The Echo

Following last Wednesday night's Race to the Top workshop, I forwarded additional questions to Dr. Lowery for consideration.  Questions and responses are below.  Dr. Lowery's responses are in red and direct quotes from our email.

1) The plan is currently to continue with the DAPA II. Could you please help me understand how the DAPA II is a formative assessment? And if it is summerative, should the DAPA II due date be moved from January to April or May?

The beauty of DAPA II is that it documents children’s work throughout the year and then demonstrates cumulative growth at the end of the year. The formative side is made manifest as teachers and staff work with students throughout the year, making necessary modifications as needed to ensure student success. The summative side is the end result of yearlong interventions.

2) Involved LEAs: Addendum 2, issued December 18, 2009, states on page 6:

Alternatively, such an LEA could be included in the State's plan as an involved LE, in which case it would not be subject to the requirements regarding participating LEAS (and neither would it count towards the State's score under criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), nor will toward its performance targets that are defined in terms of participating LEAs. In this case, the State may denote funding on line 11 of the State Budget table (Funding for Involved LEAs).

Did I understand you clearly that Delaware will not request funding for nor add any LEA as an "involved LEA?"

We are only funding “participating” districts.

3) There was little conversation regarding the turnaround models or the Partnership Zone. Pulaski comes to mind as perhaps the most concerning school in the CSD. However, our principal in Pulaski is only in her second year and Christina reconstituted many of its schools last year as a result finally coming into compliance with the neighborhood schools law. Will these circumstances be taken into consideration when the DOE is selecting schools for the Zone and its Turnaround models? (Per the Proposed Code Changes, 103 Accountability for Schools, Districts, and the State, and identified in section 7.6) It has long been considered that any substantial change that a new principal endeavors takes 4-5 years to produce visible results. Additionally, Christina has a history of moving principals frequently. All of the models in the above noted section indicate that the principals in such schools must be replaced. Would taking such an action be prudent?

Schools for the Partnership Zone will be selected as prescribed by USDOE guidelines, trend data. Then we will only work with those districts that we trust to have the capacity –political will and leadership- to engage in substantive, meaningful progress for students and staff. The conversation that we have with districts will determine who will be awarded additional dollars to do really good work. DDOE will consider leadership abilities and PZ school selection will depend on leadership at the district and school level. Each district has to figure out the best means to address concerns like those that you have raised and present a plan of action for success.

4) Does DOE has a preferential order of models for the districts to engage?

DOE does not have a preferential order of models in which the districts may engage.

5) Where do you suggest a board member look to study successful examples of the four potential turnaround models? I'd like to see proven results before engaging any of Christina's schools in the MOU.

Please visit the USDOE or Mass Insight, Inc. websites.

6) You indicated that schools would have two years to show AYP under turnaround plans. That two year window does not seem to take in account the natural learning curve/rate of the students. Could you elaborate?

The two-year timeline is a federal requirement under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka “No Child Left Behind”), if a school is to move from under improvement to proficient or “turnaround.” Some schools, like Gauger-Cobbs, may make AYP for one year which positions them to come from under improvement, but a second successive year is mandated to determine progress successfully.