Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
And with that, let me open it up and the first--the first person at the mic, please when you--when
you make a comment, tell us your name and where are you from.
Cynthia Woodside with the New York State Education Department and I'm wondering if you have determined
what percentage or what amounts of funding might be available in Phase I and Phase II
and how that might be determined if you have 20 wonderful applications in Phase I and you'd
like to fund all of them but you don’t have funding to do that and also have funding for
Phase II, could you talk a little bit about how that might work?
Well, it would be great to have 20 wonderful applications in Phase I but we're not setting
specifics. So, we don’t have specific set asides. We haven’t said, you know, it's
a billion in Phase I and three billion in Phase II; we’re waiting to see what the
proposals that come in look like. I think it is safe to say that we're probably have
a pretty high bar in Phase I because a Phase I applicant can re-apply in Phase II and still
get funded. But we don’t have specific numbers or specific set asides because I think it's
just smart for us to wait and see what the proposals look like when they come in.
But you're pretty positive that there will be funding in Phase II?
Oh, Yes. Yes.
Hi, I'm Tina Dove with ASCD. Two kind of related questions. One, do you have like a set number
of states in your mind in terms of the collaboration like is it, it has to be minimum of two or
it has to be at least four, how many states are you sort of wanting to be collaborating
together in order to apply because I know you're encouraging states to work together?
And if all of those States work together, say there's a collaboration of four New England
states, for example, and they're all working together to get an application, they all have
to agree to all of the criteria, all of the--that they agree to [INDISTINCT] standards, blah,
blah, blah. If one of them isn’t on board and the rest are, does that sort of null out
the whole application, how is that working?
So--so, this is a great question. So, this is--so, let me go back and reiterate that
states apply individually and you just explained why. So, states apply individually not as
consortia. When I said there are ways in which we reward collaboration, it’s because some
of the criteria, and you'll see this in the proposal, are about sort of, for example,
states working together to develop common standards. So, there is certain criteria that
are collaborative in nature and there's other criteria where, another example, is in the
data systems invitational priority. We talked about the fact that if a state needs a data
system, doesn’t have a good state longitudinal data system, that they're happy with maybe
instead of reinventing the wheel, they go visit a state that has a good system and see
if they can share that system or use it. So, there's ways in which we think collaboration
make sense but states are applying individually not as consortia and they just will earn some
points in places where collaboration is--make sense for them. Does that ans--?
I think so.
OK, great.
Thank you.
Yes?
Good afternoon. My name is Robert Vinson Brannum and I'm with the DC Federation of Civic Associations.
Two quick points. One, what happens to the process if--or policy decision, guidance,
if the comments that the department receives on a particular policy is not accepted? For
example, aligning teacher test and evaluation, let's assume that a lot of these things don’t
want to do that or the public at large doesn’t want to go that route, will the department
readjust the framework for the program? Second, how does this process quantify or include
or measure real public engagement in state plans to develop these competitions programs?
OK. So, let me take them one at a time and stay there just to make sure I'm answering
your questions in case--in case I'm not. So, public comments, the reason that we're asking
for comment is so that we really can hear what the public thinks will lead to the best
results for kids. In the end, it is the secretary who has the final say over which comments
we really take in to consideration--or not take into consideration but which comments
lead to a change in the actual guidelines. So, we take that. We take all the comments.
We review them all. We respond to all of them. And the ones that were going to take and make
changes on we make changes in the final application; and the others we explain why we're not. And
that’s what the process looks like. And the final notice will come out, you know,
a couple of months later with those changes in there and we'll have given back comments,
we'll have given back responses to all of the comments. So, that’s what the process
looks like. Did that--I see your smile, did that answer your question? I mean, it might
not be the answer you…
No. It's just--well, it's simply--it's simply a process where it said this is what the secretary
wants. You know, he's the secretary, this is the policy. You know, my thing is, if this
is the policy that’s going to be done then the--it's illusory to say that the public
will really have an opportunity to affect a change to a policy but that’s--but not--I'm
giving that because that he has authority to do that. I'm just putting out the real--whether
or not the comments are going to be really taking into consideration. But I'm going to
leave you; I'm going to take you at your word that…
We're reading them all and responding to them all.
You know, you're going to do a better job of receiving public comment than the previous
one. I just want to throw that out on the table.
We will do our best. On your second question, how we measure public engagement and the actual
applications that are submitted to us. We actually have some criteria that are around
how states go about building broad coalitions of support and we actually ask them submit
some evidence that they’ve done that, that they’ve got support from a variety of different
communities, business communities, community-based organizations, whole bunch of different kinds
of constituencies in the state. And the more of those you have, for lack of a better way
to put it, the stronger your application, the more points you'll get. So, we are trying
to measure that and take that in to consideration because we do think it’s important when
you're doing ambitious reforms like these to have a broad base of support.
Hi, I'm Trish Brennan-Gac with Learning Point Associates. We work with a number of states
in the Midwest region of the country and so this question comes from one of the states
that we're working with. In terms of this notion of collaboration, it sounds like some
states are talking to a lots of different people and feel like they may have to make
choices or maybe not. So, the question is really, can states submit more than one application,
so if there are different collaborations they want to intern to they have that option? Or
is it really just one application per state?
It's one application per state.
Good afternoon, my name is Walter Richardson. I'm from Los Angeles, California, from Los
Angeles Unified School District. I am a parent. I'm here because Los Angeles Unified School
District have submitted a letter of intent to be considered as a state not as a district.
Parents do not support that. We support the grant for LAUSD, the L.A. Unified is a district
and we want them to go through the same process that all other district go through by going
through the state. But we also want to ensure that this pound (ph) which you'll implement
wills them a knowledge that you will consider parents to make sure that they are involved
from the very onset of this particular grant. I did not find out about this from L.A. Unified,
I found out from another private organization. That’s why I'm here today. L.A. Unified
did not pay for my plane fare. So, what I'm saying to you is that…
Yes.
Parents have got to be there of the participating students. We must be a part of this process.
Organizations are fine, but at the same time we don’t want organization replacing the
voice of the parents of the participating students in this process because student achievement
is the main objective and the goal, and these kids are our future. But we want to ensure
that you will keep in my mind that keep of place in there for parents. And advisers committees
need to really be a basic part of this and put back in to the legislation. I did prepare
and have a letter of LA Unified intent for you and I want you to read that. And also
we support this but we would like to also be able to be there so that when you are here
in this--having this forum, that we would have parent representatives here to be able
to come and give our comments.
That’s great. Thank you. I'll be happy to take that and also I'm going to ask you to
also submit it in writing here because this is the official way to get it in.
I will.
So, do both. Thank you.
Hi, Joanne. I'm Martin Blank with the Institute for Educational Leadership and the Coalition
for Community Schools. I wonder if you could provide some clarification around the competitive
as distinguished from the invitational priorities. I mean in the education world and in many
worlds, people say we manage what we measure. So, its something is invitational is not going
to be meant--not going to be measured, what's the incentive for states to pay attention
and what was you thinking about the distinction between those competitive and invitational
priorities?
So, I can tell you what the difference between them is, you can--not--I need you to submit
the other questions about what's our thinking about how we decided what was what, those
are the kinds of things that you would need to submit to the comments. But invitational
priorities, you, I mean you’ve got it right. Invitational priorities are things that we're
interested in and we would like states to think about and consider sort of across the
board as they're developing their strategies but you don’t earn extra points for it.
Uh-hmm. Uh-hmm.
But there are things that we think are good things to consider and cross-cutting things
that might impact across a number of these different reform areas.
OK, we'll work on it.
OK, so would we.
Good.
Good afternoon, I'm Zella Knight. I'm also from the Los Angeles Unified School District
and I want to echo in regards to my colleague but I want to expound a little bit further.
I have a lack of understanding as a parent as to what the philosophical differences with
DOE and our SEA in regards to the data and the teacher effectiveness, that’s one of
the components relative to race to the top. In addition, our LEA, Los Angeles Unified
School District is going to be impacted because of that philosophical difference. I have the
welcoming opportunity to serve on our states' title and committee of practitioners, and
it's a challenging and daunting issue to say, "OK, on a state level, we're going to be part
of this," when I represent a district that is larger than our state and larger than most
states here in this room. We're challenged. Finally, relative to what we’re reading
as parents, there is not grounding relative to accountability. It's great that we have
additional funding. It's great that we have a vision in regards to what should be done
for the kids. However, when it comes to the deep down work of those low-achieving schools,
they're not sanctioned. They're not disciplined as we disciplined our children. And as a parent,
that’s what we're seeking relative to that. Let's not continue to reward and dumb the
child. Let's truthfully talk about accountability and transparency to whereas we can effectually
make change by giving a penalty where it needs to be and rewarding those who's successful.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, thanks for having us today. My name is Tony Shivers with the National
Association of State Boards of Education. I think I know the answer to this question
but could you give you a sense of how are you're going to weigh each of the state reform
plans, criteria and the conditional criteria?
So, I don’t know if this is the answer you thought I would I give but the answer is that,
we don’t know the answer to that one yet. We're--since these are proposed priorities,
figuring out how to weight them is premature. So, we're waiting until we figure out what
the final list of priorities looks like. The weights will be published as part of the final
application package so states will know that when they apply. But we don’t actually even
know the answer to that yet ourselves until we've gone through this process with the public.
OK. Thank you.
Thanks. Yes?
Yes, just--my name is Collin Kerr (ph) [INDISTINCT] Education Foundation and I'm really interested
on what the state of Wisconsin is going to do on this issue. But there's been a ton of
money spent on Title one, we all know that, and there's accountability for process but
not outcomes.
Uh-hmm.
What are the accountability measures going to be for these resources for states who win
these grants? And then also, what is the vetting process going to be like? And I was just hoping
that each of you could speak to that issue when you in your comments.
The vetting process…
The vetting process for who get selected, how it gets selected.
For picking the winners?
Exactly.
So we'll--we'll be talking more about that at a later date, but the basic process for
all of these competitive grant is a per review process, where we'll have experts who come
in and--and judge each of these proposals. But we'll have a lot more detail than that
in the next few months for you.
And then there's the accountability. You know, we--we--you're going to spend a lot of money,
what are the accountability measures? If you haven't figured it out yet, that's fine, but...
So in the notice--so in the notice for proposed priorities, we have suggested performance
measures because we're concerned about the same thing and there's obviously hundreds
of millions of dollars at stake here per state. So we've suggested performance measures. And
let me just suggest that you look there, there's an appendix. States actually submit their
own specific measures in many cases and target numbers in all cases. But we've suggested
different ways that we think it make sense to be accountable for the achievement goals
as well as the…
Okay.
…process goals. How are we doing, time-wise? I don't know if (Maci) or Tony, are you guys
Probably, we take just one last question and then we move on.
Okay, great.
Hi, Brian Rainer from the National Governors Association. I just have a quick question.
In the high quality assessments piece, there's a line that says, "the extent to which this
consortium includes a significant number of states," is there a definition as to what
that means?
No.
Okay.
There is not.
Okay, thank you.
Joan Hyatt. Nancy Seagull with ETS. I think you've answered this, but I just want to confirm
my own understanding. So, if a state applies for phase one funding and either they're turned
down or they're accepted but later they have other ideas of how they could improve their
system and want to apply for funds in the second round, is that accepted or do they
only have one bite at the apple?
So, if they win in phase one.
Right.
Then they win and they go start working.
Right.
We do expect this to be a pretty collaborative process over the course of several years with
the department. So I don't think we think that this is a sort of a static picture that
they must then march to exactly this blueprint, there'll be some room for conversations. If
there's some new ideas they have that they think are terrific and want to add to the--to
the pot. If they don't win, they certainly can rework their proposal in any way they
want and resubmit it for phase two absolutely.
Okay, great.
Okay, should we turn it over to Jim?
Okay.
Aim that way.
Oh, really?
Yes.
Okay, we're going to switch gears to the--to the Invest and Innovation Fund, the fund formerly
known as the Invest In and What Works and Innovation Fund. Can you hear okay? Okay.
How's that? Better? Okay? So the conversation we just have, Joan was actually a great warm-up
in a couple of different ways. One--you still can't hear me in the back? Can we--let's switch
mics. Better?
Yes.
Okay great. The time that we just listened to Joan is a great warm-up in a couple of
different ways. One, a lot of the frame--the overall framework and the way the competition
works is very similar to the overall strategy and the frame is the same. And three, in terms
of the questions that I'll be able to answer, my notice is not even in public yet. Okay?
So I just need to set expectations right up front that there's a lot of information that
you want that I'm not going to be able to give you until we go public with the notice.
But I did want to start the layout the overall frames when the principals around, how were
thinking about this. So that people can start to--to think about the kind of partnerships
and activities they want to engage in. This--the purpose of this slide is just to remind you
the overall frame of our work. What we are tried to do is obviously emphasizing the four
basic assurance areas, is to scale the reform nationally with the stimulus dollars and then
also to accelerate that with the race to the top. We're trying to put an emphasis in place
and actually built some of the infrastructure the scale excellence where we can see it,
and then to spur transformational innovation where we can. Now, that takes the form in
the innovation fund which is a $650 million competitive fund. It is--the eligible applicants
are LEA's and non-profits, not SCA's. LEA's and non-profits, they have to meet specific
eligibility requirements that are currently spelled out in the statute--I'll stop there.
The statute does not specify what of kinds of things that people can propose to do. It
is likely though that when you do hit the notes and priorities, we will set boundaries
for practical reasons in as much as judicial reasons in order to ensure that we can run
a process where people can actually make comparisons, determine what's most effective, what's not
effective, all of that good stuff. When--we are going to try and trail Race to the Top
largely by a few weeks throughout the competition; one for practical reasons, just in terms of
the enormity of the magnitude of the program. We are expecting thousands of applications
for this competition. The public with comment periods and all of those things you could
expect to be taxing on the department. Second, our expectation is that both LEA's and non-profits
are going to want to figure out how they fit into the state competition framework as well
as how they fit into the LEA context, their individual application context? And so we
want to give them that opportunity.
So here is the highest level, what I can tell you, and that's where I'm going to stop today
to be honest, which is that we're really focused on driving these innovations towards very
specific set of outcomes. We want to look for outcomes on the student achievement, matriculation
and graduation. There's going to be heavy emphasis on evidence, on the quality and the
relevance of that evidence. There's going to be heavy emphasis on learning. So what
will we learn from this particular proposal, this proposed activity, that's going to be
a benefit to the field and how well is the evaluation, for lack of a better work, that's
wrapped around it. That's going to--how well is that evaluation designed, so that it will
definitively answer those questions for us. Sustainability, how do we know that financially,
and with a small peep politically, the proposed project is going to be sustained after we're
done with our funding? And then scalability, with the strategy for scaling, the capacity
for scaling and the feasibility of scaling, so things like cost, all of those things actually
factor in. Now, this would--this--this fund was originally called the What Works and Innovation
Fund. And people have note it before that there's a little dissonance in that, and so
you can expect that there are going to be some things that are going to look more like
what works and they'll have different associations to this kind of core criteria as those things
that are really going to be breakthrough ideas and innovative. And they'll have different
correlations but what we have expectations for around evidence and been able to demonstrate
sustainability and things like that. We will recognize the differences in those things.
But the reality is the core principle is still going to be the same. In the end, what we
hope to come out with is that we have a number of programs that are of high quality, with
really strong evidence basis that can expand regionally and nationally based on the dollars
that we are able to provide them. That will build the capacity of a number of organizations
that are essential, that are in the field today, that have been doing good work. But
need to build the capacity in order to scale and meet the demand, once people figure out
that their stuff actually works. There are a number of promising concepts, some of which
we're familiar with and one of the things that when really help comes out in this competition
is things that we're not familiar with, that are really promising. They start to actually
have the evidence based to actually you recognize much more broadly. Fourth, out of this, if
we don't figure out a way to create some platforms that allows us to have ongoing innovation
in the sector, recognize that this is a large one time investment in this field that it
should create some platforms and networks and relationships to allow not only for the
development and innovations but for the broad scaling of those innovations overtime. And
then if we really do a good job, we'll also get some breakthrough innovations out of this.
For people who really think out of the box and actually come up with some things that
actually change the trajectory of the pace of learning that we're seeing in the field.
That was fast and that was it. Okay, are there any questions of the talk? Recognizing that
all of the basic parameters--yes sir? One--basic parameters that Joan laid out about where
we are, actually one step a year earlier in the process. Yes sir?
Good afternoon again. In this process, is there a criteria or measurements whatever
that matches he applicant and the--and the geographical location of the project, specifically
will a non-profit that creates itself in Wisconsin or Iowa, be able to come in and say, I want
to do a program in the District of Columbia.
So--because the likely--because a lot of this is about being able to scale what works? It's
reasonable to assume that people were proposed to do things in places where they are not
today. What we have not spelled out is on what basis and what evidence they will have
to bring to the table, that those are the kinds of partnerships that are--we're--they're
likely to receive. That the target populations would be of a particular priority that they
would have evidence of this kind of support, they will be required to sustain it afterwards.
The--all of that--those things are things that are left to be defined.
So I asked a very important question?
I hope mine is important. This is Jade West. I'm with the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education. Two questions, what are you thinking of as a threshold to determine
what works? In other words, there's a lot of sort of competing research results out
there.
Yes.
And one person's definition may not be another. The second part of the question is, do you
have an independent evaluation in mind for the innovation projects to have a determination
as to, you know, what sort of results really are, you know, being achieved?
So in the first question, that's actually addressed to a specific criteria around what
kind of evidence would meet the threshold, so I can't speak to that. On--so sorry about
that.
That's okay. That will be spoken to the [INDISTINCT].
That'll be very much spoken to in the--in the notice. And on the second question about
the evaluation, so there was no--you might have noted there was one note that said, there
was no set aside for a separate evaluation of the innovation, overall innovation fund.
But that when I mentioned the core principles, learning and evaluation was a core component
of the design of the competition itself. So the likelihood is that applicants will have
to you speak to you, how they actually will think about evaluations well.
Yes, has money. Thanks.
Fritz.
Fritz Edelstein, Public Private Action. You've kind of let it out that the proposed rules
that you're going to come--that you're going to publish will be out eventually. Do you
have any sense of range of time?
What--more yesterday than today.
Well spoken. The--also in your presentation, you talked about looking at innovation at
what works in almost two different pots. Are you anticipating that you're going to have
two different competitions within it? Or is it, you're just going to check the applications
that come through in and throw them in up against the wall and say they're two different
Are those the only two choices?
Yes, unfortunately.
Or [INDISTINCT] notice [INDISTINCT].
Unfortunately, I think I can't actually enter that one. Yes, unfortunately I don't think
I can actually answer that one.
Okay.
Sorry about that. Yes.
David DeSchryver, with Brustein & Manasevit. In the--in the notices, will there be anything
to address procurement issues? So if a district or a non-profit is working with existing vendors
and they want to bring solution to the scale and what--does it in any way just procurement
and how to that and how to kind of exist with existing state [INDISTINCT]?
So yes, yes. In the notice you can expect to see the description of the current Elsborough
lead applicants, potential partnerships and probably more and frequently asked questions.
The kind of subordinate relationships they could have behind their application.
Excellent.
Rebecca Flores of the Houston Independence School District. On the Race to the Top funds,
I know that states could only apply individually even if--even though they were working with
the collaborative. So, I was just curious, for this program
Yes.
If we want to join and work and send them an application as a collaborative, will be--will
we be able to? And if…
Yes. Our intent, our intent is to encourage partnership and collaboration. And the reason
I say it that way is--frankly, that is one of the most complicated components to figuring
out how to make this work well.
And for the Race to the Top, I just kind of even though I'm not--we're not applying, but
if Texas enters into collaborative with Oklahoma, but Texas' application is approved and Oklahoma's
is not. How does that work?
So, that’s exactly why states are applying individually, so it's not a collaborative
for my whole proposal, it's in specific areas. Texas would come in with its own proposal
for how it plans to use Race to the Top funds to accomplish these goals. And in doing so,
it might have a couple places where it's working with other people, but Texas is coming in
on its own two feet with a proposal.
Okay.
Good afternoon again. Walter Richardson from L.A. Unified.
Yes, Sir.
I forgot to say that I'm the District Advisor Committee, first Vice Chair, that represents
607 identified tier one schools, approximately 600,000 students and 105 million parents.
I have many concerns in regard to--after the four year period that you--if this is working,
then the fund runs out. Some schools are really--districts are making great improvement. Will there be
a second allocation of money for those districts that are making progress of if there are some
that are making great models. Are you--you then going to take those models that are really
exceeding greatly and use those particular models to model the entire nation? Or what's
going to be the status of this? And also, what is going to be--you know, normally when
you give grants--I've been around 43 years dealing with the school district, and normally
when you give a grant, once they get the money, there's no real managing. What formal managing
that the Fed is going to really have on this? Then what if any sanctions are going to take
place providing that a district abusely used, misused the funds?
So first of all, thank you for asking about accountability for results. We very much have
the intention to work towards accountability for results on all of this. However, one of
the things that we hope to hold people accountable to is, you noticed I mentioned sustainability
earlier. So, in the individual case of grant, applicants should--will need to plan for the
fact that there will not be an additional reward from this particular pool. This pool
will be gone, once we make the awards.
Okay.
And we can now speak to future applications or grant programs, unfortunately.
Okay. So, please--Thank you, but please make that clear to all of them so they understand
that.
Thank you. Yes, Ma'am?
Hi. I'm Marjorie Cohen with the National League of Cities. My question goes to a follow-up
from a couple questions ago. So, LEAs and non-profits are part--or are going to be applying
for this. Is it possible for an LEA or a non-profit to be part of more than one application?
So, we haven’t specified that, but as for the following question we will spell out all
the opportunities for partnership as well as eligibility and notice and priorities.
Okay, thank you.
Okay. And now--and I think we're going to need to take one more question, and then go
talk to the next section, and then we can round it up at the end.
Okay, thank you. Cynthia Woodside with New York State Ed. We're, at the state level,
we're wondering if you're envisioning any role for the states in the innovation fund
process or is this just going to be, you know, from the locals and non-profits, you know,
up to you.
So, the eligible lead applicants are LEAs and non-profits. To my knowledge, there is
nothing in the statute that prohibits an LEA from wanting to partner with the state.
So there possibly could be a role but there's not a designed role at this point.
Correct.
Thank you.
Okay. And with that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Ann Whalen.
Good afternoon. Can everybody hear me on this mic? Great. Okay. So, this part of the agenda
is to talk about the State Stabilization Phase Two; proposed requirements definition and
review criteria. As Tony mentioned in his opening, this--earlier this winter there is
$100 billion, roughly, for education as part of ARRA. One of the largest chunks of these
funds actually went to State Stabilization or SFSF. We are looking at in three different
chunks, two for education and one for government services. The first chunk for education the
20.0--the 20 billion--28--excuse me, billion dollars in phase one. Eight billion for government
services and 20.0--12.6 billion for education phase two. On April 1st, a Dear Colleague
letter went out to the chiefs on the governor outlining the timing and the award details
to the majority of this funding. Basically, the 2/3 for phase one for the stabilization
and announced our intent to publish notice detailing the specific requirement for phase
two. As Joanne mentioned last week a notice for proposed requirements, definitions, and
an approval criteria have been up for Race to the Top as well as SFSF phase two on July
29th. It'll be up in the Federal Register for 30 days for public comment. Please submit
all public comments in writing to www.regulations.gov. Similar to Race to the Top and for the majority
of the RR programs we are looking at the SFSF through the four reform assurances. Part of
SFSF phase two is measuring the state progress against these four assurances, so this is
the teacher effectiveness and leadership effectiveness, the longitudinal data systems, high-standards
and quality assessments and intensive support for struggling schools. And I apologize--I'm
through this relatively quickly because I know we're running out of time, but slow me
down if you need me to slowdown. As part of the proposed reporting requirements, we are
asking all states to provide us data, again, a set of indicators under each assurance.
The metrics will include three descriptions and 30 indictors. Of the 30 indicators, nine
request confirmation under existing information that we already received of the department.
We will be pre-populating that information and we are putting this as part of the application
because we believe it provides valuable context for additional information we're collecting
under the application. Of the 21 new indicators, eight are yes or no questions, so our intent
with this application is to be very transparent around data and around where states are in
terms of advancing and progressing along these four assurances, but to not measure their
actual--the data they actually provide us. This is truly a tool for us to see where states
are, how they are moving along with education reform, and to be used by all stakeholders
within the community, within practitioners, and within the educational field. The number
of indicators around descriptors ensure in theories that there'll be eight for teacher
distribution, two for data collection, fourteen for standards and assessments, and nine for
struggling schools. All of these indicators and descriptions are outlined in the notice,
as well as you should have receive their chart on your way in, that gave brief description
of what the indictors are and high level rationale. If a state is unable to provide us the data
at the time of submitting their application, we just ask that the state then submit a plan
for how they will get us that data as soon as possible, or by the latest September 30th,
2011. As I mentioned earlier our intent of this application in asking for this information
is to truly be transparent around state progress around these four education reforms. Therefore,
all of these applications and plans will be available on to the public on our website,
and that’s says it multiple times, sorry. So high-level, I'm just going to walkthrough
a couple of the indicators or descriptions we're requesting just to show for--some of
the examples of what we're asking for. Under the first assurance for teacher effectiveness
and equitable distribution we're asking for the distribution of teacher by performance
level by school. For that to make sense we know that we also have to ask for what does
your teacher evaluation system look like in your LEA in your state. So, many of the indicators
have one--many of these--under each assurance there's an indicator with a high--we believe
it’s a level indicator. It will give us a lot of information about the LEA, and the
districts--and the states are moving towards the reform assurance, but often times to get
to that data we may have to ask for one or two pieces of information underlying that.
under longitudinal data systems, we’re asking which of the 12 elements, describe an America
competes act the state has attained. If the--if you answer yes or no, whether you have those
12 element, if you do not have those 12 elements, we ask for a plan of how you will attain these
12 elements. Under standards and assessments, we're asking for the number of students who
graduate from high school using the four-year adjusted cohort rate, the number in present
of those students who enroll in an IHE, and the number in percent of those students who
complete one year's worth of credit in two years. Again, if a states does have all exist
data when they're submitting their application all we ask for then is a plan by which they
will attain this data by no later than September 30th, 2011. and in under struggling schools,
the president and Arne has really put spotlight on the bottom performing chronically low achieving
schools with--Oops, excuse me--within the sate, therefore we're asking each state to
identify these bottom five percent schools, and give us information about what they have
done to turn around these schools. Additionally, we're asking for information about number
of charter schools available with in the state, and how many of the charter schools have been
schools and for what reason, why. And we're hoping with that information, we don’t have
to drive towards what type of accountability is surrounding charter schools. So, that’s
high-level, where we are SFSF phase two application. Are there any--welcome any questions. And
similar to my colleagues, I maybe limited in how or if I can answer.
Yes. And thank for that presentation. I'm Arthur Rothkopf with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
And we’re extremely supportive of the Race to the Top and all the reforms that are there.
And we're--and the business community generally is very supportive of the assurances which
were contained in ARRA. I’d have to say that as we monitor what's going on out there,
and it is a part of coalition, we feel very positive about the transparency coming out
of the department, we can find out what you're doing. But our chambers, our local groups
that are focusing on education reform are, sort of, hopelessly in the dark about what
the states are doing. We've had sessions with them. We brought them in. We talked to them.
We do not know what's going on. They do not know what’s going on and they're telling
us they don’t what's going on. I guess, when you come--I guess, I make that observation
then get to what you're doing, I mean, these states will come in and they'll tell you all
these wonderful things they are doing, but they may have been that beforehand and not
use any of the SFSF $36 billion to get there. And will you be testing that or in some way
holding their feet to fire to say, "No, you're just using it to plug the gaps, and not really
to use reforms." So, I guess I'm asking how do you enforce all of this and how do we get
real transparency at the state level?
Such a great question. Through this application we are proposing to collect, what we believe
are important information that inform transparency at the state and LEA level. And as Joann mentioned
in her presentation that SFSF 1 and SFSF 2 approval is one of the eligibility criteria,
proposed eligibility criteria for Race to the Top as well as in their application, it
is proposed that states explain how they invested their funds in education.
Okay.
Thank you to the extent that you encouraged to move forward and press your policy objectives,
I welcome that. It is my hope being a resident and education advocate in the District of
Columbia that the president and the secretary will be as equally vigorous and strong and
stern in his oppose--in his current opposition and maintain that opposition to vouchers for
the District of Columbia. Don't fall on that; don't take the sword on that, stand firm.
There are people in this city who support the president and the secretary in saying,
"No" to those vouchers; to that voucher program, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. In regards to the SFS resources, parents want to know--let me back up, I met
with Secretary Arne Duncan in May of this year and he stated that, parents need to be
the watchdogs of these fundings and that if we may report back to him, that then that
would be something carried out, you got that? I'm concerned about when parents do come forth
and go to their schools and get the necessary data and they're not doing it without some
form of abuse, they are not a Walter Richardson, I can hound their abuse. What type of safeguards
or what type of preventives that we're going to do or put into the law to help save godparents
from being abused or their kids being attacked, when these parents go out and get this data
and send it back to Washington, D.C. and then what, if anything is going to be done in order
to be able to hit what requirement are you going to put up on the states, to ensure that
they have to do a follow through on having to monitor because there is a disconnect regarding
charter schools. Charter schools are not doing the thing that is required of them with the
law. Example, they make--the student population should be based upon what is in the population
and it's being discriminated where they are choosing their applicants that they bringing
to the school.
Let me just--this brings up a good topic that I wanted to interject then maybe you all can
add to it. We very much want everyone to be a watchdog of how money is spent and there
is a mechanism for that and there's a mechanism for anonymity and protection. With $100 billion
going out the door as quickly as it will, we know that there will be some waste, some
fraud, some abuse of it and we want to know about that. And our office of Inspector General,
in particular, wants to know about that. And they can take in your tips, your information
in a variety of forms, email, they have a hotline; they have a mailing address and it's
all anonymous and we'll be pushing--doing more than just me standing up here and telling
you about this, doing outreach around that. So we know that--we want those reports and
we want parents to be watchdogs, we want business groups to be watchdogs, we want all our stakeholders
at the ground level to be looking out for that. Did you all want to say anymore, along
those lines? Ok, why don't we take the next question or comment over here.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Alison Avera. I am with the Department of Education in New York City
and just sort of a question across the three of you which is, what will be the relationship
between the data that is gathered for the--for assurances and the actual applications for
the other funds. For instance, might you be looking just that, okay, they've provided
the data on the different teacher distribution criteria; or might you use that then make
assessments as to--if the LEA's or SEA's have been effective and actually equitably distributing
teachers or making progress towards that. And I'm just using that as an example but
the larger question is how would you relate the data to the actual competitive applications?
So for SFSF2, we are not going to place a value judgment on the data that is submitted,
so what we are looking at is to ensure that the data is available and that it's transparent
and that public can monitor how states are progressing across these reforms. When we
are looking across multiple grants out of the Department of Education, we are truly
looking for areas of overlap and trying to bring consistency in our definition than what
we are asking for, wherever possible for the grants to make it as user friendly for the
applicants as possible.
Good afternoon, [INDISTINCT]. From a parent perspective, I'm going to ask two things,
the SEA and LEA that we represent, California and Los Angeles, we have a large English learner
base and the challenge is, you're seeking comment relative online or with the new technology
however, many of our English learners are not savvy enough to do that. They're not comfortable
to have leaders come forth to speak on their behalf. That's a challenge because we're trying
to grasp all parents and getting by in--relative to transparency, accountability and the last
word reform. In addition to that, one area as a parent that I don't like is a "yes or
no" question. Reason being, is because that can be interpretive from one perspective I
can give you a yes, from another perspective, I can give you a no; and again I want to reiterate
in support of my SEA, it's a daunting challenge to deal with an LEA, Los Angeles unified school
district that is larger than the SEA, in many capacities. So what I ask in the future, that
we don't utilize this one-size-fit-all mechanism because there's different factors that involve
and with data, you're not going to collect the true vetting for data.
So can I just ask that for your "yes no" question that you please submit it in writing so we
can take that into consideration, please.
Hi, David [INDISTINCT]; clarifying question that the woman just ask prior, a moment ago
and that's just the required indicator, so the required is really not that you meet it
but that you have it and show plans on progressing on it. So if in districts or states that don’t
have that system, you're really looking for what's the plan and place to develop that
system; so not that you fail to meet the indicator but that you're moving towards or progressing.
Correct. The beauty of SFSF2 is that everybody can be a winner.
Wonderful.
Hi. Trish Brennan-Gac again with Learning Points Associates. I have a question about
expectations for states and districts around timing with so many different funds. Is it
accurate to say that for the competitive funds, also teacher incentive fund and school improvement--that
all of the applications will be a made available to states and districts in 2009 and that all
of the applications for first phases will be due by the end of 2009.
So I'm actually going to see if we can go back to Tony's slide. Which high level outlines
when we think that all of these proposed notices will be available and when we anticipate to
be able to publish final notices. So I think you're point there is significant overlap?
We hope that people see this as an opportunity to collaborate and to inform their applications
across these grants and as an opportunity to really leverage thinking.
As a probability but not definitive; just because of the--I can say is because the one
that is the most at risk is probably innovation fund, simply because we need to understand
what it's going to take to get through the common period, if we have lots and lots and
lots which we could, we could push our time right back and then, sorry? If we have lots
and lots of public comments, it could push back our timeline and then in particular,
we have thousands as opposed to a couple of thousand but thousands of applicants that,
it would put back our timeline.
But it won't. So that the applications will be due by the end of 2009? Because we parents…
Yes.
We got [INDISTINCT] whole day.
I'm just trying to foresee it, you know, when you see this. This is incredibly helpful just
even understand that timing, but even just to know, you know, some applications will
be due by [INDISTINCT].
Great [INDISTINCT].
Thank you.
Let it be noted that Jim smiled in a very nice way, [INDISTINCT], Tristan made a point
that winter can be very long, Jim smiled again. This is for our transcriptions; I'll only
take one last question.
Hi, is it possible to return to an innovation fund question?
I think it is.
Great, thank you.
And we'll probably smile some more.
OK, great.
So let's see what happens.
I'm looking at the fact sheet in the folder and I'm sorry, my name is Kim Kiely with the
National College Access Network.
Yes.
I'm wondering if you or the future notice could talk a little bit more about the differences
you see between scaling up effective programs and quote simple innovation--simple expansion.
Yes.
Thanks.
So let me--let me speak to that, it's actually something that probably needs to be clarified
even in the information sheets. There's a line that says, what this is not supposed
to do, is a simple expansion. There were--there used to be some other lines in there that
were being deemed inappropriate and so they got taken out which have made it more clear.
That basically is to say if your program that's already at scale, in millions of--serving
millions of students, this is not for you to apply to expand your program to a few more
schools.
OK.
That was the intention of that line, without the additional context is not quite so clear.
But definitely, by definition, this is meant to help scale the--evidenced-based practice
programs.
OK. Thank you.
Sure.
OK. Well, thank you for good questions and good comments again, anything that you want
to actually be official, you need to submit in writing and we outlined how to do that.
And I do want to reiterate how important it is to us that we get any reports of shenanigans
or otherwise with the money at all levels. The hotline, I happen to know offhand, it's
1800-MISUSED, which is clever but you can do this online or through the mail as well
with our Inspection General's office. A couple of other things here on a variety of topics;
H1N1 flu, I hope it is on the minds of our stakeholder groups, both the importance of
keeping kids healthy and safe as this flu returns for the fall-flu season in, you know,
in a form that we haven't seen before. And that we think about how we keep kids learning,
if school is interrupted by it. We would be--we expect the CDC will be releasing guidance
for schools, for the fall this Friday and then we'll be pushing that out in a variety
of ways but do be thinking about what that means for your group and how you can help
keep everyone safe and learning as well. We're looking for feedback on ed.gov about ed.gov,
so if you have any questions about the website or any feedback about the website as we redesign
it, please file that with us through ed.gov. We're also looking for feedback on these sessions
and so, when you leave, we hope you will drop off a completed evaluation form. These were
on your chairs and we certainly appreciate that. We'll have a transcript, we have power
points, we'll have video of this forum on ed.gov later this week, w e expect. So check
back and please do share that with your groups and any other information that you gathered
here. We'll convene again in September, date to be determined, agenda to be determined
as well but I think we'll start to get the people focusing around ESEA reauthorization
and sort of the timetable for that and how we can take in your comments and policy documents
there. So with that, enjoy the rest of your summer and we will hope to see you again next
month. Thanks everyone.