March, 2011

1. LEA Support Program Common Guidance for Goals 1 and 2 of Plans March, 2011

2. Review process for Goals 1 and 2 of plans • All plans were read by a minimum of 4 reviewers – each district’s facilitator and liaison*, and 2 other DOE readers • The reviewers were members of the DOE Leadership Team, Directors’ Council, and RTTT Project Management Office: • Amelia Hodges, Brian Curtis, Christopher Ruszkowski, Dan Cruce, Deb Hansen, Donna Mitchell, Ellen Mingione, Jim Lesko, Jim Palmer, Joanne Reihm, John Ray, John Sadowski, Karen Field Rogers, Karen Hutchison, Lillian Lowery, Linda Rogers, Linda Wolfe, Lisa Bishop, Marian Wolak, Martha Toomey, Mike Stetter, Noreen LaSorsa, Pat Bigelow, Peter Shulman, Rebecca Taber, Shannon Holston, Susan Haberstroh, Theresa Kough, Wayne Barton, Wayne Hartschuh • Reviewers read each plan and evaluated it using the rubric as a guide, and then convened for 1-2 hours to discuss and agree on feedback • There was a “calibration meeting” for 10+ reviewers (including Secretary Lowery), in which a single plan was reviewed to ensure rigor and consistency • There was a follow-up meeting between all facilitators, to discuss guidance for all LEAs based on the plans • * A small number of liaisons were unable to join the plan review sessions

3. Overall guidance for Goals 1 and 2 of plans (detail to follow) Specific Content Guidance Other Considerations General Plan Guidance Articulate what will be different for all students Describe how you will ensure that students take advantage of the opportunities you are offering Connect “college readiness” to higher education Clarify “STEM” programming Consider partnerships for complex efforts Consider reducing the use of one-off stipends Consider expanding desk audits to include targeted on-site monitoring Consider using a measure of data “access” in Objective 2 Plan to integrate DOE Instructional Improvement System Guidance Develop plans that can be understood and implemented by anyone Link activities to your LEA’s needs Answer all narrative questions Clarify budgets, person responsible, and timing for deliverables

4. Detail: Specific content guidance • Many districts are offering innovative opportunities, such as summer acceleration programs, new AP classes, afterschool support, SAT prep classes, etc. • Make sure to describe your coordinated strategy for supporting low-performing students (particularly in advanced coursework), and how you will ensure targeted students take advantage of those supports – e.g., will you default enroll students in advanced classes and summer previewing? Provide incentives for participation in AP exam preparation? • Maximize the use of time during the regular school day/year, rather than offering all supports after-school/over the summer • Your plan should be focused and prioritized based on your needs, but it should also address all types of students, to ensure that you achieve comprehensive reform and meet the needs of your community • Make sure to articulate what will be different/improved for students in elementary, middle, and high schools; as well as students at different achievement levels (at-risk, average, accelerated) – at times this may just be articulating things elsewhere in your plan • Priorities should be those areas in which you invest the most, not the only areas in which you invest – e.g., it is not acceptable to say that middle school is your priority, and to therefore have no new supports for teachers and students in elementary and high schools • Goal 1 is about college readiness, yet few plans discussed using information from institutions of higher education (IHEs) to drive their strategies - how are you using data from IHEs, and providing targeted PD to your teachers to meet the expectations of IHEs? • Many districts are including activities around STEM, without a coherent strategy or much detail. The state will provide more guidance on STEM, but districts should make sure to note that STEM is the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in a problem-based environment; not any one subject alone Connect “college readiness” to higher education Clarify “STEM” programming Describe how you will ensure that students take advantage of the opportunities you are offering Articulate what will be different for all students

5. Detail: Other considerations • Many districts are looking to align their curriculum, develop common formative assessments, etc. –how can you partner with nearby districts (or those with similar curriculum) to reduce the workload? • Many districts described multiple curriculum-related efforts, for which they planned to provide small stipends – how can you consolidate these efforts? For example, consider combining all additional responsibilities into the role of your teacher leaders, along with all of the additional pay – this could be easier for communication and progress monitoring purposes • Many districts described monitoring compliance and quality through district “reviews of data” - how will you use targeted on-site monitoring to ensure implementation with fidelity, beyond just desk audits? • Objective 2 is about access to and use of data – what are you really doing to improve your communities’ access to and use of data (teachers, parents, etc.)? Many districts focused on training for teachers alone. Consider using a measure of access (e.g., # of parents accessing Home Access at least 3x per year) and tie that to specific activities • Some districts did not describe their “instructional improvement systems” (IIS), or the way in which PLCs, PD, DPAS II, etc. integrate to improve instruction • DOE will provide more guidance on this at the March Chiefs’ meeting, all districts should plan to submit the plans for their IIS by June 30, 2011 Consider expanding desk audits to include targeted on-site monitoring Plan to integrate DOE Instructional Improvement System Guidance Consider partnerships for complex efforts Consider using a measure of data “access” in Obj. 2 Consider reducing the use of one-off stipends

6. Detail: General plan guidance • Districts must include specific activities and/or strategies to address their identified needs - the plan template provides a framework only, and must be tailored to your context Link activities to your LEA’s needs • Narratives must answer all of the questions listed in the template - many districts did not answer how the work will impact the district’s identified needs, represent an improvement over what has been done before, or be sustainable once RTTT funds are gone • Focus on developing plans that can be understood and implemented by anyone – these plans will be public documents, and should represent a comprehensive path forward • Consider having a community member who knows your district (but is not immersed in planning) read your plan for clarity and understanding • The budget in the template is only an estimate until the full grant is completed in ESPES • That said, it must be clear enough to understand what you are spending funds on, including an estimate by year (when applicable). For example, “Activity X: 150K per year for three years; 100K will be for the new Curriculum Coordinator (salary and OECs), 50K will be for stipends for 5 teacher leaders to meet monthly to review curriculum” • If you are allocating non-RTTT resources, please provide sufficient detail for us to understand those investments (e.g., “100K from Title II for a Math coach, pending grant approval”) - Please note: non-RTTT resources related to the Consolidated Application will not be considered approved until the Consolidated Application is approved. • Include your district’s cost share for statewide initiatives (if applicable) • Please include the name and position of the person responsible • Each deliverable should have associated timing. Consider using the format (Month/Quarter, Year, Frequency) – for example (August, 2011, annually) or (Fall, 2012, quarterly thereafter) Answer all narrative questions Develop plans that can be understood and implemented by anyone Clarify budgets, person responsible, and timing for deliverables

7. Next Steps • There are scheduled calls between Secretary Lowery and districts to discuss their feedback from Tuesday – Friday • Districts should work with their facilitators and liaisons to revise their Goal 1 and 2 sections before April submission • DOE has posted a list of “sample activities, deliverables and measures” and strong examples to help with refinement on the LEA Support Program website • The revision process will be different for each district, and should correlate to the rating received: On-track: The section of the plan is exceptional or acceptable, and may need some modest revision at most. It is on-track to receive years 2-4 of funding. Somewhat On-track: The section of the plan needs revision, after which it will likely be on-track to receive years 2-4 of funding. Somewhat Off-track: The section of the plan needs significant revision, after which it may be on-track to receive years 2-4 of funding. Off-track: The section of the plan needs significant revision. It is not on-track to receive years 2-4 of funding.