The U.S. Department of Education (ED) released the final selection criteria for states applying for the $4.3 billion Race to the Top Fund, which was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The guidance, which was published in the Federal Register on November 18, includes responses to over 1,100 comments that were received during the 30-day comment period.

ED expects to release the first phase of Race to the Top awards during the first half of 2010, and Phase 2 awards will be released before September 30, 2010. The notice also indicates that “the size and number of Race to the Top awards in the two phases of funding will depend on the scope and quality of the applications that states submit to the department.” Appendix B includes a rubric that identifies the point allocations for each selection criterion and indicates how priorities will be judged and grantees will be selected.

While the overall structure of the grant remains the same, many of the requirements, selection criteria and definitions were revised in response to the public comments. Because states must demonstrate progress on the four education reform areas included in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), the first eligibility requirement was amended to provide that a state must have both phases of its SFSF application approved prior to being awarded a Race to the Top grant. The second eligibility requirement was also revised to clarify that the state must not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the state level linking data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation. The notice further explains that a state would be eligible for a Race to the Top grant “even if a teacher or principal contract or collective bargaining agreement at the local level prohibited the use of student achievement or student growth data for evaluation purposes.”

Six priorities have been designated for the Race to the Top Fund, and state applications could be approved in this order:

1)      Comprehensive approach to education reform – an absolute priority that all applicants must meet;

2)      Emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and science (STEM) – a competitive preference priority for which a state can receive additional points;

3)      Innovations for improving early learning outcomes – an invitational priority, which was not originally included in the draft guidance;

4)      Expansion and adaptation of longitudinal data systems – an invitational priority;

5)      P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment – an invitational priority; and

6)      School-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning – an invitational priority.

NASSP was disappointed that an emphasis on literacy was not included as a competitive preference priority in the final guidance. In response to our comments on this issue, the notice stated: “We believe that applicants must necessarily place priority on improving and advancing the literacy skills of students if they are to adequately address these criteria, and, therefore, do not believe that a separate competitive priority focused on literacy is necessary.”

The final notice details the selection criteria for each of the four education reform areas, including the measurement of great teachers and leaders:

• Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals – the extent to which the state has legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions of higher education;
• Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance – the extent to which the state has a plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure participating districts:
• Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth and design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and principals;
• Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals and use these evaluations to inform professional development decisions; to compensate, promote, and retain teachers and principals; and for decisions concerning tenure and the removal of ineffective teachers and principals;
• Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals – the extent to which the state has a plan to ensure that students in high-poverty and high-minority schools have equitable access to highly effective teachers and principals and are not served by ineffective teachers and principals at higher rates than other students;
• Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs – the extent to which a state has a plan to link student achievement and student growth data to the students’ teachers and principals, to link this information to the in-state programs where those teachers and principals were prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the data for each credentialing program in the state; and
• Providing effective support to teachers and principals – the extent to which the state has a plan to provide effective, data-informed professional development, coaching, induction, and common planning and collaboration time to teachers and principals that are, where appropriate, ongoing and job-embedded.

The final notice defines an “effective principal” as a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates of student growth (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year). A “highly effective principal” is defined as a principal whose students achieve high rates of student growth (more than one grade level in an academic year). Based on comments submitted by NASSP, the guidance notes that “states, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and retaining numbers of effective teachers.”

The final notice attempts to streamline language concerning interventions for the lowest-achieving schools across the Race to the Top Fund, SFSF, and the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. Selection criteria would include the extent to which the state has a plan to identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state and to support school districts in turning around these schools by implementing one of the school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model) proposed in the SIG guidance released by ED in August. The notice clarifies that states and districts are not required to use the models, but states that support these interventions “will earn points that will strengthen their overall Race to the Top application and increase their chances of winning a Race to the Top grant.”

NASSP has already expressed major concerns with the four intervention models, which would all require the principal’s replacement as a condition for receiving school improvement funds. Although the final SIG notice is not expected to be released until December, ED responded to the public comments received on this issue. “The Secretary understands that replacing leadership and staff is one of the most difficult aspects of the school intervention models,” the notice states. “However, he also believes that in our lowest-achieving schools, many of which have failed to improve despite repeated earlier interventions, dramatic changes in leadership and staffing can be the key to creating the new climate and culture needed to break the cycle of educational failure.”

For more information on the Race to the Top Fund, go to: http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.