'Salary iProject Director (1): Jane Doe Will be responsible for the overall leadership andi management of the Performance ?Based Teacher and Principal Compensation Program. She 13 an eXpert in this area and has worked on this issue for siX . . years She will report to the Race to the T0p project director and be responsible 80% $65 000 $52,000 for negotiating details related to the performance- -baSed programs proposed 1n 3; the plan associated with Her quali?cations are described 111 detail 1n the gproj ect management plan on page A- 24 of the Appendix. Total 2) Fringe Benefits Provide; The fringe bene?t percentages for all personnel 1n the project 0 The basis for cost estimates or computations. 3) Travel Provide: 0 An estimate of the number of. trips. 0 An estimate of ti?a'nsportation and/or subsistence costs for each trip. 0 Any additional basis?for cost estimates or computations. I45 Explain: - The purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to proJ ect success. Fer example: Travel: Travel expenses include the average mile reimbui?sements Tri I 55 per Total of $100 each, 1n addition to an amount of per diem of $50. p. Tr1p A kick? off conference will provide technical assistance participating 325 districts. The conference will last two ?ill days. A . .p . PrOJect D1r. 3 ?200 $195,000; more detailed justi?cation for this trip is explained in the narrative staff er district) . for selection criterion . I 4) Equipment PrOvide: The type of equipment to be purchased. .0 The estimated unit cost. for each item to be purchased. The de?nition of equipment used by the State. 'Any additional basis. ,for cost estimates or computations. Explain. - The justi?cation of the need for the items of equipment to be purchased. For example: Equipment: Consistent with SEA policy, equipment is de?ned as tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of Cost of Item Descn? tion - ETotal Incre than one year and an acquisition cost of 000 or more per Item i Desktop Computers (3): Three" desktop eompute'rs will be needed Computer 2. to expand our current of?ce and supply the needs of 3 new $1,500 including monitor $4 500 employees . printer . 5) Supplies Provide: 0 An estimate of materials and supplies needed for the project, by nature of expense or general category (6. g, instructional materials, of?ce supplies). 0 The basis for cost estimates or computations. 6) Contractual Provide: a The products to be acquired and/or the professional services to be provided. 0 The estimated cost per expected procurement. 146 a, For professional services contracts, the amounts of time to be devoted to the project, including the costs to be charged to this proposed grant award. A brief statement that the State has followed the procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts 74. 40- 74. 48 and Part 80. 36. - 0 Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations; Explain - The purpose and relation to the project. Note: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants should not include information 1n their grant applications about speci?c contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. - 7) Training Stipends Note: 0. The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated With long-term training programs and college or university coursework, not workshops or short~tenn training supported. by this "program. - - 0 Salary stipends paid to teachers and other school perSonnel for participating in short-term - professional deveIOpment should be reported 111 Personnel (line 1). Provide: - - Descriptions of training stipends to be provided, consistent With the ?note? above. 6 The cost estimates and basis for these estimates. Explain: The" purpose of the training. 8) Other Provide. Other items by major type or category (6. g, communications printing, postage, equipment rental). - The cost per item (printing: $500, postage? $750) 0 Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations. Explain: - The purpose of the expenditures. 9) Total Direct Costs- Provide: . The, sum of expenditures, across all budget categories in lines 1-8, for each year of the budget. 10) Indirect Costs Provide: - Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. (See the section that follows, Budget: Indirect Cost Information.) 147 11) Funding for Involved LEAs Provide: The speci?c activities to be done by involved LEAS (as de?ned 111 this notice). '0 The estimated cost of each activity. . The approximate number of LEAs involved in each activity. 6 The total cost of?eaen activity (across "all" involved LBAs). 4- Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations. Explain: The purpose of each activity. For example: Activity . Pulpose Cost - lTotal . . - involved 5' 5 Stipends for teachers to Implementing new $100 per teacher 2-5-0 $25 0,000 I participate in statewide standards 2,500 teachers professional develOpment (across. all during summer?2011 involved LEAs) 12) Supplemental Funding for Participating LEAs a) For each of the speci?c activities to be done by selected participating LEAs(as de?ned in this notice), and for which the State is compensating the LEAS beyond their Title I shares under section 14006(c) of the ARRA: Prdvide: 0; The type of activity 0 The estimated cost of each activity, and its cost basis 0 The approximate number of LEAS involved 1n each activity. Explain: 0 The purpose of the activity. For example: Activity I . Purpose Cost, Pay?for?performance Fund the $5,000'per'teacherx 100 performance teachers/LEA 3 years pilot program bonuses for 200 ApproX Tom] of LEAS . $33000900 148 teachers For each participating LEA (as de?ned in this notice) whose Title I share is being supplemented by the State in order for the LEA to participate fully in the State?s Race to the Top plans: Provide: a The name of the participating LEA Whose share is being supplemented 0 The amorint of the supplement to the subgrant Explain: The rationale for the supplement to the subgrant. For example: LEA Rational-e I supplemental Total . . . Subgrant Cost Based on its Title '1 share, this LEA '3 $100,000/year. 4' $400900. District would receive of the. State?s Race to - years - the Top grant; this subgrant ?orn the State 3 50% increases the funding to allow it to fully participate in all State plans 13) Total Costs Provide: - The sum of expenditures in lines 9? 11 for each year of the budget. 149 Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table I Instructions: For each project the State has 131 oposed 1n its Budget Summary Narrative, the. State should submit a Proj ect? Level Budget Table that includes the budget for the project, for each budget category and each year of the grant I Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table Project Name: Professional DeVeloprnent 0n Rubrics? and Performance Assessments Associated with Criteria: Section Standards and _Assesgrnent and Section Teachers and Leaders Budget Categories . Personnel ij ect Year 1 . Preject Year 2 . (Evidence for selection criterion Pro Ject Year 3 . Preject? Year 4 . (1.11 Total (9) Fringe Bene?ts .- TraVel . Equipment . Supplies Contractual 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 . Stipends . Other TKO. 00 ?101 1): 42.11519 W. -. Total D1rect Cost-s (111168 1- I 50-909 . 50-000.. 100,000 1O Indirect Costs* 1 0:0 ,000. 300,000 11.Fund1ng for Involved LEAs. - 12. Supplemental-Funding for Participating LEAs Casts (lines 29-12) 50,000 50, 000 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories shown 1n lines 1-15. Columns through For each project year for which funding 13 requested, Show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column Show the total amount requested for all project years - *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section Note that indirect costs are not allocated. to lines 1 1- 12. 150 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Instructions: For each project the State has proposed 111 its Budget Summary Narrative, the Department strongly recommends that the State submits the following information for each budget category. EXPLANATION: . - . As We develop draft of the rubrics and performance assessments, the state Will contract With the same deveIOpers or a separate professional development organization(s) to provide professional development stateWide to all- educators. We have budgeted the above amounts based on I experiences and costs Within Maine. We also have a strong network of Career and Technical Centers with Culinary Arts programs that have meeting facilities that we use extensively. We will use. online and web based training that We have developed within. our state costs under the program described in this application. We will also use. other federal funds, to support this work that is integral to the implementation. of all of our standards. 15'1 Source: Race To The Top I Implementation and Sustainability Task Maine Summer Institute Summer Beacon Educator Training Summer Beacon Educator Follow- a Fill Beacon Administrator Training Cohort 1 Site Support Cohort 2 Site Support Fall Beacon Educator Training Fail Beacon Educator ollow-up. Advanced Beacon Educator Training Fail. Winter Symposiants . Winter Beacon Educator Training Winter Beacon Educator allow- up Winter Beacon Administrator Training Spring Advanced Beacon Educator Training Spring Beacon Educator Training - - Spring Beacon Educator Follow- up Cohort 1 Site Visits Cohort 2 Site Visits RIM Survey'and Correlation Study? Educate Software Standards-Based Education 'Projelet Budget?RISC Cost $32,200.00 $18,500.00 $30,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $36,000.00 $18,500.00 $30,000.00 $9,500.00 $40,000.00? $18,500.00 $30,000.00 $6,000.00 $9,500.00 $18,500.00 $30,000.00 $18,000.00. $36,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00. 152 7 d-mw'oc: Travel Units 5 trainers for 4 days 3 trainers for 4' days-?75. participants 4 trainers for 5 days 2 trainers fer'twe days 2 trainers for 2 days for '2 sites '2 trainers for 3 days for 4 sites 3" trainers for 4 days??75 participants 4. trainers for 5 days trainers for 3 days 4 trainers for 6 days. 3 "trainers for 4 days-45 participants 4 trainers for 5 days 2 trainers for 2 days .2 trainers for 3 days 3 trainers for 4 days-75 participants 4 trainers for 5 days 3 trainers for 2 days for 25065 3 trainers for 2-days for 4 sites .1 Reg. Fee $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Training - Days 25 Implementation Site Smf?ltg Item Additional Services and Fe?s . 70 Travel units $2,750per unit Indirect Rate 12.00% Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal 2 Total $23,000 $477,200.00 Cost $192 500.00 $192,500.00 $669,700.00 $80,364.00 $750,064.00 153. 70 24-2 Budget Part II: Project?Lard Budget Table Instructions: For each project the State has proposed 1n its Budget Sumniary Narrative, the State should submit a Proj ect?Level Budget Table that. includes the budget for the p10] ',ect for each budget category and each year of the grant, . Budget Part II: Proj ect?Level Budget Table Project Name: Maine Course PathWays Associated with Criteria; Sections. A, B, D, Project Project I . Project Year 1 Year 2 - Year-'4' Budget Categories - - Personnel. . Fringe Bene?ts Travel . Equipment .1 I Supplies 3 . - .Contractual 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -4,000,000' .?Other . .Tota'l (line's 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000. 4,000,000 so: cow?)E [0 10. Indirect Costs? *1 1 Funding for involved LEAs 12. Supplemental Funding for Participating LEAs 1310131 Casts. (lines 9? 12) I 1 ,000, 000 1., U00, 000 1., 000, 00. 1,000,000 4,000,000- All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories Shown in lines 15 Columns through For each project year for which funding 18 requested, Show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. . Column (6): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the IndireCt Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines 1112 154 Maine Course Pathways The Maine Department of Education contracts with the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) for the deveIOpment of the Maine Course Pathways-system. This is a web based system for teachers and administratOrs to electronically submit course syllabi to then be reviewed by content experts fer the fair opportunity provided in the syllabus for Students to achieve the Maine?Learning Results-J The contract includes: 07 Research: Research. and analysis, project management, and general project support I 0 Client Support Center: CSC lead and representatives I InformatiOn Technology: Programming, database, user interface, and technology support - 0 Finance and Operations Team: Fiscal, personnel, communications, events, and administrative support - 0 Document Reviews 0 Scoring Guide Development (CED) Consultant cost for deveIOpment of an electronic pathways selection system Teacher Training Teleconferences and .Webex Meetings Of?ce supplies and printing Telecommunications Technology, Equipment, Data recovery Facilities, rent and. insurance Co'urse Alignment System Licensing I Subcontract for MDOE Administrative Assistant 155 I Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table Instructions. For each project the State has proposed 111 its Budget Summary Narrative the State should submit a Proj ect? Level Budget Table that includes the. budget for the project, for each budget category and each - year of the grant I Budget Partll: Projec?Leviel Budget Table Project Name; Student Support Systems - PK-IZ Systems of Interventions Associated with Criteria: Sections B, and Budget Categories Personnel Project? Year- 1, . Project I "Year 2. Project Year- 3 - (by: Project Year 4 Fringe Benefits I .- Travel . Equipment Supplies . Contractual . 910,000 . 910,000 910,000 910,000. 3,640,000 I Training Stlpends . Other I Total Direct Costs (lines 1 ?'uoroogugox .9114:- to tow?- 91-03000== 910 000; 910,000 10. Indirect Costs*__ 12. Supplemental Funding for - Participating LEAS 400, 000 400,000 400,000 400,000 1,600,000 l3 Tetal, CoSts (lines 9? 12) 1310 ,000 1,310, 000 1,310,000 -- 1,310,000 5,240,000 All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories shown 1n lines 1-15 I Columns through For each project year for which funding IS requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (6): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request. reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines11-12. 156 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Systems of Interventions This work will be done via a contractual agreement. The contract will be awarded using the State?s procurement process. The estimated costs are: - Project Director . -- I - $85,000.00 . Five regional $85000.00 each I $425,000.00- Professional development/coaching@ $1000.00 per teacher TOTAL Contractual - . . . . $810,000.00 Additional LEA portions to be distributed:. - Stipends for master teachers/coaches 'per teacher (100 teachers) $300,000.00 Substitutes@$100 daily for 1,000 days . I . $100,000.00 - TOTAL '1 - $400,000.00 157 Budget Part II: Project?Level Budget Table . Instructions: . .. For each pr0j ect the State has proposed 111 its Budget Summary Narrative the State should submit a 'Proj ect- Level Budget Table that includes the budget for the project, for each budget category and each year ofthe grant. - Budget Part Project-Level Budget Table Project Name: Jobs for Maine?s Graduates Associated with Criteria: Section B, D, Project I Pi'oject Project I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 - (C) . Pare] ect Year 1. - Total - Budget Categories. "Personnel .H . Fringe Bene?ts Travel . Equipment Con?mmal - I I 1.250.000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 . I 5,000,000 Other . . . I .Total Direct Costs (111168 1? 1250000 1250000 1,250,000 - 1250000 5,000,000 . 1.0 Indirect Costs* I I 11. Funding for Involved LEAS 12. Supplemental Funding for Participating LEAS '13 Total Costs (111185012) . 1,250,000 .,250 one .,250 000 250000 5,000,000 .9.. to co at "Ln All applicants rhust provide a break down by the applicable budget categories shown 1n lines 1-15. Columns through For each project year for which funding 1s requested, Show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines 11?12 158 1 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE The preject yropqsal submitted by the Jobs fer Maine?s Graduates exceeds our budgeted amount. The balance will be covered by participating LEAs. I See attaehed for project budget. 159 160' The Scale~Up Core Sites and its alignment with RZT Date: February 19, 2010 - Summary of Direct Costs to Scale-Up JMG Programs through the addition of Twenty (20} coremodel programs Total Annual Direct Costs for Programs Direct Salary, Wages and Benefits- JMG Specialist at averageof $34,400 salary per year at 20 FTEs JMG Regional manager at average of $45,690 salary per year at 2x FTEs Other Direct Costs Travel and mileage to directly support 20 sites and two (2) regionatmanagers 5/6 FTE- Professional Development Costsoer-Specialist, avg. $2,175 per year, x20 Course Reimbursement Cost per Specialist, avg. $1,000 per year, x20 Programmatic Classroom per year, 20 Information Technology subScription and support at avg. $3,325 per'site per year, x20 Student Enrichment events, supply and meal ?costs at avg. $1,875 per site per year, x20 PAGES 688,000 75,150 Subtotal of Direct Salary Wages 764,150 Benefits at 28% 213,970 Total Direct SW3 978,120. 59,380 43,500 20,000 15,000 65,500 37,500 Total Other Direct Costs[.$ 241,880 I Total Direct Costs for Year ?nal 5 1,220,000 Year Two 's - 1,256,600 Year Three 3% COL-A 1,294,293 Year Four 3% com .3 1,333,127 Total RZT Funds Requested 5,104,025 - Budget-Part II: Project-Level Budget Table Instructions: For each prOj ect the State has proposed in its Budget Summary Narrative, the State Should submit a Proj ect- LeVel Budget Table that includes the budget for the project for each budget category and each year of the grant Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table Project Name: Section D: Great'Teachers and Leaders Initiative: Maine Professional Accountability System Associated with Criteria: Section (D) Budget Categories - Personnel - PrOj eet Year 1 a) I Project Year 2 - vidence for selection criterion Project Year 3 Project Year 4 . Fringe Bene?ts Travel . Equipment . Supplies . Contractual 915,000 1,115,000 .1,1.15,000 - 1,115,000 4,260,000 . Tralmng Stlpends 50,000.. ?80.,000 290,000 . Other sojoo' ~41 to wing! -.-, Total Direct Costs (lines 1 8) 965,005: 1 1195000 10. Indirect Costs* 11 Funding for Involved LEAs 12. Supplemental Funding for Participating LEA 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 1,500,000 Total Costs (lines 9- 12) 1340 000". 1 ,5170, 000 ?1,570,000 6,050,000 All applicants must provide a break? down by the applicable budget categories shown in lines 1-15. Columns through For each project year for which funding 18 requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category Column Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs arenot allocated to lines 11-12. - 161 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders Contractual By RFP to Service Providers Project Director (1): The Project Director will be responsible for the overall leadership and management I of all aspects or the MEQEP initiative and will have the commensurate quali?cations necessary, Regional Coordinators (5): Each Regional Coordinator will be responsible for the over-all leadership andi management of those activities cOnducted 1n. the schools Within the assigned region - Master Teacher Coaches Each Master Teacher will be responsible fOr approximately 2 schools and oversee all professional development and activities at those 2 schools during the grant period. Leadersh1p Institute for 60 principals: Contracted services by a professional development provider. Travel: Travel expenses include the average reimbursements of .50 per mile 256 participants 45 313 miles $58iNote: Ensuing years Show small Increases fer additional cohorts - Training Stipends: Training Stipends for the 250 Master . St1pend by Contact hours Names Teachers and 5 Regional Coordinators . per diem rate Indlrect Costs: gSupplemental Funding for Participating LEAs: 162 Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table- Instructions: For each project the State has prOposed 111- its Bud-get Summary Narrative, the State should submit a Proj ect? Level Budget Table that includes the budget for the p10] ect, for each budget category and each year of" the grant. Budget Project-Level Budget Table 2 Project Name: Intervention'Teams-School Improvement Associated with Criteria; Bud- et Cate cries Personnel Project Year 1 Project Year 2 . Project Year 3 Project Year-4 . . - Fringe Bene?ts Travel . Equipment. . . Supplies . Contractual . man, 3th . Other \o co cx "vi Total Direct Costs (lines 8) . l0. Indirect Costs*. 11 Funding for Involved LEAs 'l 12. Supplemental Funding for _Part101pat1ng LEAs 300,000 1,000,000. 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,300,000 - Total Costs (lines :9 12) 30:0 ,000 1 0,110,000 . 1,000,000 1000000 3,300,000 All applicants must provide a breakdown by the applicable budget categories shown in lines 1- l5 Columns through For each project year for which funding 15 requested, Show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (6): Show the total amount requested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect Costs are not allocated to lines 1112. 163 BUDGET PART II: PROJECTHLEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Project Name: Intervention Teams?School Improvement Associated with Criteria: 12) Supplemental Funding for Participating LEAS: Each school identi?ed as persistently lowest?achieving, as de?ned in Section will be given approximately $60,000 to purchase school support services from LEA selected providers and/or providers selected through a. statewide Request for Information. Estimated numbers of schools in this category are based - upon the number of schools identi?ed in 2009-10 and the anticipated growth in Schools in these categories as a result of implementation of initiatives supported by this application. In Year 1, we estimate 15 schools in these categories; with 10 supported directly with Title I School Improvement Grant funds. In Year 2 we estimate 8 schools. In Year 3 we estimate 8 schOols In Year 4-, we estimate 6 schOols. - The state will commit approximately $500,000 111 School hnprovement Grant "administrative-funds to this project in addition to the Race to the Top funds. -- -- . Total Costs: $3,300,000 1- 64 Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table 't'ko?i. Budget Part II: PrOject~Level Budget Table Project Name: Intervention Teams Raising Achievement Qf All Students Assouatea Wit11 Cntena (15 . Budget Categmes . . . Personnel Project Year 1 Project . Year 2 Project Year 3 Project Year 4 Total (6) . Fringe Bene?ts Travel . Equipment Supphes . Contractual I Stlpends I . Other \e so as U: no): 1?1. TQta] Dir'eCt COSIS (lines _1 8) 10. Indirect Costs* . .11.Funding for Involved LEAS I .. I 12. Supplemental Funding for Participating LEAS 500,000 1,000,000 1 ,500, 000 _.,,.2,500,000 5,500,000 13 Total Costs (hues 9 12) 500, 000 1.- ,000, 000 5 1..- 500 000 2,500,009: 5$5909?0? .. All applicants must provide a break?down hy the applicable budget categories shown in lines 1- 15 . Columns through For each project year for which funding 15 reqL'Iested, shew the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (6): Show the total amount reqtlested for all project years. *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs,c complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines 1112 165 BUDGET PART II: PROJECT-LEVEL BUDGET NARRATIVE Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table Project Name: Intervention Teams Raising Achievement of All Students Associated with Criteria: 12} Supplemental. Eur: ing it) er Pa articipatin LEAs Each school identi?ed as persistently lowest?achieving or having a 3 year average of pro?ciency in Reading and Math that is less than 30% and less than the median rate of change for Maine schools will: be provided with school support services from ?Turnaround Team?.members. These team members will be made available to. schools from a provider identi?ed through a statewide Request for Information and is based upon a desire to provide schools with at least twenty days of consultation and support on school improVement and reform at $3 00 per day. Estimated numbers of ?Turnaround Team? members is based upon the number of schools in identi?ed as Tier I i and 11 and those having a 3 year average of pro?ciency 1n Reading and Math that IS less than 30% and less than the median rate of change 1n 2009? 10 and the anticipated growth in schools 111 these categories as a result of implementation of initiatives supported application. In Year 1, we estimate 20 schools 1n thesecategories and will provide ?Turnaround team? member staf?ng equitable to 5 full time positions. In Year 2 we estimate 30 schools with 5 additional positions In Year 3, we estimate 40 schools. In Year 4 we estimate 50 schoo.ls' Staffing equitable to 5 positions Will be added each year. The inclusion of additional schools each year increases annual costs since as new teams will be needed. Teams assigned 1n earlier years will stay with sChools throughout the grant period. 13) Total Costs: The sum of expenditures 1n lines 9?11? for each year of the budget. Total Costs: $5,500,000 166 Budget Part II: Project?Level Budget Table I Budget Part I: Projet?Level Budget Table Budget Categories Project Name: Associated with Criteria: and Priority 2 Project Year 1 ma.) . . Project Project Year 2 . Year 3. -. Project Year 4 1. Personnel ..Fring_e Bene?ts Travel Equipment Supphes . Contractual 200,000 Training Stipend-s.- . Other I .. Total Direct Cotsts (lines 1-8) I 1.0 Indirect Costs* 1 for. Involved LEAs 1 12. Supplemental Funding for - LEAs 13 Total Costs (1111135912) 50000 50,000 50 000' All applicants must provide a' break-down by. the applicable budget categories shown 1n lines l- 15 Columns through For each project year for which funding 15 requested, show the total arnount requested for each applicable budget category. Column Show the total amount "requested for all project years *If you plan to request relinbursernent for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the. end of this Budget section. Note that indirect Costs are. not allocated to lines 11-12 00 ~41. ovum eerie?. 50:00.0 200,000; The'Maine Department of Education in collabOration with New Hampshire contracts with the National Center for Research in CTE to deliver workshop training to High School mathematics and CTE teachers throughout the state. This is research?based professional development which partners CTE teachers and high school math teachers to. build teacher understanding-of mathematics content and . application to strengthen student achievement. This Organization has the expertise to bring this work to scale in Maine over four years. 167 - Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Table I I Budget Part II: Project-Level Bgedt Table Budget Categories Personnel Project Name: STEM Academy AssOciate?d with Criteria: B, D, E, Priority 2 Project Year 1 Prtij ect Year 2 ProjeCt Year 4 . Fringe Bene?ts Travel Equ1pment - . .rSupphes .. - -. Contractual 360,000 fig-Training; stipends 120,000 . Other I . Total Dlrect Costs (lines 1- 8) 361,000 10. Indirect Costs* I 11. Funding for Involved LEAs I I I 12 Supplemental Funding for _Partlcipatlng LEAS - 13 Total Costs (1mes9-12) 120,000 30, 000 30, 000 . 30,000 360,000 All applicants must provide a break?down by the applicable budget categories shown in lines I 1.5 - Columns (3.) through For each project year fer Which funding IS requested, show the total amount requested for each apph'cab?le budget category- Column (6): Show the total amount requested for all project years *If you plan to request reimbursement for indirect costs, cemplete the Indirect Cost Information form at the. end of this Budget section. Note that indirect cests are not allocated to lines 11- I..2 The Maine Department of Education will contract with the Maine Mathematics and. Science Alliance, Teachers? Domain (WGBH Boston) and the University of Maine system to develop and deliver STEM a series of course that will lead. toward a Masters in STEM literacy. This work will target the teachers in low achieving schools to participate in a STEM content and pedagogical learning. The program will blend 120 hours of face to face and online professional development time (WGBH online) over four years using a model driven by the research and best practices described in Adding It Up, Taking Science to School and Ready, Set, Sciencel, and focused on core grade level appropriate concepts to improve content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and application of technology for learning. 1.68 Budget Part II: Project?Level Budget Table I Budget Part II: Proj ect?Level Budget Table Project Name: After School. Technical Design and Sustainability Associated with Criteria. A and Priority 2 (Evidence for Budget Categories 1 1. Personnel Project . Year 1 Pro 3 ect Year 2 Project Year3 (C) .. . Project Year 4 -- Fringe Bene?ts 31. Travel 4. Equipment 5 Supplies 6. Contractual 110,000 .. . 8. Other 9. 101211 Direct Costs (lines 1 8) .10. Indirect Costs* 11 Fundmg for Involved LBAs . 12. Supplemental Funding for Partic1pat1ng LEAs 13.. Total Cests (lines 9? 12) 5.0, 000 20, 000 20:, 000 20000 7 110,000 All applicants must provide a break-down by the applicable budget categories shoWn 111 lines 1 15 through For each project year 1?01 which funding 15 requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column Show the total. amount requested for all project years. *If yOu plan to request reimbursement. for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section Note that indirect costs are not allocated to lines. 1 12. The Maine Department of Education will work With the non-formal education providers in Maine to increase the availability of after school opportunities in technological design and sustainability available to students in underrepresented groups and students in poverty. The Department will engage the First Lego League, 4-H, the Maine Environmental Education Association and Maine Audubon to identify high needs areas and to provide and expand these programs. 169 Budget: Indirect. Cost Information To request reimbursement for indirect costs, please answer the following questions: Does the State have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal government? YES No If yes to question 1, pleaSe provide the following information: Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement From: 07/01/09 - To: 06/30/11 Approving Federal agency: ED _?Other (Please Specf? agency): Directions for this form: 1. Indicate whether or not the State has an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement that was approved by the Federal government If ?No? is checked, ED generally Will authorize grantees to use a temporary rate of 10 percent of budgeted salaries and wages subj ect to the following limitations: The grantee must submit an indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency within 90 days after ED issues a grant award noti?cation; and If after the 90- day period, the grantee has not submitted an indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency, the grantee may not charge its grant for indirect costs until it has negotiated an indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant agency. - If ?Yes? is checked, indicate the beginning and ending dates covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. In addition, indicate whether ED, another Federal agency (Other) issued the - approved agreement. If ?Other? was checked, Specify- the name of the agency that issued the approved agreement. - 170 IX. PARTICIPATING LEA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (Appendix in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, De?nitions, and Selection Criteria; and in the Notice Inviting Applications) Background for Memorandum of?Understanding Participating LEAs (as de?ned in. this notice) in a State-is Race to the Top plan's- are required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement with the State that Speci?es the scope. of the work being implemented by the participating LEA (as de?ned in this notice) I To support States 111 working efficiently with LEAs to determine which LEAs will participate in the State Race to the Top application, the U. S. Department of Education has produced a model MOU, which is attached. This model MOU may serve as a template for States; however, States are not required to use it. They may use a- different document that includes the key features noted below and in the model, and they should consult with their State and local attOrneys on what IS moSt apprOpriate for their State that includes, at a minimum, these key elements. The purpose of the model MOU is to help to specify a relationship that is specific to Race to the Top and 15 not meant to detail all typical aspects of State/LEA grant management or. administration. At a minimum, a strong MOU should include the following, each of which is described detail below:- terms and cOnditions, (ii) a scope of work, and, signatures. Terms and conditions: Each participating LEA (as de?ned in this notice) should sign a standard set of terms and conditions that includes, at a minimum, key roles and responsibilities of the State and the State recourse for LEA-non?performance; and assurances that make clear what the participating de?ned in this notice) is agreeing to do. (ii) Scope of work: MOUS should include a soope .of work (included in the model MOU as Exhibit 1) that is completed by each participating LEA (as de?ned in this notice). The scope. of work must be signed and dated by an authorized LEA and State of?cial. In the interest of time and with respect for the effort it will take for LEAs to develop detailed work pl,ans the . scope of work submitted by LEAs and States as part of their Race to the Top appliCations may be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work should include the portions of the State? 5 proposed reform plans that the LEA is agreeing to implement. (Note that in Order to participate in a State Race to the Top application an LEA must agree to implement all or signi?cant portions of the State 3 reform plans.) if a State is awarded a Race to the Top grant, the participating LEAs (as defmed in this notice) will have up to 90 days to complete final scopes'Iof work (which could be attached to the - model MOU as Exhibit 11), which must contain detailed work plans that are consistent with the? preliminary scope of work and with the State Is grant application, and shOuld include the participating (as de?ned in this notice) speci?c goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance measures. . Signatures: The signatures demonstrate an acknowledgement of the relationship between the LEA and the State, and the strength of the participating (as de?ned in this nOtice) commitment. 171 With respect to the relationship between the LEA and the State, the. State?s cOunter- signature on the MOU indicates that the commitment is consistent with the requirement that a participating LEA (as de?ned in this notice) implement all or signi?cant portions of the State 5 plans, The strength of the participating (as de?ned in this notice)'commitment will be demonstrated by the signatures of the LEA superintendent (or an equivalent authorized signatory), the president 01 fthe- local school board (or equivalent if applicable) and the local teacher?s union leader (if applicable), Please note the following with regard to the State?s Race to theTop application: In its application, the State need only provide an example of the State?s standard Participating'LEA it does not have to provide copies of every MOU signed by its participating LEAs (as de?ned 1n this notice). If, howevwer State-s and LEAs have made any changes to the State 3 standard MOU, the State must provide description of the changes that Were made PleasenOte that the Department may, at any time, request copies of all MOUs between the State and its participating LEAS. Please see criterion and and the evidence requested in the application for more information and ways in which States will be asked to summarize information about the LEA MOUs. 172 Model Participating LEA Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and between (?State?) and (?Participating The purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework of collaboratiOn, as well as articulate speci?c roles and responsibilities in support of the State in its implementation of an approved Race to the Top. grant project. . I. SCOPE OF WORK . Exhibit I, the Preliminary Scope of Work, indicates which portions of the State? 3 proposed reform. plans (?State Plan?) the Participating LEA is agreeing to implement. (Note that, in order to participate, the LEA must agree to implement all or signi?cant portions of the State Plan) II PROJECT ADMINISTRATION .PARTICIPATING LEA RESPONSIBILITIES In assisting the State in irnplemjeniin'g the tasks and activities described in the State? Race to the Top application, the Participating LEA subgrantee will. 1) Implement the LEA plan as identi?ed in Exhibits I and II of this agreement; 2) Actively participate in all relevant convenings, communities of practice or other practice? sharing events that are organized 0r sponsored by the State or by the S. Department of Education - 3) Post to any website speci?ed by the State or ED, in a timely manner, all non? proprietary products and lessons learned developed using funds associated with the Race to the Top grant; 4) Participate, as requested, in any evaluations of this grant conducted by the State or 5) Be responsive to State or ED requests for information including on the status of the project, project implementation, outcomes, and any problems anticipated or encountered, 6) Participate in meetings and telephone conferences with the State to discuss progress of the pro] j,ect potential dissemination of resulting non? proprietary products and lessons learned, plans for subsequent years of the Race to the Top grant period, and other matters related to the Race to the Top grant and associated plans. . B. STATE RESPONSIBILITIES -In assisting. Participating LEAs in implementing their tasks and aCtivities described in the State 3 Race to the i Top applicatiOn, the State grantee will: 1) Work collaboratively with, and support the Participating LEA in carrying Out the LEA Plan as identi?ed in Exhibits I and II of this agreement; 2) Timely distribute the 3 portion of Race to the Top grant funds during 1the course of the project period and 111 accordance with the LEA Plan identi?ed in Exhibit 3) Provide feedback on the status updates, annual reports, any interim reports, and project plans and products; and I 4) Identify sources of technical assistance for the project. C. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES 1) The State and the Participating LEA will each appoint a key contact person for the Race to the Top grant 2) These key contacts from the State and the Participating LEA will maintain frequent communication to facilitate cooperation under this MOU. 3) State and Participating LEA grant personnel will work together to determine appropriate timelines for project updates and status reports throughout the whole grant period. 173 4) State and Participating LEA grant personnel will negotiate in good faith to continue to achieve the overall goals of the State?s Race to the grant, even when the State Plan requires modi?cations that affect the Participating LEA, or when the LEA Plan requires modi?cations. D. STATE RECOURSE FOR LEA NON-PERFORMANCE If the State determines that the LEA 18 not meeting its goals, tirnelines, budget, or annual targets or is not fulfilling other applicable requirements the State grantee will take appropriate enforcement action which could include a collaborative process between the State and the LEA, or any of the enforcement measures that are detailed in 34 CPR sectiOn 8O 43 including putting the LEA on reimbursement payment status, temporarily withholding funds, or disallowing costs. ASSURANCES The Participating LEA hereby certi?es and represents that it: 1) Has all requisite power and authority to execute this 2) Is familiar with the State?s Race to the Top grant appliCation and 1s supportive of and committed to - working 011 all or signi?cant portions of the State Plan, 3) Agrees to be a Participating LEA and will implement those portions of the State Plan indicated "in Exhibit I,if the State application 15 funded, 4) Will provide a Final. Scope of Work to be attached to this MOU as Exhibit II only if the State?s appliCation' is funded; will do so in a tirnely fashion but no later than 90 days after a grant is awarded, and will describe in Exhibit II the speCific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance measures Plan in a manner that 15 consistent with the Preliminary Scope of Work (Exhibit I) and with the State Plan, and \X/ill comply with all of the terms of the Grant, the State 3 subgrant, and all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including laws and regulations applicable to the Program, and the appliCable provisions of EDGAR (34 CFR Parts 77,5 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 9.8 and 99). IV. MODIFICATIONS This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended only by written agreement signed by each of the parties involved, and in consultation with ED V. DURATIONX TERMINATION This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective, beginning with the date of the last signature hereon and, if a grant is received, ending upon the expiration of the grant project period, or upon mutual agreement of the parties, whichever oCcurs first - vi. SIGNATURES LEA Superintendent (0r equivalent authorized signatory) required: Sig-nature Date Print Name Title President of Local School Board (or equivalent, if applicable): 4? Signature Date 174 Print Name/Title Local Teachers? Union Leader (if applicable): Sig?at?re/Date Print Name/Title- Authorized State Of?cial? required: By its signature bel'OW,_ the State hereby accepts the LEA as a Participating LEA. Signa?uire Date Print Name/Title 175 A. EXHIBIT I PRELEMINARY SCOPE OF WORK LEA hereby agrees to participate in implementing the State Plan in each of the areas identi?ed below. Elle entsofsitate Reform Plans i-Partlupation Comments fromLEA (optional): Standards _:_and Assessments I (B) (3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards - and high quaiity assessments i Usmg data to improve instruction: Use of local instructional improvement systems- (ii) Professional development on use of data Availability and-'accessibilitv of data to researchers Great Teachers and Leaders; Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance: . Measure student grOwth (ii) Design and implement evaluation systems (i1i) COnduct annual evaluations (1v) Use evaluations to inform professional I development (iv) Use evaluations to inform compensation! promotion, and retention (iv) Use evaluations to inform tenure and/ or full certi?cation (iv) Useevaluations to inform removal Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: High-poverty and or high-minority schools to? Staff subjects and specialty areas Providing effective support to teachers and principals: Quality professional development (ii) Measure effectiveness of professional development owest-Achrevmg Schools (ENE) Turning around the lowestrachieving schools For the Participating LEA i For the State Authorized LEA Signature Date Authorized State Signature Date Print Name /Title . Print Name /Title 176. x. SCHOOL INTERVENTION MODELS - (Appendix 1n the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, De?nitions, and Selection Criteria; and' In the Notice Inviting Applications) There are four school intervention models referred to in Selection Criterion turnaround model, restart mode1, school closure, or transformation model Each is described below Turnaround model. (1) A turnaround model is one in which an LEA must-- (1) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient Operational ?exibility (including 1n staf?ng, Calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach 1n order to substantially improve student achievement otrtcOrnes and increase high school graduation rates; - (ii) Use locally adopted cempetencies to measure the effectiveness of staff Who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students, (A) screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent, and (B) Select new Staff; Implement such strategies as ?nancial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more ?exible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students 111 the turnaround school; (iv) Provide staff With ongoing, high?quality, job- embedded professional development that 1s aligned with the school?s comprehensiVe instructional program and designed With school staff to ensure that they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies, . Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ?turnaround of?ce? in the LEA or SEA, hire a ?turnaround. leader? Who reports directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Of?cer, or enter into a multi?year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added ?exibility 1n exchange for greater accountability, (vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that 15 research? based and ?vertically aligned? from. one grade- to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards, (vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students; Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time (as de?ned in this notice), and (ix) Provide appropriate social?emotiOnal and community-oriented services and. supports for students. -- (2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such as? (1) Any of the required and permissible activities under the transformation model; or (ii) A new school model (eg, themed, dual language academy). Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization .177 (CMO), or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A. CMO is a non?pro?t organization that operates or manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing Certain functions and resources among schools; An EMO is a for-pro?t or non? pro?t organization that provides ?whole? school operation? services to an LEA.) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the School. - School closure. School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school 1n other schools 1n the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the clOsed school and may include but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available. - Transformation model. A transformation model is. one in which an LEA implements . each of the fellOWing strategies: (1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness. (1) Required activities. The LEA must-- (A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement cf the transformation model; (B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that-- Take into account data- on student growth (as de?ned in this notice) as a significant factor as well as other factOrs such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice re?ective of student achievement and increased high-school graduations rates; and - Are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement; (C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high?schOol graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so; . Provide staff with ongoing, high?quality, job-embedded professional development g, regarding subj ect-speci?c- pedagogy, instruction that re?ects a deeper understanding of the community served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that 1s aligned with the school?s comprehensive instructional program and designed With schoOl staff to ensure they are equipped. to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies, and (E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased Opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more ?exible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a . . transformation school. (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other strategies to develop teachers? and school leaders effectiVeness, such as-- (A) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff with'the skills necessary to meet the needs of the Students in a transformation school; (B) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional practices resulting from professional development; or 178 (C) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher Without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal regardless of the teacher seniority. ?a (2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies. Required activities. The LEA milstn (A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research- based and ?vertically aligned? from one grade to the next as well as aligred With State academic stan ards; and (B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and. summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students. (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement comprehensive instructiOnal reform strategies such as?? (A) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the curriculum is being implemented With ?delity, 15 having the intended impact on Student achievement and 1S modi?ed if ineffective; (B) Implementing a schoolW1de? respons'e? ?to intervention? model; (C) Providing additional supports and professional development to teachers and principals 1n order to implement effective strategies to 'suppOrt students With disabilities 1n the least restrictive envirOnment and to ensure that limitedEn?glish proficient students acquire language skills to master academic content; (D) Using and integrating technology?baSed supports and interventions as part of the instructional program; and (E) In secondary schools.? - (1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced PlaCement- 0r International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and relevant proj ect?-, inquiry?,_ or design-based contextual learning opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment programs, or thematic learning academies that prepare students for college and careers, including by providing appropriate supports designed to ensure that low?achieving students can take advantage of these programs and coursework; Q) Improving student transition from middle to high school through summer transition - programs or freshman academieS; Increasing graduation rates through, for example, creditz?recovery programs, re? . engagement strategies, smaller learning communities, competency-based instruction and I - performance-based assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics Skills; or (4) Esta?biishing early?warning systems to identify students Who may be at risk 0 ffailing to achieve to high standards or graduate. Increasing learning time and creating community- oriented schools. Required activities. The LEA must?.? - . (A) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time (as de?ned Hi this notice), and (B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement. (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other strategies that extend learning time and create community? ?oriented schools, such as?? 179 (A) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and community based organizations, health clinics, other State or local agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet students social, emotional, and health needs; - (B) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time for such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships between students faculty, and other school staff; (C) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and discipline, such as impiementing a system 01 f--'positi v-e behavioral supports or taking steps to elrminate bull 1ying- and student harassment, or (D) Expanding the school program to offer full- day kindergarten or pre?_ ?kindergarten. (4) Providing operational ?exibility and sustained support. Required activities. The LEA must-? (A) GiVe the schbol suf?cient operational ?exibility (such as staf?ng, calendarS/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially nnprov?e student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and (B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner Organization (such as a school turnarour1d organization or an EMO). - (ii) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other strategies for providing operational ?exibility and intensive support, such as-- (A) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance arrangement, such as a turnaroimd division within the LEA or SEA, or (B) Implementing a per? ?pupil school- based budget formula that 15 weighted based on student needs. If a school identi?ed as a persistently lowest? achieving school has implemented, in whole or in part within the last two years, an intervention that meets the requirements of the turnaround, restart, or transformation models, the school may continue orcomplete the intervention being implemented. - 180 XI. SCORING RUBRIC (Appendix 1n the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, De?nitions, and Selection Criteria; and in the Notice Inviting Applications) 1. Introduction To help ensure inter? reviewer reliability and transparency for State Race to the Top - applicants the U. S. Department of Education has created and is publishing a rubric for scoring State applications. The pages that follow detail the rubric and allocation of point values that reviewers Will be using. Race to the Top grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to States in two phases. The rubric Will be used by revievvers in each phase to ensure consistency across and within review panels. The rubric allocates points to each criterion and, in selected cases, to sub? criteria as well. in all, the Race to the. Top scoring rubric- includes 19 criteria and one competitive priority that collectively add up to 500 points Several of these criteria account for a large number of points; others account for a comparatively small portion of a State?s soore. it is important to emphasize that over half the points that reviewers may award to States are based on States accomplishments prior to applyingw?their successes in increasing student achievement, decreasing the achievement gaps, increasing graduation rates, enlisting strong statewide support and commitment to their prOposed plans, and creating legal conditions conducive to education reform and innovation. Finally, it. bears underscoring that reviewers will be assessing multiple aspects of States? Race to the?Top applications. States that fail to earn points or earn a low number of points on one Criterion, can still win a Race to the Top award by presenting Strong I applications and histories of accomplishments on other criteria. Notwithstanding the guidance being provided to reviewers, revieWers will still be required to make many thoughtful judginents' about the quality of States? applications. Beyond judging a State?s commitment to the four reform areas speci?ed in the ARRA, reviewers will be assessing, based on - the criteria, the cemprehensiveness and feasibility of States? applications and plans. Reviewers-Will be asked to evaluate,- for. example, if States have set ambitious but achievable annual targets in their applications. Reviewers will need to make informed judgments about States? goals, the activities the State has chosen to undertake and the rationales for such activities, and the timeline and credibility of State plans. Applicants address the absolute and competitive priorities throughout their applications. The absolute priority must be met in order for an applicant to. receive funding. Applications that address the competitive priority comprehensively will earn extra points under that priority. In itational priorities are extensions to the core reform areas; applicants are invited to address these, but. are not granted additional points for doing so. In this appendix there is information about the point values for each criterion and priority, guidance on scoring, and the rubric that will be prOvided to reviewers. 181' II. Points Overview - The chart below shows the maximum number of points that may be assigned to each criterion. l'S?lc?tion Cfife rig Point's Pei-cent A State Success Factors . 123 25% (A) Articulating State? 5 education reform agenda and LE As? participation in it 65 I Articulating comprehensive coherent reform. agenda 5 (ii) Securing LEA commitment 45' 3 Translating LEA. participation into statewide impact 15 (A) (2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up,- and sustain proposed plans 30 (1) Ensuring the capacity to implement '20 I (ii) Using broad. stakeholder support 10 (A) (3) Demonstrating signi?cant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps 30 h-iakinyprotrress in each reform area '5 (ii) outcomes 25 B. Standards an'df Assessments - -- - -. -- . 14% (1) Developing 1and adopting common standards 40 . Participating-1n consortium developing high? standa1ds'- I 20 (ii) Adopting standards - 20 (B (2) Develgping and implementing COmmon; high? quality assessments 10 I (B) (3) Supportintr the transition to enhanced standards and high- quality. assessments '20 - C. Data Systems to Support; Instruction . 47' I 9% l'ully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system 24 l(C) (2) Accessing; and using State data 5 (C) (3) Usinv data 'to improve instruction . 3 1). Great Teachers and Leaders I 5' 1'38 '35 3 5 28% Eligibility Requirement eligibility (D) Providing high- quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals 21' (D) (2) Impmving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance 58 Measuring student growth 5 (ii) Developing evaluation systems I 75 Conducting annual evaluations 10 2 (iv) Using eValuations to infOrrn key decisions 28 (D) (3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals 25 3 Ensuring equitable distribution in high? -poverty or high? ?rninority schools f5 (ii) Ensuring equitable distribution 1n hard? _to# staff subjects and specialty areas 1'0 (D) (4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs 14 (D) (5) I-l?rovidinvr effecti support to teachers and principals 20 nrnirrg in _ijowest-Achiewng Schools i- 50 1 (E Intervening 1n the iowest-achieving schools and Lil As 10 (E) (2) Turning raround the lowest? achieving schools . 40 Identifying the persistently lowest achieving schools 5 (ii) fuming around the persistently low-est? achieving schools Eligibility Requirement eligibility (E) (1) Making education funding a priority 1 0 Ensuring successful conditions for high performing charter schools and other innovative 40 (E) (3) Demonstrating other signi?cant reform conditions 3et1nve Preference Priority; 9: Emphasls TOTAL Subtotal: Accomplishments 52% Subtotal: Plans 48% l. 82 About Scoring -- About State Reform Conditions Criteria: The goal for State Reform Conditions Criteria is to ensure that, wherever possible, reviewers are provided with criterion speci?c guidance that is clear and specific, making the decisions as ?objective? as possible. (See application requirement for the guidance provided to States concerning responding to State Reform Conditions Criteria in their applications About Reform Plan Criteria: Reform Plan Criteria, reviewers will be given general guidance. on how to evaluate the information that eaCh State submits; this guidance will be cOnsistent with application requirement RevieWers will allot points based on the quality of the State?s plan and, where speci?ed in the teXt of the criterion, whether the State has set ambitious yet achievable annual targets for that plan. In making these judgments reviewers will consider the extent to which the State has: 0' A b?gb? qua-129; plaza In determining the quality of a State? 3 plan for a given RefOrrn Plan Criterion reviewers will evaluate the key goals the activities to be undertaken and rationale for the activities the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the informatiOn submitted as supporting evidence). States are required to submit this information for each Reform Plan Criterion that the State addresses. States may also submit additional information that they believe will be helpful to peer reviewers. 0 Am?iz?z'omyez? acbz'emhle annual target; (only for those criteria'that Specify this). In determining whether a State has ambitious yet achievable annual targets for a given Reform Plan Criterion, reviewers will examine the State?s targets in the context of the State 5 plan and the evidence submitted (if any) in support of the plan. There is no speci?c target that reviewers will be looking for here; nor will higher targets necessarily be rewarded above lower ones Rather, reviewers Will reWard States for developing targets that in light of the State? 3 plan? are ?ambitious yet achievable.? Note- that the evidence that States submit may be relevant both to judging Whether the State has a high-"quality plan and whether its annual targets are ambitious yet achievable. About Assigning Points: or each criterion, reviewers will assign points to an application. In general, the Department has speci?ed total point values at the criterion level and in 'some instances, _at the sub criterion level. In the cases where the point. totals have not been allocated to sub?. criteria, each sub ?criterion is weighted equally. The reviewers Will use the general ranges below as a guide when awarding'points. Manna I'lif-limof APPhcant?s Res I A Medium . 183 Maxi-mum Quality of Applicant?s Response Point Value Low Medium High20- 0_5 6w14 15?20 15- .0M4 5.40 11?15 10; 0'_2 3-?7 84100H1 2?3 4?5 About Priorities: There are three types of priorities in the Race to theTop competition. I The absolute priority cuts across the entire application and should not be addressed separately. it Will be assessed, after the proposal has been fully reviewed and evaluated, to - ensure that the application has met the priority. If an application has not met the priority, it will be eliminated from the competition.- i 0 The competitive priority also cuts across the entire application. It is worth 15 points.? Applicants will earn all or none of it, making it truly a competitive preference. In those'cases where there is. adisparity in the revieWers? determinations on the priority, the Department will aWard the competitive priority points only if a majority of the reviewers on a panel determine that an application should receive the priority points. 0 The invitational priorities are addressed in their own separate sections. While applicants are invited to write to the invitational priorities, these Will not earn points. - In the Event of a Tie:- If two or more applications have the same score and there is not suf?cient funding to support all of the tied applicants, the applicants? scores- on criterion (A) (1)01) Securing LEA Commitment, Will be used to break the tie. IV. Reviewer Guidance for Criteria. - State Success Factors General Reviewer. Caieimzee 1hr (AW Iajaidgiag ?ee genial. efi?lie reipeme i0 #923" mm?, remix/ere Maze/d refer meal fee offence dies, 1?0 the reqaeefed 272 {be abp?ea?ea 23)} rise applicant (ng - nay),- me? z?e ?ee eiemem?e ofez eage-gaa?ypiea a5 eef?e?z?e 2'22 applz'ea?ea requirement (21). Reviewer Gazdaezee Speci?c to (Al/1 The medeZMeezem?dam ef Uadem?mdmg (fl/IO U), pmwded Appeadzx 1?0 #723? name, 25 an example 1'er .fl?f'O?g U. . (A) (1) (maximum total points: 65) Articulating State?s education reform agenda and participation in it: The extent. to which?~? (maximum subpoints: 5) The State has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform agenda that clearly articulates its goals for implementing reforms in the four education areas described in the and improving student outcomes statewide, establishes a clear and credible '184 path to achieving these goals, and is consistent with the-speci?c reform plans that the State has proposed throughout its application; (ii) (maximum suprints: 45) The participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) are strongly committed to the State?s plans and to effective implementation of reform in the four education areas, as evidenced by Memoranda of Understanding (MOUS) (as set forth in Appendix D) or other binding agreements between the State and. its participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) that include?- Terms and conditions that reflect strong commitment by the participating LEAs (as de?ned in this nOtice) to the State 5 plans; Scope? ?of?xvork descriptions that require participating LEAS (as de?ned in this notice) to implement all or signi?cant portions of the State 5 Race to the Top plans; and Signatures from as many as possible of the LEA superintendent (or equivalent), the president of the local school board (or equivalent, if applicable), and the local teachers union leader (if applicable) (one signature of which must be from an authorized LEA representative) demonstrating the extent of- leadership suppOrt xvitIhin participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), and (maximum subpoints: 15) The LEAs that are participating in. the State?s Race to the Top plans (including considerations of the numbers and percentages of participating LEAs, schools, students, and students in poverty) will translate into broad statewide impact, allowing the State - to reach its ambitious yet achievable goals, overall and by student subgroup, for? - Increasing student achievement in (at a minimum) reading language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the assessments required under the I Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/ language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP- and the assessments required under the Increasing high school graduation rates (as de?ned in this notice), and Increasing college enrollment (as de?ned in this notice) and increasing the number of students who complete at least a year? 5 worth of college credit that is applicable to a degree within two years of enrollment in an institution of higher education. Genera! Reviewer Guidance. for Injniiging the qneiigy offbe- iegbenie i0 ?air eiiz?erion, reviewers moan; refer i0 and? ?ee airmen exiles, i0 ibe eiidenee regneeied in the application andpreienied by the applieani? @r any), and 2?0 the element; afar a; eer?m?n in requirement (e (A) (2) (maximum total points: 30) Building strong Statewide capacity to implement scale up and sustain proposed plans: The extent to which the State has a high? quality overall plan to? (maxnnum Subpoints: 20) Ensure that it has the capacity required to implement its proposed plans by? Providing strong leadership and dedicated teams to implement the statewide education reform plans the State has proposed, (13) Supporting participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) in successfully implementing the education reform plans the State has proposed, through such activities as identifying promising I practices, evaluating these practices effectiveness, ceasing ineffective practices, xvidely disseminating and replicating the effective practices statexxude, holding participating LEA-s (as de?ned in this notice) accountable for progress and performance, and intervening where'necessary; Providing effective and ef?cient operations and processes for implementing its Race to the Top grant in such areas as grant administration and oversight, budget reporting and monitoring, performance measure tracking and reporting, and fund disbursement; 185 Using the funds for this grant, as described in the' State?s budget and accompanying budget narrative, to accomplish the State?s plans and meet its targets, including vvhere feasible, by coordinating, reallocating, or repurposing education funds from other Federal, State, and local sources so that they align with the State 5 Race to the Top goals; Using the ?scal, political, and human capital resOurces of the State to continue, after the period of funding has ended, those reforms funded under the grant for which there 18 evidence of success; and (ii) (maximum 'subpointst- 10) Use support from a broad group of stakeholders to better implement its plans, as evidenced by the strength 'of statements or actions of support from? The State?s teachers and principals, Which include the State?s teachers? unions or statewide teacher aSSOCiations; and Other cn'tical stakeholders, such as the State 5 legislative leadership; charter school authorizers and State charter school membership associations (if applicable); other State and local leaders (cg, business, community, civil rights, and education association leaders); Tribal schools; parent, student, and community organizations (e -, parent. teacher assOciation's, nonpro?t organizations, local education foundations, and community? ?based organizations); and institutions of higher education - GerrerczZiRebz'ea'rer Guidance for cbe medley loft/be app/regret"; reipome 3?0 ifb? criterion, Jboald refer e?o rebut the cree?eriore my, erred 3?0 cbe evidence regreerred ere z?be appbcalrorz aadprererz'z?ed by cbe are?). (A) (3) (maximum total points: 30) Demonstrating signi?cant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps: The extent to which the State has demOnstrated its ability t0? (maximum subpoints: 5) Make progress over the past several years in each of the four education reform areas, and used its ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue such reforms; (ii) (maximum subpoints: 25) Improve student outcomes overall and by student subgroup since at least 2003, and explain the Connections between the data and the actions that have contributed to? - Increasing student achievement in reading/ language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under the Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/ language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments. required under the and Increasing high schOOl graduation rates. B. Standards and Assessments Scare Corediz?iorer Criteria GeneraZ Ree/viewer Guidance for z?be qualify cfz?be' remorse to tbir criterion, reciezberr ibordd refer to cabal? tbe m?z?erz'ore err/{2r aredto? z?be credence requen?edirr 'z?be cappb'caz?z'ore are! prerebted by Me applicant (real. Reader/er Guidance Speci?c to Significant ofScater: ?H?gb?porrez?rfor a number grimy are earned g'fz?be consortium z'rzcbedei c; mama); of e?be Seam ire z?be comm). - ?Medz'zerrz? or ?70w?p0irzz?r are earned bribe corzicr?etrre irccbeder cree?bb?cfz?be Stacey err c?be country orient. 186 G21212112222 320212221" 1?0 (Bl/1 ?Ti2g0?p022212 1122 211221212?j2: P0022 1 1?0 112212 2322032251 102011212 111201012022 131142122111 2, 2010; 02212 P0012 2 app/2202125 111203912022 @Aagzm? 2, 20 70. N0 10022211. 1122 11112322212 2022 2222222022. "110212?1302221?1 1122 211222222?2' 11 02g0-02111221yPZ1122 10 11120101 0} 11 20122 1332102212 121112 221 2.010. 9 0. 10022212 112-2 211222212 ?r 11 p200 1001? 22 2202? 02g0~021112291 11 p200 10 1112901? 211222 201122 2010. (B) (1) (maximum total points: 40') Developing and adopting common standards: The extent to which the State has demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high? quality standards evidenced by (as Set forth in Appendix B)w? (1) (maximum subpoints: 20) The State? 5 participation in a consortium of States that? is working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of 12. standards (as de?ned in this notice) that are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toWard college and career readiness by the" time of high" school graduation; and Includes a signi?cant number of States; and i (ii) (maximum subpoints: 20) For Phase 1 applications, the State 3 high? quality plan demonstrating 1ts commitment to and progress toward adopting a comnion set of 12 standards (as de?ned in this notice) by August 2, 2010, or, at a minimum by a later date in 2010 speci?ed by the State, and to implementing the standards thereafter in a welleplanned way; or For Phase 2 applications, the State?s adoption of a common set of standards (as de?ned in this notice) by August 2, 20-10, or, at a minimum, byia later date in 2010' speci?ed by the State in a high?quality plan toward which the State has made signi?cant progress, and its commitment to implementing the standards thereafter in a well?planned way.8 622222112 R202221222 102? 122011232an 102 02111222); (#102 0pp22211222 1 2212002122 1?0 1?02: 1222222022, 2202210221 10021212 2&2 10 1210111 1?02 2221222022-11101 112212 1?0 1?02 2021222222 22021211212 222 1?02 11pp02?111?2021 112212 p22122212d 0y 1?02 0pp22211222 (fatal) 1120221022 6212121112222 {0212222 1?0 329221220221 2122022" 023211121: ?pomz?s?r. 11 12122122200221 2221222022 925111121 1122 2112222122 1?02 20212021221222 22222211221? 11 22201022231 0f 1?02 510121 222 1?02 2021221232, 02 ?20112? p0z221?1 1122 211221212 1?02 20221021221222 22222211221 0222 0110? of 2?02 5111121 222 1?02 2021221232 01" 2221-. (B) (2) (maximum total. points: 10) Developing and implementing commOn. high~qualitv assessments: The extent to which the State has dem'Onstrated its commitment to improving the I quality of its assessments, evidenced by (as set forth in Appendix B) the State?s participation in a" consortium of States that?? ls working toward jointly developing and implementing common, high- quality assessments (as de?ned in this notice) aligned with the consortium 5 common set of standards (as de?ned in" this notice); and (11) Includes a signi?cant number of States. R2102222 P2022 G2022112 (22121202212202 I22j211ig22zg 1?02 021112ng 0f 1?02 12010222112213? p200 112212 11222221112 10221221222022, 2202220221 50021212 2?2?2 10 1120121 102 1221222022 11101, 1?0 1?02 2021222222 22021211212 20 1?02 12010220012022 112212 .137 prere222ed 2222 app?eam? @2229), 222222 2?0 2/2e e2e222222'2?r tyre: age?272222922222 222' rez??m?a 22 22113105223202 .regaz'remem? (B) (3) (maximum total points: 20) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high quality assessments. The extent to which the State in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), has a high? quality plan for suppOrting a statewide transition to and implementation of' 111 ettnationally benchmarkedK-12 standards that build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation, and high quality assessments (as de?ned in this notice) tied to these standards. State or LEA activities might, for example, include: developing a rollout plan for the standards together with all of their supporting components; in cooperation with the State?s institutions of highere'ducation, aligning'high schOol exit criteria and college entrance requirements with the new standards and assessments; developing or acquiring, disseminating, and implementing high- quality instructiOnal materials and assessments (including, for example, formative and interim assessments (both as de?ned in this notice)); developing or acquiring and delivering high?quality professional development to support the transition to new standards and assessments; and engaging in other strategies that translate the standards and information from assessments into classroom practice for all students, including high?need students (as de?ned in this norice).- C. D'ata Systems .to Support Instruction 52.2222 Refbmz 022222220225 C22'2e22'a Geveml Reviewer G22222222222 for 122 2/2e 9222222232 (yr-222 gap/22222223 meme 20 21223" 0222222022, reviewer; 322022222 213%?" 20 22222222 ?ee 222222202 22.17%; 222222 20 2252 evidence 2eq22e22?e22 222 222 applzieaz?zov avdprerem?ea? 231 2262 @plieavf (feta) Reviewer G2222222222e Shed?e 20 (C mm 2220 (2) 123022223" for evegy e2e2222222? 2162 52222:? but, 0222? if 12 eZemev2r-p0mb/e. . (C) (1) (maximum total points: 24) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system :The extent to which the State has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements (as de?ned in this notice). Reform. P222222 22222222 Geve2222 Reviewer G222'd22222e 227? 2/22 922221221219)? the 2230;322:2222? 31322222 22222! 2222222222! 2273.225 (2f2222y)?92 22223 0222220222 revzezverr 360222217 2eje2" 20 222192222192 e222?e22'022 arr/tr, 2?0 222 evzdevee requerzfed' 22 ?ve appl222222'022 222ml pvere222ed v} 2222 22221022222222 (gravy), 22222! 20 222 e2e222e2223r vfa 5ng 225 2'22 appliea?ov 2eq222're2222222 (C) (2) (maximum total points: 5) Accessmg and using State data: The extent to which the State has a high? quality plan to ensure that data from the State 5 statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used to inform and engage, as appropriate, key stakeholders (e parents, students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers); and that the data support decision? makers in the continuous improvement Of efforts in such areas as policy, instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and overall effectiveness.9 188 (50220222! Reviewer G02002200 202" (C [ejadgz'ag 2?00 022002); of 2?00 0151012002221 p100 0220? 022222222! 222221021 (202222391502 2?0er 2222021022 20020222021 100221227 2.922 2?0 222002 2?00 2222022022 0201 2?0 2?00 0222002200 20022012021 2'22 2?0e 01210120022022 22220 11522010222022 03; 2?00 0pp00002 (9502232), 02207 2?0 2?00 010222022211 0f22 02g0-022012292p1022 01 10210220 222 22ppl202222022 20002202220222 (8-) (C) (3) (maximum total points: 18) Using data to improve instruction: The extent to whiCh the State 111 collaboration with 1t 8 participating LEAs (as de?ned 111 this nwoiice), has a. high- (1) Increase the acquisition adoption, and use of local instructional improvement systems (as de?ned 111 this notice) that provide teachers principals, and administrators with the information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices decision?making, and overall effectiveness; (ii) Support participating LEAs (as de?ned 111 this nOtice) and schools that are using instructional improvement systems (as de?ned in this notice) in providing effective professional development to teachers principals and administrators on how to use these systems and the reSUlting data to support continuous instructional improvement; and Make the data from instructional improvement systems. (as de?ned in this notice), - together with statewide longitudinal data system data, available and accessible to researchers so that- they have detailed information ?nth which to evaluate the effectiveness of instruCtio'nal materials strategies and approaches for educating different types of students (0 students with disabilities, English language learners students whose achievement is well below or above grade level). D. Great Teachers and Leaders - 5 2?02?e Refomz (3022212220221 (72220220 60220201 R002022202 G02002200j02" 12/223223 2?0e 02200232 23)" 2?00 2210100002223 0012202210 20 2021 0222022022, 20222022021 1002210 refer 2?0 2220222 2?00 2222022022 0100 0220? 2?0 2?00 002002200 2002201200 222 200 0325120022022 00025201022200 0y 2?00 221010000222 02222). 1122222222 6222002200 52202200 2?0 T00 2222022022 22222222 021220322202 002?0 20000021 0220? 102222020011. Renee/02' 6222002200 5 23022250 2?0 (D 7 - 0 ?Hzg0 29022221 020- 00222007 0} 5 222201 2002?. 00220 01202202222220 2022201 2002? (0) 100222222 p202220?021 22200 0p02020 22207090220002! #20102000221 95023002 021220022022 (IHEJ) 022227 (0) 222002210 222102212 4 0f 2?00 5 01022202201 0212021 2222 2?00 00522222022 0f022?ee2202?20e 2022201 2?0 0002;00022022 (01 2102522021 222 2021 2202200). - 0 111022221 2220 00222021 5 222202 2?0222? 02200 22020222222200 2022201 2002? (0) pemifproeideri 22200 0002020 22221020000222! 0f IHE1 022227 (0) 222002200 222? (0022? 2 0f 2?00 5 0102002223" [21200 222 2?00 22715222222022 95022022202220 2022201 2?0 0022050022022 (01 21952202! 222 2021 2202200). 0 1022/? 35022221 020 0022200 032 5222201 2002? 00220 0220222022220 0022202 2002? (22) do 2202? 220222222 102022200221 22200 0pe2'02?e 22202300220002! 0leE1, OR (0) 222002210 022 )2 210 2?00 5 02022202221 01200 222 2?00 210522222022 02500022202200 21022202 2?0 00222150022022 (010 0f2200 222 2?02; 2202200). (D) (1) (maximum total points: 21) Providing highwquality pathwavs for aspiring teachers and principals: The extent to which the State has? 189 Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certi?cation (as de?ned in this notice) for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions of higher education; - (ii) Alternative routes to certi?cation (as de?ned in this notice) that are in use; and A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and for preparing teachers and principals to ?ll these areas of shortage. Rezoern Plan Cn'terz'a Genera! Beaten/er an'a?ance Injnalgz?ng the anah'ty (yr the apli'ilzfcant?i~ reiponre to this criterion anal annual tagetr, rew'enzerr re?t to what the criterion ache, to the ew'dence manerted in the application andprerented the apph'cant @fany), and to the eleneentr of a at cet?rth in application regnimenent 'Reezener andance Specific te - 0 The anterior: heart antigen hath teacher; andprinczpati (D) (2) (maximum total points: 58) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance. The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAS (as de?ned in this notice), has a high? quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that participating LEAS (as de?ned 111 this notice)?? (maximum subpoints: 5) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as de?ned in this notice)an and measure it for each individual student; (ii) (maximum subpoints;15) Design and implement rigorous transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categones that take into account data on student growth (as de?ned in this notice) as a signi?cant factor, and are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement; I (maximum subpoints: 10) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and constructive feedback; as part of such evaluations provide teachers and principals. with data on student growth for their students classes, and schools; and (iv) (maximum subpoints: 28) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding?? DevelOpin?g teachers and principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction support, and/ or professional development; Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals, including by providlng opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals (both as de?ned in this no?ce) to obtain. additional compensation and be given additional responsibilities; Whether to grant tenure and/ or full certi?cation (where applicable) to teachers and principals using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures. General Beaten/er Gnidance?r the anah't'y (yr the apphcant?rplan and tagetr?r an critenen, rew'enzenr should foyer te what the criterion arr/er, to the evidence reanertea? in the application andprerentecl hy the applicant (harry), and t0 the etenzentr :37? a high-anahyptan as cet?r?th in application requirement 190 (D) (3) (maximum total points: 25) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), has a high?quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to+ (maxim-um subpoints: 15) Ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and principals by developing a plan, informed by reviews of prior actions and data, to ensure that students in high? poverty and or high?minority schools (both as de?ned in this notice) have equitable access to highly . effective teachers and principals (both. as. de?ned in this notice) and are not by ineffective teachers and principals at higher rates than other students; and (ii) (maximum subpoints: 10) Increase the number'and percentage of effective teachers (as de?ned in this. notice) teaching hard?to~staff subjects and specialty areas including mathematics, science, and special education; teaching in language instruction educational prograrm (as de?ned under Title of the and teaching in other areas as identi?ed by the State or LEA. Plans for and (ii) may include, but are not limited to, the implementation of incentives and strategies, in such areas as teaching and learning environments, I I professional development, and human resources practices and processes. Geaemi Rew?ewe?r' Gai'daaeefor Iayadgz'?g 2/2e @2222ng 'ef2?be' @p226d?2?I?12122 222222 2222222222! 2a2ge2r?2 2/22: 22222220222, mm'ezyerr 222022222 2W2 20 2212222 22222222222022 tacky, 20 2be ew'de?ee. reqae?ed 222 21222 22231022222220? and-pretend 1332 222e 22501022222222 (952229), 222222 20 2222 ele2222222r of?e; big/agaalz'gj/ 1522222 .95 5e2f022?2 2?22 @plz'ea?oa 22922222222222 I Rew'esaer Guidance {beside 20 0 The 2222222022 2222222 bejadged?r 220222 2222225222 (22222 13222222222225, (D) (4) (maximum total prints: 14) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation prograins: The extent to which the State has a high?quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets tor? Link student achievement and student growth (both as de?ned 11] this notice) data to the studen?ts teachers and principals, to link this information to the 111? State programs where those teachers and principals were prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the dataf 101', each credentialing program in the State; and (ii) Expand preparation. and credentialing options and programs that are successful at producmg- effective teachers and principals (both as de?ned in this notice). Geaemi Reamer Gazdaaee 292* I22 jadgzag 2222 4222222292 of222e 22102922222222 Jplae 222222 2222222222! 2age2r (zf222gzjfor 2222'; 2222e22022, mmewery 229022222 22392? 20 2222222 2/2e 2222e22022 225265 20' 2222 ewdeaee regaen?ea? 222 2/92 22253922222220? 222222 p2ere222?ed by 2/22 applzeezm? (zfaey) 222222 20 2222? eZe222e2225 tyre; 223/2 2222222322222 225 ie2fa22/2 222 app/222222022 2eqz222e222e222 (D) (5) (maximum total points: 20) Providing effective support to teachers and principals: The extent to Which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAS (as de?ned this notice), has a high? quality plan for its participating LEAs (as de?ned 1n this notice) to?? Provide effective, datauinformed professional development, coaching, induction, and common planning and collaboration time to teachers and principals that are, where appropriate, ongoing and jobuembedded; Such support might focus on, for example, gathering, analyzing, and using data; designing instructional strategies for improvement; differentiating instruction; creating school environments supportive of data?informed decisiOns; designing instruction to meet the . speci?c needs of high?need students (as de?ned in this notice); and aligning systems and removing 191 barriers to effective implementation of practices designed to improve student learning outcomes; and . i (ii) Measure, evaluate, and continuously improve the effectiveness of those supports in order to improve student achievement (as de?ned in this notice). E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools State Reform Conditions Criteria Genera! Reviewer Guidance ?ar In tbe quality (yrtbe apptieant i reiponre to criterion reviewers ebontd re?r to zit/bat tbe criterion ark-i and to tbe eiidenee rebaerted zn tbe implication and patented by tbe applicant (deer) Reviewer Gaidanee {beside to J: I 10 pointi are earned Starter tbat can intervene direrty in bot/b reboot: and 0 51925522222 are earned by Statei tbat can intervene dz'reetbzin eitber reboots or LEAJ, bat. not botb. 0-point? are earned by State; tbat cannot intervene in or .. (E) (maxhum total points-:10) Intervening in the lowest~achieving schools and The extent to which the State has the legaL- statutory, or regulatory authon'ty to intervene directly in the State?s persistently l?owest achieving schools (as de?ned in this notice) and in LEAs that are in improvement or corrective action status. - - Reiorrn Ptan Criteria Genera! Reviewer Gnidanee 2hr (E iInjadgincg tbe 922221523; bftbe applicant?iptan and drama! tagetifor-tbii - mterion, retreat/err iboatd re?erto nbat tbe criterion was, to tbe evidence requested in tbe application and presented by tbe @pbtant (zfa'ny) and to tbe etenrents ofa a; retfortb 2n abptzeation reqazrernente (E) (2) (maximum total points: 40) Turning around the lowest? achieving schools: The extent to which the State has a high- quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to?_ (maximum subpoi-nts: 5) Identify the persistently lowest achieving schools (as de?ned in this notice) and at its discretion, any non? ?Title I eligible secondary schools. that Would be considered persistently lowest? achieving schools (as de?ned in this notice) if they were eligible to receive Title I funds; and (i1) (maximum subpoints: 35) Support its LEAs in mitig around these schools by implementing one of the four school intervention models (as described in Appendix C): turnaround model restart model, school closure, or transformation model (provided that an LEA with more than nine persistently lowest? ?achieving schools may not use the model for more than 50 percent of its schools), F. General State Condition; Criteria General Rebienzer Gaidanbe for In jadging tbe qaatig/ oftbe applicant? reiybonie to tbii criterion, reviewer; iboatd riffer to tbe criterion aim and to tbe evidence reqaerted in tbe apptieatzon and presented by tbe abptzeant (fen!) 192 Reweaer G222da72ce hecthc t0 ?H2gh ?po2atr are earaed 2f the percehtaee 0f the total reoehaer ahadahte t0 the State that were ared t0 rapport etehzeatay, recordary, aadpahhc h2gher ed22cat2072 272aeared?o772 FY2008 t0 FY 2009 ?Med222772?p0272tr are ear72ed 79? the percehtage of the total reoehaer aoaz?tah/e t0 the State that were ared t0 rapport . ete772e77ta7y, recoadary, ahdpahhc h2gher ed22cat2072 there rahrtaatz'attv 2272cha722ed??0772 FY2008 t0 FY 2009 r1,0722? p0272tr are ea772ed2 the percehtage 0f the total reheaaer aha2tahte t0 the State that were ared to rapport - ete772e72ta37, reco72da7y, a72d))22ht2c- hzgher- edacateoh demared?om FY 2008 to FY2009. (maximum total points: 10) Making education funding a priority: The extent to which? I The percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as de?ned in this notice) that were used to support elementary, secondary, and public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as de?ned in this notice) that Were used to support elementary; secondary, and public higher education for FY 2008; and (ii) The State 5 policies lead to equitable funding between high? ?need LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) and other LEAs, and within. LEAS, between high? poverty schools (as de?ned in this notice) and other schools. 'Geaerat Rehzeiter G222da722e 12172232an the 0f the 212222222272 reghorzte to th2r m'terz'oa 7222222277: rhoatd 72327 to what the attertoh arhr a72d t0 the eozdeace reaaerted 272 the appt2cat2072 aadprerehted hy the apphcaat . (2777) Re22e277er G222da77ce hea?cto (F) (2 ?Hzgh ?poz'atr are?earned 2f the State either has 720 cap 072' the 7222772her ofcharter rchoo/r, 07.2t har a ?hggh cap (de?hed at a cap'rach that; 7392)? aere?t/ed, 70% of the total rchootr 272 the State 2270222d he charter 'rchootr); a72d the State doer not have rert720t20727, .722ch ar-thore 272 the ?720te t0 rew'eaierr? hetozo, that aozdd he c072r2de7ed eoe72 77222th 272h2h2t272g. ?Med222772?p0272tr are earaed 2f the State har a ?772ed222777? ?2?9 072 the 7222772her of charter rchootr (d ?red as a tag!) I rach that,2 2t aere?/ted, and 70% (f the total rchootr 272 the State icoatd he charter rchootr); or the charter rchoot 26122) har t0 a72 zacreare 272 the 7222772her of charter rchootr ar 2f2t were a 77222222772 or hzgher 272)) (e h} attorxz'ag?r the creat2072 cy?rhattgote camparer 2277der the ra772e charter); and the State doer not have 7ert72gt2o72r,- .722ch at thore re?rehced 272 the 720te to retz'etterr? hetozt, that would he?corzrz?dered 7222222222) or 272h2h2t27zg ?10227 a7e ea772ed2 the State hat a ?20722? cap 072 the 7222772her of charter rchootr (de?ned. ar a cap rach that, 2f 2t aem?tted- of the total tchootr 272 the State would he charter rchootr) OR a? the State hat .722ch" ar thore referenced 272 the ?rote to 7e772e22'7err? hetoizz, that would he- c07222dered reocreh; 272h2h2t27zgg N0 p0272tr are ea772ed 2f the State har 720 charter rchoo/ tat). Note to reweaerr. Charter rchoot tat/.7 are re complex that 2t 2r hard to 72272te mter t0 captare each porr2hte 02222222 to charter 'rchoot growth; the7ef07e, th2r 722h722 2r 772ea72t to gt22de reoz'ewerr, not to h272d the772. For example, 2ft: State 227722tr the 7222772her of charter rchootr h} 1277222723 the rhare cy?rtatezzdde 07- d2rt72ct?2ehetf2277d2rzg that ca72 go to charter rchootr, rather tha72 h} agoh'ctth) 22m2t27zg the 7222772her of cha7ter rchootr, rectewerr rhoa/d co7227e7t the f2272d272g rert72ct2072 272t0 a72 approxtmatety eaa2hate72t 2277222 072 the 7222mher ofrchootr aad?t that 272t0 the ga2det272er here. Ar . reoz'eaerr arrerr the 272h2h2t2072r 072 charter rchootr, they rhoatd too/? for rertrz'ct2072r rach ar: d217a220222272gr ce7ta272 ty' er of charter rchootr g, rtartapr or comerrz'omj; re.7t72ct272gr charter rchootr to operate 2'72 certa272 geographz'c arear; a72d 2277222272672,r the 7222772her, perceht, or demographz'cr 0frt22de72tr that may ehrott 272 charter rchoot-r. 07722 tater hare ?.7772a7t capr? deaghed t0 to cha7ter rchootr; th2r 2'7 720t aprohtehz arterr 2t rert72ctr are); 72222! 2272))7077e72) charter rchoo/r?ohe rtartt'ag. 1. 9'3 Reviewer Gaz'ddaee Speez'fie t0 szg/i ?117027th are edmedz zftbe perpapzt?adz'ag to charter reboot 25 290% of that Maze/?9 zrproezded to reboot stadeaztr. are eemzedz to charter reboot itadeats' 23 80- 89% oft/bat teeter} zrprow'ded to reboot. rtadeatr. ?Leze?poz'atr are. edmedz zft/ieperngfid?adzag to charter reliant etudeatr 25 <7 9% watt/9 ziproz?zded to reboot itadeatr. . Nopomtr are earned yttbel State ?2th are charter reboot Ida). (maximum-total points: 40) Ensuring successful COnditions for high?performing charter schools and other innovative schools: The extent to which? - The State has a charter school law that does-not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high? performing charter schools (as de?ned in this notice) in the State, meaSured (as set forth in Appendix B) by the percentage of total schools in the State that are allowed to be charter schools or otherwise restrict student enrollment in charter schools (ii) The State has laws, statute,s regulations, or guidelines regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable reauthOr'ize, and close charter schools; in particular whether authorizers require that student. achievement (as de?ned' in this notice) be one signi?Cant factor, among Others, in. authorization or renewal; encourage charter Schools that serve. student populations that are similar to local district student populations, especially relative to high? need students (as de?ned in this notice); and have closed or not renewed. ineffective charter schOols. The State? 5 charter schools receive (as set forth' in Appendix B) equitable funding compared to traditional public schools, and a commensurate share of local, State, and Federal revenues. (iv) The State provides charter schools with funding for facilities (fer leasing facilities, purchasing facilities, or making tenant improvements), assistanCe. with facilities acquisition, access to public facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill levies, or other supports; and the extent to which the State does not impose any facility'? related requirements on charter schools that are stricter . than those applied to traditional public schools. - The State enables LEAS to operate innovative, autonomous public schools (as de?ned in this notice) other than charter schools Genera! Gmdd?tb? ?it Iajadgztig the daddy remome to tbz'r miterzorz tweeters 51702:de n?r to tit/idt the criterion 62ka and to the ewdeaee requested the apptz'edttoa dadprereated the applicant . (fart) (maximum total points: 5) Demonstrating other signi?Cant reform conditions: The extent to which the State, in addition to information provided under other State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created, through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, 'or?re'sulted mother important outcomes. V. Reviewer Guidance for Priorities 194 A2202a27 P72072217 G27272727272: T757 72770220722207 222222 02j277lge72? 2?0 27222772 2002? 22? 0722 72272 2222 72722022720p72'07292 222772720 07720227. T2470 72172022727 1072072737 72722 077022 2757 777222777 0pp22002207 727272 275027272 7202 [77 7272727222072 72222222722 79277 2bep70p0202 7502 00072?7@ 72027227272. 727272 72772227722772: 2?0 77222777 212722 2170 72ppl20022072 [7722 77272 27527272072232. lf7272 770p/207222'077 0722 7202? 77202 2762107207297 22? 222222 [72 22277227272227if7?0772 2?67: 20727522222072. Priority 1: Absolute Priority Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform To meet this priority, the State?s application must comprehensively- a?nd "coherently address all of the four education reform area's speci?ed in the ARRA as well as the State Success 'FactOrs Criteria in order to demonstrate that the State and its partiCipating LEAs are taking a systemic approach to education reform The State must demonstrate in its application suf?cient LEA participation and commitment to successfully implement and achieve the goals in its plans; and it must describe how the State, in collaboration with its partiCipating LEAs, will _use Race to the Top . and other funds to increase student achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across student subgroups and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared fOr college and careers. P720722v G22272727200: T02 app/277222072 222222 02' ]_'2772lge72 2?0 7272077722722 2220022227 22 0722 77222 2222 0002p02222'72 pm?macg 10720727); 272f072?2 522022217277 22722.1 be 2220222722072' 272 2727 007222272 0f2?792 527222 .7 7722272 7279102227222H077 T0277j?072 72 327222 217722 22 7221007272272g 2?0 2022122720727); 20027272 7272727225 22? 22270277270272 202 77010270022077.7277 72307072727222 aadpromde 72 2277727727229 0f22?i 721?0122707201? 20 00?7272522'72g 2?02 10220727); The 7277272227772 2222/ 7222722 2122 107207237 722 1072712 0f2?072'7 777027277 0f 72 $2027 2 723902277222072 727272 72227772722722 22717022227 2'2? 70722 172772 772772. Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority? Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). (competitive preference points: 15, all or nothing) To meet this priority, the State? application must have a high? ?q_uality plan to address the need to offer a rigorOus course bf study' in mathematics, the sciences, technology, and engineering; (ii) cooperate with 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. I [72222022072722 P72072212- N0 79027222 7272 7222772772772l?r 222222022020272720722222. Priority 3: Invitational Priority Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes. The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that include practices, strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for high? n?eed students who are young children (pre? kindergarten through third grade) by enhancing the quality of preschool programs. Of particular interest are proposals that support practices that improve school readiness (including social, emotional, and cognitive); and (ii) improve the transition between preschool and kindergarten. I 72022722207272! P72072217 0 73027222 7272: 7222272772272 )?07 27202202207202 10720722222. 195 Priority 4: Invitational PriOrity Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems. - The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from special education programs English language learner programs, early childhood programs, at?risk and dropout prevention programs, and school climate and culture programs, as well as information on student mobility, human resources (213., information on teachers?, principals, and other staff), school. ?nance?, student health, pOStsec'ondary education, and other relevant areas, with the purpose of connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to allow important questions related to policy, practice, or - overall effectiveness to be asked, answered, and incorporated into effective continuOus improvement practices The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in which States propose working together to adapt one State 5. statewide longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part, by one or more other States, rather than haVing each State build or continue building such systems independently. - I?m'a?m?z'om! Prioriz?v Guidance: 0 paiziz?r are awardedfot Priority 5: Invitational Priority? P-20 Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment. The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which the State plans to address - how early childhood programs, schools, postsecondary institutions, workforce development organizations, and other State agencies and community partners (6.3., child welfare, juvenile justice, and Criminal justice agencies) will coordinate to improve all parts of the educatiOn system and create a more seamless preschool? school (P 20) route for students. Vertical alignmen across 20 is particularly critical at each point where a transition occurs (6-. g. between early childhood and K42, or between K42 and postsecondary/ careers) to ensure that students exiting one "level" are prepared for success, without remediation, in the next; Horizontal alignment, that is, coordination of services across schools,'State agencies, and coininunity partners, is also important in ensuring that highfneed students (as defined in this notice)have access to the broad array of I opportunities and services they need and that are beyond the capacity of a School itself to provide. I Guidance: 0 point! are awarded?r z'imffaz?ioaalprioffz?ier Priority 6. Invitational Priority? SchOol?Level ConditiOns for Reform, Innovation, and Learning. - The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which the State? 3 participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) seek to create the cenditions for reform and innovation as well as the conditions for learning by providing schools with flexibility and autonomy in such areas as?? Selecting staff; - (ii) Implementing new structures and formats for the school day or year that result in- increased learning time (as de?ned in this notice), - - Controlling the school?s budget; . (iv) Awarding Credit to students based on student performance instead of instructional time; Providing comprehensive services to high?need students (as de?ned in this notice) (6.3., by mentors and other caring adults; through local partnerships with community~based organizations, nonpro?t organizations, and other providers); 196 (vi) Creating schooLdimates and "cultures that remove obstacles to, and actively Support, student engagement and achievement; and (W1) Implementing strategies to effedively engage families and cOmmunities in supporting the academic success of their students. 197 XII. . APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The State?s application must be signed by the Governor, the State?s chief school officer, and the president of the State board of education (if applicable). States will respond to this requrrernent in the application Section Race to th 1e Top Application Assurances. In addition the assurances in Section IV must be signed by the Governor. The State must describe the progress it has made over the past sever'al'yearsl _in each - of the four education reform areas (as described in cri-teriOn The State muSt include a budget that details how it will use grant funds and other resources to meet targets and perform related functions (as described including how it will use funds awarded under this program to? (1) AchieVe its targets for improving student achievement and graduation rates and for closing achievement gaps (as described in criterion the State must also describe its I track record of Improving student progress overall and by student subgroup (as described in i criterion and (2) Give?"priority to high-need LEAs (as de?ned in this notice), in addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs (as de?ned in this nOtice) based on their relatiVe shares of funding under Part A of Title I of the ESEA for the most recent year as required under section 14006(c) of the ARRA. (Note:- Because all Race to the Top grants will be made in 2010, relative shares will be based on total funding received in FY 2009-, including both the regular Title I, Part appropriation and the amount made available by the AMA). The State must provide, for each State Reform Conditions Criterion (listed in this notice) that it chooses to address, a description of the State 3 current status in meeting that criterion _,and at a minimum, the information requested as supporting evidence for the criterion and the performance measures, if any (see Appendix A). The State muSt provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion (listed in this notice) that it chooses to address, a detailed plan for use of grant funds that include-,s but need not be limited . (1) the key goals, (2) The key activities to be undertaken and rationale for the activities, which shouid include why the speci?c activities are thought to bring about the Change envisioned and how these activities are linked to the key goals; (3) The timeline for implementing the activities; (4) The party or parties responsible for implementing the activities; - (5) The information requested in the performance measures, Where applicable (see Appendix A), and Where the State proposes plans for reform efforts not covered by a speci?ed 198 performance measure the State 13 encouraged to propose performance measures and annual targets for those efforts; and (.6) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any, for the criterion together - with any additional information the State believes- will be helpful to peer reviewers in judging the credibility of the State 5 plan. (1) The State must submit a certi?cation from the State Attorney General that? (1) The State 3 deSCription of, and statements and conclusions concerning State law, statute and regulation in its applicatiOn are complete accurate, and. constitute a reasonable interpretation of State law, statute, and regulation, and (2) At the time the State submits its application, the State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level to linking data on stUdent achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher- and principal evaluation. When addressing issues relating to assessments required under the ESEA or subgroups in the selection criteria, the State must meet the following requirements: (I) For student subgroups with. respect to the NAEP, the State must provide data for the NAEP subgroups described n1 section of the National Assessment of Educational. . Progress Authorization Act (20 9622) (116., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic statuS,. gender,? disability, and limited English proficiency). The State must also include the NAEP exclusion rate for students with disabilities and the exclusion rate for English language learners, along with- clear documentation of the State policies and practices for-determining whether a student with a disability or an English language learner should participate in the NAEP and whether the student needs accommodations, (2) For with. respect. to high school graduation rates, college enrollment and credit accumulation rates, and the assesSments required under the ESEA, the State must provide data for the subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(ll) of the ESEA - e,econon1ically ?diSadva'ntaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English pro?ciency); and (3) For the assessments required under the ESEA, refer to section 111 of the in addition, when deseribing this assessment data 1n the State application, the State should note any factors (eg, Changes in cut scores) that would impact the comparability of data from one year to the next. l99 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A State. receiving Race to the Top must submit to the Department an annual report which must include, in addition to the standard elements, a description of the State?sand its progress to date on their gOals, timelines, and budgets, as well as actual performance compared to the annual targets the State established in its application with respect to each performance measure. Further, a. State receiving funds-under this program and its participating LEAs are accountable 'for meeting: the goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets established in the application; adhering to an annual fund. drawdoWn .schedule that is tied to meeting these goals, timelines, budget,,an.d annual targets; and ful?lling and maintaining all other conditions for the conduct of the project. The Department will. monitor a State?s and its participating progress in meeting the State?s goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets and in ful?lling Other applicable requirements. In. addition, the Department may collect .additiOnal data as part of a State?s annual reptirti-ng requirements.- To. support a collaborative'pr0cess between the State. and the Department, the Department may require that applicants Who are selected to receive an award enter into a written performmce or cooperative agreement with the Department. If the Department determines that a State 1s not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or is net ful?lling other applicable requirements, the Department Will take appropriate action, which could include a collaborative process between the Department and the State, or enforcement measures with respect to this grant such as placing the State 111 high? risk status, putting the State on reimbursement payment status, or delaying or Withholding funds. A State that receives Race to the Top funds must also meet the reporting requirements that apply to all ARRA funded programs. Speci?cally, the State must submit reports, Within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter, that contain the information required under section 1512(c) of the ARRA 1n accordance With any guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget or the Department (ARRA Division A, Section 1512(0)). - In addition, for each year of the program, the State will submit a report to the Secretary, at such time and 1n such manner as the Secretary may require, that describes: o. the uses of funds Within the State; 0 how the State distributed the funds it received, - the number of obs that the Governor estimates were saved or created with the funds; 0' the State 3 progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly quali?ed teachers, implementing a State longitudinal data system, and deVelopin'g' and implementing valid . and reliable assessments for English language learners and students With diSabilit'ie's; and if applicable, a description of each modernization, renovation, or repair project approved in the State application and funded, including the amounts awarded and project costs (ARRA Division A, Section 14008). 200 XIV. OTHER-REQUIREMENTS Evaluation The Institute of Education Sc1ences (TBS). will. conduct a series of. national evaluations of Race to the Top State grantees as part of its evaluation of programs funded under the ARRA. The Department 5 geal for these evaluations IS to ensure that its studies not only assess program . impacts, but also provide valuable information to State and local educators to help inform and improve their practices. The Department anticipates that the national evaluatiOns will involve such components as; 0 Surveys of States, LEA-s, and] or schools, which will help identify how program funding is spent and the speci?c efforts and activities that are Underway Within each of the four education reform areas and acrOss selected ARRA funded prog_;rams - Case studies of promising practices in. States, LEAs, and/or schools through surveys and other mechanisms; and - Evaluations of outcomes, focusing on student achievement and other performance measures, to determine the impact of the reforms implemented under Race to the Top. Race to the Top grantee States are not required to conduct independent evaluatiOns, but may propose, within their applications, to use funds from Race to the Top to support such evaluations. Grantees must make available, through formal g, peer-reviewed journals) or informal g, neWsletters, websites) mechanisms, the results. of any evaluations they conduct of their funded activities. In addition, as described elsewhere in this notice and regardless of the ?nal components of the national evaluation, Race to the Top States, LEAs, and schools are expected to identify and share promising practices, make work available Within and across States, and make data available 1n appropriate ways to stakeholders and researchers so as to help all States focus on continuous improvement in service of student outcomes. Participating LEA Scope of Work The agreements signed by participating (as de?ned in this notiCe) must include a scOpe? ?of?work section. The scope of work submitted by LEAs and States as part of their Race to the applications will be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work should include the portions of the State 5 preposed reform plans that the LEA is agreeing to implement. If a State IS awarded a Race to the grant, its participating LEAs (as de?ned in this notice) will have up to. 90 days to complete ?nal scopes of work, which must contain detailed work plans that are consistent with their preliminary sCopes of work and with the State 5 grant application and - should include the participating LEAs Speci?c. goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance measures. Making Work Available Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary information, the State and its subgrantees must make any work (6 g, materials, tools, processes, systems) developed Under its grant freely available to others, including but not limited to by posting the work on a website identi?ed or sponsored by the Department. 201 Technical Assistance The State must participate in applicable technical assistance activities that may be Conducted by the Department or its designees-. State Summa?ve Assessments No funds awarded under this r'ompe?ritiot1 may be used to pay. for Costs related to. statewide summative assessments. 202 XV. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES Generally, all procurement transactions by State or local educational agencies made with Race to the T0p grant funds must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, consistent With the standards in Section 80.36 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). This. section requires that grantees use their own pr; cur?eni-en-t procedures {which reflect. State-- ad local laws and regalati-on-s-)- to select provided that these pro'cedthres meet certain standards described in EDGAR. . . Because grantees must use appropriate procurement. procedures to select contractors, applicants should not include information in their grant applications about speci?c contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded. 203 XVI. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES SUBMISSION INFORMATION The deadline for submission of Program applications for Phase 2 applicants is'June l, 2010. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted by mail or hand delivery. The Department strongly recommends the use of overnight mail. Applications postmarked on the deadline date but arriving late will not be read. a. ApplicatiOn Submission Format and Deadline. Applications for grants under this competition, as well as any amendments regarding adoption of common standards that PhaSe 2 applicants may ?le after June 1 and through August 2, 2010, must be submitted in electronic. format on a CD or DVD,Iwith preferred, In addition, they must submit a signed. Original of Sections and IV of the application and one copy of that signed original. Sections Ill and IV of the application include . the Race to the Top Application Assurances and the Accountability Transparency, Reporting and Other Assurances. All electronic application ?les must be a .DOC (document), .DOCX (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (POrtableDocumem) format. Each file name should clearly identify the part of theapplication to ?which the content is responding. If a State submits a ?le type other than the four ?le types Speci?ed in this paragraph, the Department will not review that material. States should not password-protect these ?les. The CD or DVD should be clearly labeled with the State 3 name and any other relevant information. The Department must receive all grant applications by 4: 30: 00 p. m. Washington DC time, on the appliCation deadline date. We will not accept an application for this campeiition a?er 4. 30: 00 p. m, Washington, DC time, on the application deadline. date. Therefore We strongly recommend that applicants arrange for mailing or hand delivery of their applications in advance of the application deadline date. b. Submission of Applications bv Mail. States may Submit their application (i e. ,the CD or DVD, the signed original of Sections and IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by mail (either through. the U. S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier). We must receive the applications on or before the application deadline date. Therefore, to avoid delays, we strongly recommend sending applications via overnight mail. Mail applications to the Department at the following address: US. Department of Education Application Control Center Attention: (CFDA Number 84.3 95A) LBJ Basement Level 1 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20202-4260 204 If we receive an application after the application deadline, we will not consider that application. - 0. Submission of Applications by" Hand Delivery. States may submit their application (i ,the CD or DVD, the signed original of Sections 111 and IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by hand delivery (including Via a courier We. must receive- the applications on: or before the application deadline date-,- at- the following address: - U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center . Attention: (CFDA Number 84.3 95A) 550 12th Street, SW. Rodm 7041, Potomac Center Plaza Washington, DC 20202?4260 The Application Control Center accepts hand. deliveries daily between 8:00 am. and 4:30:00 pm, Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. If we receive an application after the application deadline, we will not consider that application. d. . Envelope requirements and receipt: When an applicant submits its application, whether by mail or hand delivery?'? (1) It must indicate on the enveIOpe that the CFDA number of the competition under which it is submitting its application 1s 84. 395A, and (2) The Application Control Center will 1115111 to the applicant a noti?cation of receipt of the grant application. If the. applicant does not receive this noti?cation, it should call the U. S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245? 6288. In accordance with EDGAR ?75. 216 and an application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the precedural rules that govern the submission of the applicatiOn or the application does not cOntain the informatiOn required under the program.- 205 XVII. APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please use the following checklist to ensure that your application is complete.- Formatting Recommendations (page 3) Are all pages 8. 5? 11?, on one side only, with 1? margins at the tOp, bottom, and both sides? Are all pages numbered? Is the line space set to 1.5 spacing using 12 point Times New Roman font? Race to the Top Application Assurances (page 12) Is all of the requested information included on the Race to the Top Application Assurances page? SIGNATURE Has the Governor or- an authorized representative signed and ?dated the Race to the Top Application Assurances? SIGNATURE Has the Chief State School Of?cer signed and dated the Race to the T0p Application Assurances? - - SIGNATURE Has the President of the State Board of Education signed and dated the Race to the Top Application Assurances? State Attorney General. Certification (page 13) SIGNATURE REQUIRED Has the State Attorney General or an authorized representative signed and dated the Race to the Top Application AsSurances? I Accountability, TranSparency, Reporting, and Other Assurances and Certi?cations (pages 14- 16) SIGNATURE Has the Governor or his/her authorized representative signed and dated the other Assurances and Certi?cations? Eligibility Requirements (page 17) Has the State provided explanatory information for eligibility req111rement (Note that the Attorney General certi?cation addresses this requirement so the explanatory information is optional.) - Selection Criteria: Progress and Plans in the Four Edpcation Reform Areas (pages 18-50) Has the State reSpond-ed to- all of the selection criteria to which it plans to respond? For each selection criterion to which the State is reSponding, has the State provided the necessary: I Narrative reSponse? :1 Performance measures? E1 Evidence? I Has the State organized the Appendix properly such that each attachment in the appendix is deScribed in the narrative text of the relevant selection criterion? 206 Competition Priorities (pages 51- -54) [Optional] Has the State responded to all the competitive preference and invitational priorities to which it plans to respond? Budget (see pages 56- -65) Has the State coinpleted the following elements of the budget? X. Budget, Part. Summary Tab1e (page 56), Budget Part 1: Budget Summary Narrative (page 57) Budget Part H: Project- -Leve1 Budget Table (page 58) Budget Part II: Project-Level Budget Narrative (page 59) [If requested] Indirect Costs (page 64) Application Requirements (see pages 93- 94) Has the State ful?lled all of the application requirements? Application Submission Procedures (pages 99- 100) Has the State complied with the submission format requirements, including the application deadline for submission? Appendix (page 103) Has the State created a table of contents for its appendix? Has the State included all required appendix documents per the instructions in the application, as well as any other documents it refers to in its narratives? . 207 The Appendix must include a complete Table of Contents, Which includes the page number or attachment number, attachment title, .and relevant selection criterion. A sample table of contents form is included below. Each attachment in the Appendix must be described in the narrative text of. the relevant selection criterion with a rationale for its inclusion supports the narrative APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS and the location of the attachment in the AppendiX'. Appendix Attachment Title, Relevant?KSelection Page .. Criterion Title 20? A, MRSA, Section 4710, i Kindergarten to Grade 12 - A-l Interventions and Title 20 -A, MRSA, A-1.a-b Section 4722, High School Diploma . - Standards - Maine Course Pathways Proj ect . A?2.a ANZ Overview . NeXt Generation Learning - . A?3.a?e Innovation Labs NetwOrk (NXGL) (FXZ) - . Common Core State - . A?4.a?c Standards initiative (cos SI) . SMARTER Balanced . . A-5.. a?o A-5 Assessment Consortium (BXZXI) . .I - 6 Jobs for Maine 3 Graduates. Program (B) (3) A-6. a?c Overview Executive Order to Convene - Stakeholders Group for Evaluation - . Models/PL. 2009, Chapter 64.6 (LD and (1V) 1799) Sample- Maine Race to the Tep: MOU for Participating A?8.a?q - Districts/Preliminary Scope of Work Maine DOE OrganizatiOnal Chart and . A?9.a?h A9 Key Program Descriptions - Letters of Support __Maine Principals Associationz2010 .. Conference Agenda and Resolutions Maine Educational Assessment .. A412.a?d A42 Results 2003?2009 A?l 3 Subgroup Assessment Data A?13.a?d A-14 MEA Subgroup Data Maine Achievement. Data From 2003- A-15- 2009; National Assessment of A-1.5.a-b Educational Progress we." A-16 PL. 2009, Chapter 626 (LD 1658), 208 . High School Graduate Rate PrOof of Participation in the New B-l . England Comprehensive AsSesSment B?1.a Program (NECAP): . 32 List ef?signetery states in (30331 B-2.a-b Proof OfPaI?tiCipation in Career and B-B - Teclm-iCa-l Education Con-scrti-um of States . . . I Self AsSess'ment B-4 a?af .. B-5 P. 2009, Chapter 647 (LD 1800) . Checklist of Ste 5 in the Rulerhakin . Process (BXDG) I List of states participating in . . B-7 SMARTER Balanced Assessment B?7.a Consort1um Proof of Participation in fOur State B?s CQIIaborative on Assessment and . Student Standards (SCAS S) . 3?9. Guiding Principles Early Childhood Learning Guidelines B-ll NGA AP HOnors States Report C?l 2010 Capabilities C?l.a?b . Chapter 114, Section 2.1, Unit - D?l Standard One 19: Alternate Route Programs I - I Cha ter 115, Native Lan . . D-21a-bv Profision Part 2 guag - MDOE Teacher uali uit D-3.a? Action Plan "ty (DXIXIF) D-4 Edlipger 610. Fmance Authority of (D) (.1). 4.21 3 I Title 20.- A, MRSA, Section 13013 A, Salary Supplement for Natidnal and (iv) D?5.a Board?Certi?ed Teachers . 6 Evervicsw of Maine?s Administrator (D) 4 (Iii) D?6.a?b rcparat1on Programs Chapter 125, Section 8.08 D?7.a E?li Chapter 125, Sections 13 and 14 E?l.a?d Title Section 4502: - E-2 School Approval Requirements I Title MRSA, Seetion 4504': E-3.a B3. Implementation and enforcement (EXU Title MRSA, Section E-4.-a 13'? State Validation (EM) E-5.a Chapter 127, Section 9.01 209 Title 20-A, MRSA, Section 6210: E?6.a 13?6 School Assistance (EXI) De?nition of Persistently Lowest - E-7 Achieving Schools and Process to Determine Eligibility F-l State Budget Evidence F-l.a F2 20.0.9; Chapter 6.115 (Lo-1.30.1.) .. F?Zta?b P. L. 2007, Chapter 240, Part F?3.a?bj biennial budget (FX3) - . - 'Maine STEM Collaborative 2010 . P3-1 Summit Report and Plan Template Priority Area 2 - - . P3.1.a?o I 210