Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How are the components of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) related to the components of Race to the Top?

California has been awarded Phase 1 SFSF funds and is currently in the process of completing the application for Phase 2, due January 11, 2010. The two programs relate in several ways. First, approval of the state’s SFSF Phase 2 application is an eligibility requirement for Race to the Top. Second, and perhaps more importantly, both Race to the Top and SFSF include a focus on the same four assurance areas: 1) standards and assessments; 2) data use to inform instruction; 3) great teachers and leaders; and 4) turning around the lowest-achieving schools. Therefore, the State is working to ensure that the two funding programs are well aligned within the state. However, it is important to note that requirements for SFSF apply to all LEAs in the state while requirements for Race to the Top only apply to those LEAs that voluntarily participate in Race to the Top.

We recently learned that we are entering Year 1 of Program Improvement. We are trying to sort through revisions to our LEA Plan. Will the Race to the Top elements be part of our LEA Plan?

We strongly encourage you to integrate Race to the Top into your LEA plan, if you plan to participate in Race to the Top. We do not view Race to the Top as different from your LEA’s single plan; we want to see Race to the Top as part of the systemic plan for improving student outcomes.

How does Race to the Top interact with Program Improvement requirements? Can our district design professional development for teachers and administrators, or are we held to the mandates for Program Improvement?

Race to the Top is not designed to conflict with or replace anything related to Program Improvement requirements as contained within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The State may seek waivers for certain elements of ESEA as part of our application, but if we are to do so, we will certainly share this information with participating LEAs.

Who can participate in Race to the Top?

All LEAs—including districts, charter schools, and county offices of education—in the State are eligible for Race to the Top funding. While states may define what LEAs need to do to participate in Race to the Top, states do not have the discretion to select participating LEAs or limit LEA participation by using certain demographic or geographic characteristics or setting up a competition to determine which LEAs may participate.

What does an LEA need to submit in order to participate?

Are districts that do not receive Title I funds eligible to participate in Race to the Top?

Yes. We encourage all LEAs to consider participation, as we hope that participating LEAs will work in conjunction with the State to implement a new vision under Race to the Top. Any LEA that would like to participate in Race to the Top and can produce a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that agrees to the State’s plan can participate in Race to the Top. LEAs that are eligible but do not receive Title I funds can receive funding from the 50 percent of the funding that is left to the state’s discretion.

Are Program Improvement districts qualified to join this process?

Yes, all LEAs are eligible to participate. Additionally, if an LEA agrees to participate in Race to the Top and has one or more schools that are defined by the State to be in the lowest 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools, the LEA will have access to Race to the Top funds in addition to School Improvement Grant funds. Therefore, signing onto Race to the Top may provide an LEA two sources of funding if the State’s Race to the Top application is successful.

I work for a charter management organization. Each of our four high schools is an LEA in its own right. If we were to participate in Race to the Top, it would likely be as one entity, a consortium, i.e., of LEAs. Should we fill out an MOU for each school/LEA, or as a single organization?

Every LEA must sign a Memorandum of Understanding in order to participate.

What do I need to do if my LEA is interested in participating?

Participating LEAs must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State that indicates that the LEA agrees to the State’s plan for Race to the Top. These MOUs must be signed by the LEA superintendent (or an equivalent authorized signatory) and preferably also be signed by the president of the local governing board and the local teachers’ union leader, or the equivalent entities for charter schools. The State application has a greater chance of winning if MOUs are signed by all parties. The expectation is that participating LEAs will work in partnership with the State’s plan because the reform elements are designed to work together to create a comprehensive approach to improving teaching and learning.

Can LEAs excuse themselves from participating after the state receives the grant?

Generally, we would expect LEAs that signed an MOU with the State to participate in Race to the Top and to implement the State’s entire plan, as the various components are designed to work together to create a comprehensive approach to improving teaching and learning. However, there may be circumstances under which an LEA would not be able to participate in Race to the Top after California learns whether they have won the award.

What is the total projection of how much money California can hope to win?

California will compete for a share of the $4.35 billion Race to the Top; the U.S. Department of Education estimated that the range California could receive is between $350-$700 million.

How much could a participating LEA expect to receive if California wins Race to the Top?

While we understand one of the main questions that LEAs have is about the estimated amount of an LEA’s Race to the Top award, it is very difficult for us to provide an accurate assessment of the amounts for any individual LEA. We do know that if California wins this grant, the State could receive between $350 and $700 million. In addition, we know that at least 50 percent of this money must be distributed to participating LEAs based on the Title I formula. However, because we do not know the total size of the final grant, nor the number of LEAs and schools joining the effort, we cannot estimate an amount for participating LEAs.

Is this one- time funding?

Race to the Top funding is one-time funding, however it is dispersed over a four-year period and so LEAs will not receive this money in one installment.

Is it true that funding will be distributed in installments after an LEA has demonstrated progress on benchmark targets?

While we do not yet know the schedule the U.S. Department of Education will create for distributing the funds, based on previous comments by the U.S. Secretary of Education, we believe the federal government will disburse funding based on both LEAs and the State meeting their benchmarks. It is likely that the first installment will be prior to the initiation of the work, but we expect that subsequent installments will be based on progress toward benchmarks.

If an LEA enters Race to the Top with only a portion of its schools participating, how does this affect the funding that the LEA will receive?

Funding will be based on the proportion of an LEA’s schools that participate.

When will LEAs know about the expected level of funding?

There are several factors that will determine the amount that each LEA will receive. We cannot estimate the level of funding until we know both the number of LEAs participating and the amount of funding California receives. Actual dollar amounts will not be known until the State receives notification of its success in April.

How will the State’s 50 percent of the award be distributed?

That has not yet been determined. Based on the final number of LEAs that sign an MOU, the State will need to determine what level of funding to request in the application. At that time, the State will have a clearer picture of how the State’s 50 percent will be allocated, including additional allotments to LEAs and investments in state structures and systems.

Our board is getting ready to vote this week and we understand that there may be some modifications to the MOU around "exit strategies." Will the existing MOU be modified for any reason?

What happens if an LEA signs the MOU but then realizes or decides that it cannot implement the measures? Is there an exit strategy?

The MOU states that the agreement may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, if an LEA decides they are unable to participate after signing the MOU, they will be allowed to exit the agreement with the State. If an LEA leaves before the funding is released, they will simply be removed from the list of participating LEAs. If an LEA leaves after the funding is released, an LEA would not receive additional funding for Race to Top; however, the LEA would not be required to return the Race to the Top funds it had already received provided that the LEA has acted in good faith and has completed work for which the funding was provided.

We were wondering if instead of opening contracts we could have an MOU between the district and our teachers’ association that would have us agree to open discussions about the Turnaround model when and only when we have a Turnaround School situation. Would that suffice in lieu of the LEA stating that we would open contracts to bargain at this prior to having a Turnaround School?

As stated in the MOU, if your LEA has one of the State’s lowest-achieving schools you must use one of the four intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model) as specified in the Race to the Top application, whether or not your LEA has signed an MOU. Nothing in the Race to the Top MOU requires that you open contracts unless it is necessary.

How can an LEA commit to the MOU if they have not seen the State plan?

As this is a collaborative process amongst the State leadership team and based on stakeholder feedback, we are still in the process of developing the State’s full plan. Section A1 of the application, outlining the overview of the State's education reform agenda, has been posted on this site for review by LEA's and the public. It is located on the "Home" page under Key Items as well as on the "What's New" page. However, everything an LEA needs to commit to is laid out in both the MOU introductory letter and the MOU itself that was sent out on December 14. LEAs will not be asked to commit to anything beyond what is in the current MOU, and the final State application will simply discuss our existing structures and reform efforts and how the state plans to fulfill the vision laid out in the letter and assist LEAs in their work. We have received over 800 LEA commitments based on the current MOU.

If an LEA submits a Scope of Work (Exhibit II of the MOU) that focuses on only specific pieces of the state plan will the LEA be removed from Race to the Top eligibility?

If the LEA submits a Scope of Work that is contrary to the MOU, which clearly states that participating LEAs must implement all elements of the state plan, then the LEA will not be eligible to participate. Although the federal application states that LEAs may choose to participate in “all or significant portions” of the State’s plan, the State defines what LEAs must do to participate. California has decided, based on federal guidance and the competitive and comprehensive nature of Race to the Top, to require LEAs to implement all elements of the State’s plan.

Can an LEA modify the MOU?

No. Modified MOUs will not be accepted.

If California does not receive an award for Race to the Top, what happens to the MOUs that have been submitted by the LEAs?

We are confident that we will win this federal grant award. However, in the event that we do not, the MOU states in the first paragraph on page 1 that the “purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework of collaboration, as well as articulate specific roles and responsibilities in support of the State in its implementation of an approved Race to the Top grant project.” Therefore, if the State is not awarded a Race to the Top grant, the MOU will be null and void.

I am a county office of education (COE) that is leading a consortium of districts that are submitting a joint MOU and will be signing an MOU with my consortium. Do I also need to sign a separate MOU specifically for my COE as well?

We believe that working in consortia around these issues is a promising idea, and one that is in line with the State’s general approach in Race to the Top to developing communities of practice across the state. Therefore, we do encourage LEAs to work together in a consortium. However, for purposes of the MOU, we ask that each LEA submit their own MOU. We also ask that the lead for each consortium submit a letter that details which LEAs are a member of their consortium so that we can report that in our application as well.

We also understand that this differs from previous guidance we provided; we are learning along with you as this process proceeds and appreciate your input along the way. If you have already submitted a joint MOU, you need not submit again individually unless you prefer to.

What is the advantage of entering the process as part of a consortium?

Smaller LEAs may feel they will benefit from participating as part of a larger group in order to tap into shared resources and benefit from knowledge transfer across LEAs and county offices of education. There are no legal or funding ramifications for entering as part of a consortium. In addition, it is important to note that each LEA must submit an individual MOU.

Can smaller districts, charter schools, or county offices of education join together in a consortium?

Collaboration amongst various LEAs is perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged for smaller districts. It is important to note that each LEA must submit a separate MOU, regardless of whether the LEA plans to join a consortium.

Are there fiscal implications for an LEA that chooses to participate in a consortium?

No, there are no fiscal implications related to participating or not participating in a consortium. Funding will be distributed directly to participating LEAs whether they are involved in a consortium or not.

Are you encouraging districts to apply separately or to apply with county offices of education for these funds?

We are encouraging LEAs to do whatever makes sense for them, to ensure that their participation in Race to the Top is as beneficial as possible. If a consortium would work for your LEA, please make sure that the MOU is signed by all appropriate parties.

I am a county office of education (COE) that is leading a consortium of districts who are submitting a joint MOU and will be signing an MOU with my consortium. Do I also need to sign a separate MOU specifically for my COE as well?

We believe that working in consortia around these issues is a promising idea, and one that is in line with the State’s general approach in Race to the Top to developing communities of practice across the state. Therefore, we do encourage LEAs to work together in a consortium. However, for purposes of the MOU, we ask that each LEA submit their own MOU. We also ask that the lead for each consortium submit a letter that details which LEAs are a member of their consortium so that we can report that in our application as well.

We also understand that this differs from previous guidance we provided; we are learning along with you as this process proceeds and appreciate your input along the way. If you have already submitted a joint MOU, you need not submit again individually unless you prefer to.

If our county office of education creates a consortium of districts, can we charge an indirect cost to manage the work?

Race to the Top funds will be awarded directly to the LEAs. The decision as to whether a district would provide the county office of education with funds to manage the consortium would be a local decision between the county office and the participating LEAs.

Can non-K-12 institutions (e.g. institutions of higher education, business, and education organizations) join a county’s consortium?

The arrangement of the consortium is a local decision; reaching out to the entire community and engaging them in this work is very appropriate and is encouraged. If the county office of education knows that these institutions or organizations will participate in the consortium, please include them within the list of consortium members provided to the State. However, they would not be part of the formal MOU provided by each participating LEA.

If my LEA enters into a consortium and later needs to drop out, how does that affect the consortium?

If an LEA who signed on to a consortium determines that they cannot participate in Race to the Top before the funding is dispersed, they will simply be taken off the list of participating LEAs. For LEAs who exit Race to the Top after the funding is dispersed, the State will need to determine at a later time how to reallocate the resources accordingly.

Are annual teacher/principal evaluations required?

Race to the Top requires that LEAs do conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that use multiple measures, including student achievement as a significant factor in the evaluation. However, these evaluations do not necessarily need to be identical each year. For example, the evaluations could be formative in nature in one year and summative in the next year. The exact conditions of the evaluation agreements will continue to be locally bargained. By signing on to Race to the Top, an LEA is committing to conferring in good faith with the their union on this topic.

Our current contract has teachers evaluated every two years. We also have a stipulation that a teacher with 10 years of experience, highly qualified, and has received a score on the evaluation form (based on the California Teaching Standards) of 3 or higher on a 4 point rubric, is eligible for evaluations every 5 years. For Race to the Top does this all need to be changed so all teachers are evaluated every year?

Race to the Top requires that LEAs conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that use multiple measures, including student achievement as a significant factor in the evaluation. However, these evaluations do not necessarily need to be identical each year. For example, the evaluations could be formative in nature in one year and summative in the next. The exact conditions of the evaluation agreements will continue to be locally bargained. By signing on to Race to the Top, an LEA is committing to conferring in good faith with their union on this topic.

Who is going to define an “effective teacher?"

Ultimately the LEA will create the definition of an effective teacher. The State will create the new growth model that measures student growth from one year to the next; this measure must be incorporated into the LEA’s definition of an effective teacher. However, LEAs may also include other measures as they develop their definition of an effective teacher.

In the December 14, 2009, letter from the State inviting LEA participation, it states that participating LEAs will commit to: “Design and implement teacher and principal evaluation systems (or refine the State’s model evaluation systems…)”, what does “refine” in this context mean? Will the State model(s) include references on how to use student data within these evaluations?

The State will not mandate that LEAs implement the State’s model evaluation system(s). Rather, LEAs will be allowed to make revisions to the model(s) that the State develops, or use their own locally-developed system. Additionally, the model(s) developed will include information on how to use student data within the evaluations, as federal requirements for Race to the Top participation mandate that student achievement data be used as a “significant portion” of the evaluation.

Will there be a “pay-for–performance” component to the State’s plan for great teachers and leaders?

According to federal guidelines, participating LEAs must implement some form of compensation that is tied to the measured effectiveness of their teachers and leaders; the LEA will ultimately need to determine how to design their local system to meet this requirement.

If compensation is tied to student achievement, has the State considered how this will be accomplished for grade levels and subject areas for which this doesn’t apply (i.e., kindergarten and 1st grade, foreign language, etc.)?

We recognize there are many issues, including the assessment of non-tested subjects and grades, which will emerge when developing evaluations for teachers and leaders. Under RTTT, the state will likely provide guidance on these issues to participating LEAs and will offer tools, resources and possibly technical support to LEAs as they implement new evaluation systems.

Will the State create and mandate professional development for teachers and principals as part of Race to the Top, or will districts design and own the professional development?

Certain professional development elements will be developed by the State, in coordination and collaboration with participating LEAs. For instance, the State will be developing professional development related to the new standards and instructional materials that will be required if the State adopts a version of the common core standards. The State also plans to issue a competitive bid for the provision of professional development for “turnaround principals.” Other elements of professional development for teachers and principals will be a local decision.

Do the four school intervention models pertain only to schools that are identified as Turnaround Schools? In other words, are these models required only for schools that are the lowest 5 percent in the state?

Yes. Only if a school is identified as one of the lowest 5 percent of the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the entire state (see criteria definition in attachment 3 of the MOU), and pending action currently being considered by the legislature, the LEA must implement one of the four intervention models as outlined in the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant applications.

If the state is mandated to intervene in the bottom 5 percent of low-performing schools, what happens if an LEA that has these schools does not participate in Race to the Top?

The LEA would still be responsible for implementing one of the four federally-prescribed intervention strategies as part of our federal School Improvement Grant (SIG), but would not be responsible for the other areas of Race to the Top.

Are county offices of education (COEs) expected to adopt one of the four intervention models?

If COEs operate schools which are defined as part of the persistently lowest-achieving schools, then they must implement one of the intervention models required by the U.S. Department of Education. The list of persistently lowest-achieving schools has not yet been finalized but a definition has been agreed upon by the legislature that excludes court, community, or community day schools.

Will alternative schools and/or special education schools (i.e. ASAM schools) be included in the lowest five percent?

If a school is currently implementing a turnaround strategy and has only just recently hired a new principal, must the principal be fired?

For single school districts in which the superintendent is also the principal of the school, what happens if the district signs up for Race to the Top?

If the school is identified in the bottom five percent of the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the entire state, the school must implement one of the four school intervention models. To the question of the continued employment of the Superintendent/principal, that is an issue that should be addressed through the turnaround model selected by the local governing board.

Are we going to revise California’s standards?

The standards that California currently has are generally recognized as world class high standards. The State of California, along with 47 other states, has agreed to participate in the consortia of states looking at a common core of standards. The legislature is currently considering having California adopt the common core with some additional standards to ensure California retains its rigor. If the Legislature calls for their adoption, we will pursue adoption and implementation over a reasonable timeframe.

What should an LEA do with instructional materials recently purchased but prior to the intended adoption of the new standards aligned with the common core?

It will be necessary that an LEA integrate new course materials that are aligned with the common core standards when these are adopted. However, the adoption schedule has been staggered so that LEAs will not be required to adopt all materials in the same year. Our tentative timeline indicates that we do not anticipate new materials being required until the spring of 2013.

Given that the State does not currently collect the data necessary for a growth accountability model, how will the State implement the pilot by 2010-11?

When the Race to the Top award is announced, we will work over the next few months to develop a new growth model based on the State’s current set of standards and current data collected from LEAs. We have been assured that our planned regression analysis psychometrically valid and in fact this has already been effectively implemented in other states.

If the State does not win Race to the Top, are all the provisions of SB X5 4 law still in effect?

The current bill does contain several elements that would remain statewide requirements regardless of whether the State wins the Race to the Top competition such as the identification of the lowest five percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools and parent petition provisions. These and other provisions in the legislation were included in the bill not only to strengthen our application to the U.S. Department of Education but also to continue to build statewide policies that move the State forward in closing the achievement gap. The bills from the special session on Race to the Top contain provisions that will be implemented regardless of Race to the Top funding.

For some of the MOU aspects surrounding teachers (e.g., evaluation, termination, etc.), will legislation be needed to address those areas?

These issues will continue to be bargained locally. Entering into the MOU means you commit to engaging in a process to discuss those issues locally.