Negotiations were ongoing at press time to pass a bill to ensure California’s eligibility for federal Race to the Top funding. In the meantime the state has released a final Memorandum of Understanding that local educational agencies will be required to sign under RTT guidelines.
Although the conditions of the MOU are entirely voluntary, all elements must be implemented if a local educational agency agrees to sign and receive funding. The deadline for LEAs to sign such MOUs is Jan. 8, 2010, while states must submit their federal RTT applications by Jan. 19.
ACSA has been working to ensure the most accurate, timely information goes out to the field, and that LEAs are knowledgeable of the requirements prior to signing the MOUs.
"ACSA’s priority is that local education leaders receive clear information from the state and that there are as many protections as possible from long-term unfunded mandates," said ACSA Legislative Advocate Sherry Skelly Griffith.
ACSA anticipates that beyond the MOU process, there will be some new statewide mandates; in particular, requirements to implement one of†four specific turnaround models if a school is identified in the lowest-achieving 5 percent.
ACSA is supporting ABX58, Brownley, D-Santa Monica, to implement any necessary RTT requirements. ACSA believes this bill most closely reflects the guidelines, does not create new costly programs, ensures 80 percent of RTT funding goes to local educational agencies, and makes professional development for teachers and principals a priority.
Funding formula unclear
ACSA has been heavily engaged in negotiating California’s approach to RTT through legislation and as part of any final RTT State Plan. Unfortunately, at press time, there was still no draft State Plan to review. However, ACSA continues to advocate that it be made public soon. Representatives for the governor and state superintendent of public instruction have assured stakeholders the MOU to be signed by LEAs reflects the final RTT State Plan.
Actual per-LEA funding is unclear at this point, with the exception that 50 percent of the funds must be distributed to "participating LEAs" based on the Title 1 formula (not Title 1 activities). This 50 percent will be based on the number of Title 1 eligible students participating, so the larger number of LEAs participating in the state the better.
Funds for non-Title 1 schools and LEAs will also be available, but it’s unclear how much the state will set aside from the other 50 percent reserved for the state to use as they see fit. State officials indicate there are "state level activities" to be funded that benefit all LEAs statewide; however, ACSA has not seen a plan. The understanding is that if awarded a grant, LEAs will receive the funds in increments, not in one appropriation. Timelines for appropriations are likely to come from the federal level if the state receives a grant.
Key MOU elements advocated by ACSA
While it’s hard to imagine even shorter RTT deadlines or a lack of key protections, ACSA was successful in advocating some elements to provide greater protections and time, including:
•The right to submit a "letter of intent" by Dec. 31.
•Extension to submit the final signed MOU by Jan. 8, 2010, allowing for emergency local board meetings as needed.
•Ensuring that requirements for "modifications" are written into the MOU, including a "good faith" clause.
•Termination clause is explicit.
•Right to not implement the RTT final scope of work (due 90 days after state is awarded grant) if the state does not approve the plan and before the LEA receives any grant funds. Opting out after receiving funds is problematic, and the state has the right to "state recourse for LEA non-performance," including reimbursement payment status, temporarily withholding funds, etc.
•Allowing MOU plans to include annual staff evaluations that do not need to be identical for all teachers and principals and that can include a formative evaluation one year and a summative the next year.
•A commitment from the state that a collaborative process will be used by the state to design "model teacher and principal evaluations using multiple measures." A model evaluation process would not be mandated but could serve as an important approach to negotiating locally how to implement the annual evaluation process for participating LEAs.
ACSA is offering the following suggestions and advice regarding the MOU process for LEAs:
•LEAs interested in participating should secure as much up front local support as possible for signing on to the RTT scope of work.
•Consult your legal counsel to ensure you have all the requisite power and authority to execute the MOU, particularly if you submit with only one signature (e.g. the district superintendent).
•Review your current local strategic plans and budget projections to anticipate how the required scope of work will align with local goals and commitments. You are expected to use RTT and other resources to implement the MOU, so be aware that unfunded activities will be the LEA’s responsibility.
•Advise your local governing board that there is a "state recourse" clause for LEA non-performance once you have begun to receive RTT funds.
•Advise your local governing board that the final MOU may only be amended by "written agreement signed by each of the parties involved and in consultation with the U.S. Department of Education." Remember, this is a binding agreement once enacted.
•Termination is an option in the case of "non-compliance, or upon mutual agreement of the parties, whichever occurs first."
•Nothing in the MOU alters the rights, remedies and procedures afforded school and district employees; however the LEA and local collective bargaining units agree to confer in good faith over matters within the scope of work and that portions of the MOU subject to collective bargaining shall be implemented only upon the agreement of the LEA and local bargaining units.
Assurances – scope of work
Included in RTT assurances are a number of scope-of-work requirements to be aware of, including:
•Under "Data Systems to Support Instruction" please be aware that the state may ask you to submit additional data regarding student and teacher attendance, and that what is defined as required "formative" assessment is typically what we define as "benchmark" assessments.
•Under "Great Teachers and Leaders" please be aware that you are committing to annual teacher and principal evaluations and that student growth is a "significant factor." Some states have defined this as over 50 percent of the evaluation, but California is not defining "significant."
•Please refer to Attachment 2 of the MOU package to carefully review the definitions, particularly for the definitions of "effective and highly effective" teachers and principals, as these are the definitions you must use in redistributing your staff.
•Please note under the "Struggling Schools" section that you must implement one of the four turnaround strategies if you have an identified school. This will be required of both participating LEAs and non-participating LEAs.
To view the entire Race to the Top MOU package, visit the California Department of Education online at www.cde.ca.gov and click on "What’s New" in the right hand corner of the homepage. ACSA will also be posting updates as they become available.