Race to the Top
District Application for Funding
CFDA Number: 84.416
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
OMB Number: 1894-0014
Expiration Date: February 28, 2013
1
Contents
A. Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 4
A(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision ................................................ 5
A(2) Approach to implementation ............................................................................................ 17
A(3) LEA-wide reform & change ............................................................................................. 22
A(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes ............................................................. 27
B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform ......................................................... 34
B(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success ................................................................. 34
B(1)(a) Improving student learning outcomes and closing achievement gaps ..................... 36
B(1)(b) Ambitious and significant reforms in the lowest performing schools ..................... 40
B(1)(c) – Making student performance data available ......................................................... 48
B(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments ........................... 54
B(3) State context for implementation ...................................................................................... 56
B(4) Stakeholder engagement and support ............................................................................... 58
B(4)(a) Description of engagement process and response to feedback ................................ 58
B(4)(b) Letters of support from key stakeholders................................................................. 68
C. Preparing Students for College and Careers ...................................................................... 71
Introduction to Section C .......................................................................................................... 72
C(1): Learning ........................................................................................................................... 72
Linking the NPS Plan to Detailed Application Criteria ........................................................ 86
C(2) Teaching and Leading ...................................................................................................... 91
Linking the NPS Plan to Detailed Application Criteria ...................................................... 109
D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 115
D(1) LEA practices, policies, rules ......................................................................................... 115
D(1)(a) Central office organization .................................................................................... 115
D(1)(b) Providing school leaders with sufficient flexibility and autonomy ....................... 117
D(1)(c) Enabling students to progress based on demonstrated mastery ............................. 118
D(1)(d) Giving students multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery ........................... 119
D(1)(e) Providing adaptable and accessible learning resources ......................................... 120
D(2) LEA and school infrastructure ....................................................................................... 123
D(2)(a) Ensuring access to learning resources.................................................................... 123
2
D(2)(b) Providing Appropriate Technical Support ............................................................. 126
D(2)(c) Empowering students and parents to use data ....................................................... 127
D(2)(d) Ensuring data system interoperability ................................................................... 128
E. Continuous Improvement .................................................................................................... 129
E(1) Continuous improvement process ................................................................................... 130
E(2) Ongoing communication and engagement ..................................................................... 140
E(3) Performance measures .................................................................................................... 141
E(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments ......................................................................... 162
F. Budget and Sustainability .................................................................................................... 166
F(1) Budget for the project ..................................................................................................... 167
Project 1 Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 172
Project 2 Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 183
Project 3 Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 194
Project 4 Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 214
F(2) Sustainability of project goals ......................................................................................... 220
X. Competitive Preference Priority ......................................................................................... 224
Table of Contents: Appendices
3
A. Vision
(A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision (10 points)
The extent to which the applicant has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform vision
that-(a) Builds on its work in four core educational assurance areas (as defined in this
notice);
(b) Articulates a clear and credible approach to the goals of accelerating student
achievement, deepening student learning, and increasing equity through personalized
student support grounded in common and individual tasks that are based on student
academic interests; and
(c) Describes what the classroom experience will be like for students and teachers
participating in personalized learning environments.
(A)(2) Applicant’s approach to implementation (10 points)
The extent to which the applicant’s approach to implementing its reform proposal (e.g.,
schools, grade bands, or subject areas) will support high-quality LEA-level and school-level
implementation of that proposal, including—
(a) A description of the process that the applicant used or will use to select schools to
participate. The process must ensure that the participating schools (as defined in this
notice) collectively meet the competition’s eligibility requirements;
(b) A list of the schools that will participate in grant activities (as available); and
(c) The total number of participating students (as defined in this notice), participating
students (as defined in this notice) from low-income families, participating students (as
defined in this notice) who are high-need students (as defined in this notice), and
participating educators (as defined in this notice). If participating schools (as defined
in this notice) have yet to be selected, the applicant may provide approximate numbers.
(A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change (10 points)
The extent to which the application includes a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice)
describing how the reform proposal will be scaled up and translated into meaningful reform to
support district-wide change beyond the participating schools (as defined in this notice), and
will help the applicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., the applicant’s logic model or theory of
change of how its plan will improve student learning outcomes for all students who would be
served by the applicant).
(A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes (10 points)
The extent to which the applicant’s vision is likely to result in improved student learning and
performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals
that are equal to or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and by student subgroup
4
(as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the following areas:
(a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth).
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice).
(c) Graduation rates (as defined in this notice).
(d) College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates.
Optional: The extent to which the applicant’s vision is likely to result in improved student
learning and performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable
annual goals for each participating LEA in the following area:
(e) Postsecondary degree attainment.
A(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision
Introduction
Last year, the Race to the Top District competition provided a unique opportunity for Newark
Public Schools (NPS) to reflect and plan. Superintendent Cami Anderson was just over a year
into her leadership of the district, during which time the district set forth an ambitious theory of
change centered around five pillars (which align closely with the four core assurance areas of the
Race to the Top program): develop effective professionals in every classroom; cultivate
transformational school leaders; re-imagine NPS as a service-oriented team; engage and involve
stakeholders to contribute to college-readiness; and provide top-tier school options for all
students. A strong alignment between the district, state, city, union, and philanthropic
community had opened up the possibilities for delivering on reform goals in ways that Newark
had never before achieved.
The notion of personalization and leveraging technology were reflected in the objectives
articulated with the pillars, but the district did not yet have a comprehensive strategy in this
initial theory of change and vision. Given NPS’ view of the school as the relevant unit of change
to foster personalized learning, we were also clear that there was much foundational work to be
done to ensure all schools in the district to be ready to take on the challenge.
NPS was named a “finalist” in the 2012 competition, and although the district did not ultimately
receive grant funds, we emerged with something even more fundamental: a strategy to organize
our efforts and accelerate the progress being made in Newark schools around personalization,
5
technology, and social and emotional support for students. One year later, as NPS re-submits an
application, it is on the basis of three core themes:

The fundamental conditions for success at NPS are stronger now than they have
ever been. We have made significant progress in executing against our Theory of
Change; we highlight some of our key accomplishments over the last year below:
1. Develop effective professionals in every classroom: In partnership with Student
Achievement Partners, NPS launched a new Framework for Effective Teaching
that not only focuses on student mastery of the Common Core but also
personalization, social and emotional learning, and the use of technology.
2. Cultivate transformational school leaders: A new Framework for Effective
Leadership focuses on breakthrough results as well as student and family support
and operational excellence. Newly-hired Network Teams are organized around
school type and principal needs in terms of coaching and support, and principal
satisfaction is at an all-time high.
3. Re-imagine NPS as a service-oriented team: In the past 24 months, NPS hired a
Chief Family and Community Engagement Officer, a Chief Talent Officer, and a
Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer – along with key members of their team –
reflecting our theory of change. At the same time, we moved to a weighted
student funding formula to put money in the hands of school leaders and increase
their flexibility to make decisions.
4. Engage and involve stakeholders to contribute to college-readiness: NPS hosts
monthly roundtables and frequent informal meetings with key constituents. A
community-wide initiative is focused on student attendance and has rallied the
city around a common goal: to decrease absenteeism by 50%. A newly-launched
“one-stop” call center provides streamlined support for families and stakeholders.
5. Provide top-tier school options for all students: NPS has opened 7 new schools in
two years – from model daycare centers to single gender schools to support the
diverse learning needs of all of NPS’ students. A strong alignment between the
district, state, city, union, and philanthropic community had opened up
possibilities for delivering on reform goals.
6

Our strategy for personalized learning is real, as evidenced by the implementation
underway on all three strands of work outlined in last year’s application. NPS’
strategy around personalization consists of three strands of work:
1. Invest in teacher capacity to use data: Last year, 10 K8 schools piloted interim
assessments, and this year all K8s are implementing these assessments to increase
access to formative data and allow for rapid feedback. Meanwhile, our Renew
Schools, discussed further in Section B(1), have served as labs of innovation for
the use of data and technology.
2. Integrate social-emotional teaching and learning with academics: New multidisciplinary Student Support Teams in each school focus on strengthening and
improving school culture and student engagement to create the conditions for
success. Extensive professional development for educators has focused on the
integration of social and emotional learning and teaching.
3. Pilot blended learning models to accelerate student achievement: Several schools
have piloted new tools so that we could learn from these pilots as we consider
scaling.
Further below in this section – and then throughout the application – we elaborate on
both the progress that has been made in the last year, as well as the remaining work
that would be supported by grant funds. We believe that every teacher must have the
data, tools, skill, and will to personalize their approach with each and every student in
order to make dramatic progress towards personalization.

We have strengthened existing partnerships, and developed relationships with new
organizations, that are built to increase district capacity to meet the needs of all
students: Even as NPS’ theory of change aims to develop highly effective teachers and
school leaders, the ambition of our personalized learning strategy will inevitably expose
gaps at both the school and central office level. Partnerships with proven organizations,
intentionally structured to build sustainable district capacity, are critical to help fill these
gaps. Over the past year, we forged, solidified, and began to scale a range of partnerships
with best-in-class organizations across all three areas of our strategy:
7
o (Strand 1) The Achievement Network provided central training and extensive onsite coaching and support to 8 Renew K8s and 10 non-Renew K8s. Their focus on
administering Common Core-aligned interim assessments, analyzing results and
using data to better inform instruction has already led to an increased focus on
personalization.
o (Strand 1) CRESST supported 15 high schools in administering school-wide and
research-based writing assessments, analyzing the results of these writing
assessments, and using them to adjust instruction.
o (Strand 2) Ramapo for Children provided over 350 hours of training and on-site
support for teachers and principals to more effectively focus on students’ social
and emotional learning and needs alongside academics in a strengths-based
approach.
o (Strand 2) The International Institute for Restorative Practices helped NPS launch
a city-wide initiative “Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance” by training teams of
student leaders, teachers, social workers, security officers and police officers in an
approach to school climate and discipline that helps students grow socially and
emotionally in the face of challenges and conflict.
o (Strand 3) Education Elements and New Classrooms are launching blended
learning pilots in schools where NPS believes the conditions for success are
present.
The partnerships discussed above are part of a comprehensive strategy with a clear plan and set
of evaluation measures outlined in this application. Taken together they significantly enhance
the district’s ability to deliver on our goals in the short- and long-term. NPS’ efforts to
implement our personalized learning strategy never slowed down after last year’s RTT-D
competition, and we have used the last year to lay the groundwork to ensure the district’s
readiness for the future. We are excited about the possibility that grant funds present to
accelerate our work even further. The remainder of this section describes the elements of our
plan in greater detail.
Newark Public Schools’ Strategy for Personalized Learning
8
The graphic below presents the key elements of our strategy, and reflects the core logic of a
personalized learning strategy that builds on our theory of action and the core educational
assurance areas:
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Ensure All Students
Graduate College-Ready
Our goal: Mastery of academic, social, and
emotional skills that align with college-readiness
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Three Key Strands of Work for
Race to the Top District:
These three building blocks
represent the work we will pursue
with grant resources to create
more personalized learning
environments for students
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
Core NPS Theory of Change:
District-wide levers form the
pillars of our strategy
Top-tier school options are the
unit of change to personalize the
learning environment
1
The current administration has defined success simply: ensure every single student in Newark
attends a "top-tier school option" that puts them on the path to college readiness. The ultimate
vision that all students will graduate college-ready is one that has been communicated to all
stakeholders, and that guides all of NPS’ work inside and outside of this grant. In order to
achieve that lofty and long-term goal, NPS adopted a Theory of Change that also includes
several key pillars, as described in the opening paragraphs of this application: Develop effective
professionals in every classroom; Cultivate transformational school leaders; Re-imagine NPS as
a service-oriented team; and Engage and Involve Stakeholders to Contribute to CollegeReadiness.
Our Theory of Change regards a school as “top tier” when either a majority of students are on
track to college readiness, or we can observe that ingredients are in place within the school to
9
reach that level of achievement soon.1 As we transform schools around this definition, the Race
to the Top District competition comes at just the right time: our plan for the grant will deepen
the work of schools with the enabling conditions for success by sharpening the focus on
personalized learning, and it will accelerate the work of the district in the pillars that make up the
Theory of Change.
Over the past year, NPS has made significant progress in each box of the graphic above, both the
Theory of Change and the personalized learning strands of work. In this section, we outline the
progress that has been made over the past year toward our vision of personalized learning, and in
Section B(1), we review the advances made on each of the Theory of Change levers.
Three Strands of Work Drive NPS’ Plan for Race to the Top District
The brief summaries that follow provide additional detail on each strand of work by reviewing in
more detail the progress that we have made to date, and how we are proposing to augment the
work through the RTT-D grant. In Sections A(2) and A(3), we return to each of these strands of
work to discuss how we have thought about systematically building the conditions for success
within each school while scaling the strategy across the district.
(1) Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data
What are the key activities in this strand of work?
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
1. Expand the use of Common Core-aligned interim
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
assessments already in place
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
2. Link these assessments with intensive coaching supports
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
that embed data-driven instructional practices within schools.
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
2
1
NPS defines the “ingredients for success” as five essential elements of high-performing, high-poverty schools: (1)
a great school leader; (2) excellent teachers; (3) clear mission and vision for the school; (4) safe building and
flexible resources; and (5) engaged families and students. These ingredients for success were publicly articulated as
the building blocks of the Renew School redesign process, and represent the conditions that NPS is trying to foster
in all schools through the Theory for Change. Section B(1) offers more details on the Renew School process.
10
3. Pilot innovative forms of teacher feedback to get more rapid-response, formative
support for teachers.
What progress have we made implementing this strand of work in the last year?
Recognizing the challenged starting place of many of our schools, the first objective in our
strategy is to build the basic organizational “muscle memory” for personalization by embedding
practices of data-driven instruction. In our application last year, we discussed a strategy to build
the foundations of data-driven instruction through a combination of Common Core-aligned
interim assessments, easy-to-use data reports, and intensive coaching for teachers and school
leaders. Achievement Network was listed as a key partner in that effort and at the time, was
working with 18 K-8 schools. Despite not receiving the grant funds, NPS went forward with
scaling up these supports to all K-8 schools, and in 2013-14, A-Net teams are working in 48 of
our schools. We also recognized the importance of extending these foundations for personalized
learning to our high schools, and have begun a pilot with CRESST to provide Common-Core
aligned formative writing assessments to 9th and 10th graders. Finally, we also recognize that the
ability to use data to identify student weaknesses and opportunities for improvement is limited in
its efficacy if teachers do not then have the tools and resources to support effective instruction.
NPS’ curriculum team is working closely with the A-Net team to ensure alignment in curriculum
and assessments. After an extensive year-long review process, the district adopted, purchased
and trained more than 700 teachers this summer on high-quality, Common Core-aligned
curriculum (from Math in Focus to Core Knowledge to Agile Mind). In addition, NPS launched
the Instructional Resource Center – a library of tools, unit maps, videos, and other materials for
NPS teachers.
How are we proposing to build on this work through the RTT-D grant?
While partnerships are critical to accelerating the district’s ability to use data to drive instruction,
ultimately this is capacity that we need to reside within our schools and the support structures of
our Assistant Superintendents. Now that we have scaled up work with the Achievement
Network to cover all of our K-8 schools, our goal over the course of the grant period is to embed
this capacity and processes in our schools, drawing down support over time while carefully
monitoring to ensure that school and district capabilities meet the high standard we need. At the
11
high school level, we will invest to expand our work with CRESST or alternative formative
assessment models and supports, pending the results of our ongoing initial implementation.
Finally, we want to improve on the ability for teachers to use data to drive not just their work
with students, but also to enhance their ability to be self-directed in pursuing individualized
professional development opportunities. We will invest to build out a video library we have
already begun to develop, with more local examples of great personalized instruction, and tight
linkages to the competencies our framework is seeking.
(2) Integrate Social-Emotional Teaching and Learning with Academics
What are the key activities in this strand of work?
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
1. Build individualized learning plans (ILPs) for students that
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
include both social-emotional and academic indicators aligned
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
to college-readiness
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
2. Develop standards, curriculum, and assessment that support
educators in teaching social-emotional skills with rigor
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
3. Ensure that schools have a multi-tiered structure of student
supports and partnerships that can address the social-emotional,
3
behavioral and mental health needs of all students
What progress have we made implementing this strand of work in the last year?
Our ultimate vision of the personalized learning environment is one in which academic and
social-emotional learning are deeply integrated and taught with the same level of rigor. Coming
out of last year’s application, we recognized the need to build stronger organizational
foundations at the school and central office level to support the integration of social-emotional
learning and academics. Without stronger organizational capacity, even the best tools (ILPs,
curriculum, blended learning) would not drive real change for teachers and students. We started
with the central team. For too long, the attendance office was seen as an operational function,
the guidance department spent most of their time reviewing transcripts, and the intervention team
processed suspensions – and they were all in separate parts of the NPS organization and largely
reactive and operational. We closed all three offices and created the Office and College of
12
Career Readiness to advance a vision around an integrated student support services strategy: a
comprehensive approach to supporting schools to ensure the social and emotional growth of all
students. OCCR supported a similar transformation at the school level – by providing training
and technical assistance to ensure each school established a Student Support Teams (SST). SSTs
are comprised of the school leader, guidance counselor, school safety officer, school nurse,
parent liaisons and teachers. These groups meet weekly to review academic and non-academic
measures to strengthen schools’ structural components and troubleshoot challenges (see
Appendix A(1) Item 1 for additional detail). Finally, the district capacity has been enhanced by
new partnerships with organizations that bring unique capabilities – e.g. the International
Institute for Restorative Practice, Turnaround for Children, Ramapo for Children. We believe
that it will take a combination of diverse perspectives on social-emotional learning from proven
organizations to support our vision of integrated ILPs, standards, and curriculum.
How are we proposing to build on this work through the RTT-D grant?
The anchor of our vision for the integration of social-emotional learning with academics is the
individualized learning plan, which allow students to articulate their academic, social-emotional,
and college and career strengths and needs. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, we will work
to develop the structure of ILPs, in collaboration with school leaders, beginning in grades 9-12.
Over the course of the grand period, our goal is to expand implementation through the middle
school grades, in order to have ILPs in place and actively utilized from grades 6-12, with the data
and structure serving as a key student support across the high school transition. To buttress ILPs,
though, we need to develop a set of robust standards and curriculum for social-emotional
learning. Indeed, ILPs can only achieve their greatest impact for students if teachers have the
resources, tools, and skills to incorporate social-emotional learning more heavily into their
classrooms. Because we recognize that the marketplace of resources to support social-emotional
learning remains nascent, this work will begin with a “R&D period,” in which NPS will work
with pilot schools and a selection of best-in-class partners to draft, test, and refine tools and
resources for broader application across the district by the end of the grant period. Section C(2)
provides more context on the partnerships we will forge to support this goal, and the
qualifications of our leadership team to achieve it.
13
(3) Pilot Blended Learning Models to Accelerate Student Achievement
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
What are the key activities within this strand of work?
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
1. Pilot a blended learning model for core literacy and math
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
instruction in the elementary grades
2. Pilot a blended learning model at the high school level that is
focused on accelerating literacy skill development
4
What progress have we made implementing this strand of work in the last year?
Our application last year was based on a belief that blended learning, when implemented well,
had the potential to “supercharge” personalization by utilizing technology and classroom rotation
models to individualize instruction beyond what any one teacher can do alone. Once again, we
did not allow the lack of grant funds to stop us from beginning this critical work, though we had
to move at a more modest pace in the number of pilots we were able to support. Beginning in
2013-14, we identified five K-8 schools as pilot sites to begin work in a blended learning model
– having selected those schools on the basis of having the conditions for success in place, in
terms of school leadership, instructional capacity, and technology infrastructure. Furthermore,
these pilots are supported by some of the most recognized and established partner organizations
in the field, Education Elements and New Classrooms. In addition, we have applied our Renew
School turnaround model to three high schools, a first step in establishing schools with the
conditions for success at the high school level, laying a foundation for subsequent blended
learning work during the grant period.
How are we proposing to build on this work through the RTT-D grant?
We are committed to using the grant period to learn from the pilot work that we have just begun,
while scaling up in schools with the conditions for success, based on a clear vision of what the
ideal personalized learning environment would look like. To meet each student precisely where
they are with lessons tailored to individual skill levels and interests, a teacher would need to
prepare as many lessons as students (25 students = 25 lessons) each day and then assess and
14
adapt in real-time. Our proposed blended learning model will make this dramatically easier for
teachers of all abilities. Instead of trying to prepare and teach 25 lessons a once, a teacher will
access a diverse range of digital content and related data streams from student work to craft
personalized lessons that students can access at individual workstations in combination with
other pedagogical approaches. Drawing on direct observation and the data from computer-based
work, teachers can also provide small-group instruction on the skills that require more direct
instruction, re-teaching, or higher order critical thinking. While most districts (including
Newark) find it prohibitively expensive to dramatically reduce class sizes, blended learning
models reduce the effective class size by enabling teachers to spend large portions of
instructional time working with small groups of students without compromising the quality of
content that other groups of students are working with.
The remainder of the application offers a more detailed explanation of the activities we aim to
pursue, the path by which this plan can create district-wide change, and the allocation of
resources to support each strand of work.
What will a personalized classroom environment look like for students and teachers?
In the end, all of these initiatives and investments only make sense to the extent that they lead to
a transformed vision of the classroom environment for students and teachers. The core tenets of
our vision include four key aspects:

Students have a clear sense of their progress along a trajectory toward a goal of collegereadiness, and are engaged in charting their own learning path: Both day-to-day
classroom content and regular interim assessments are providing feedback linked to a
single set of goals, and Individualized Learning Plans have become a recognized vehicle
for capturing student progress and reflecting student needs and interests.

Teachers have access to the best adaptive learning content, so that individual students are
receiving instruction that meets them where they are, addresses multiple learning styles
and needs, and keeps them engaged in learning: Our pilot strategy and prudent approach
to scaling will allow us to test and learn from the best adaptive learning courseware that
is available, and to adjust accordingly in what is a rapidly evolving market
15

Blended learning models are creating more time for teachers to lead instruction in small
groups: With other students engaged in individual work on digital content (or,
alternatively, in project-based or group work), the largest benefit that teachers often see
from a blended learning model is the ability to work with much smaller groups of
students for much of their instructional time.

Teachers have access to a broader range of data, integrated in a single system, that
identifies both the academic and social-emotional learning needs of students: On the
contrary, teachers today who want to practice data-driven instruction on a daily basis find
that it is inevitably time-intensive – paper-based, and requiring significant effort in data
entry and analysis, planning, and lesson creation. Our plan intends both to enhance the
speed and ease of accessing data, but most importantly to build a strong foundation of
teacher capacity to understand how to translate data quickly and effectively into
instructional decisions for individual students.
16
A(2) Approach to implementation
The NPS approach to implementation is rooted in lessons learned from national reform efforts
over the last fifteen years: recognition of many failed attempts at reform historically, and
appreciation of the challenges in creating truly sustainable change at scale. The risk of this
competition is the chance that districts subject themselves to the same old pitfalls: overconfidence in a single “silver bullet”; inattention to the supporting conditions for change;
ambition to scale up before the underlying model has been fully developed and refined.
Bearing these risks in mind, NPS takes our core theory of action that the school is the unit of
change, and builds on that toward an approach to implementation centered on three ideas:
1. We differentiate between investments that lay a broad foundation for reform, and those
that are more experimental and therefore require a more gradual approach
2. We invest first and most deeply in the schools that have demonstrated performance or
potential as “top-tier school options” (as defined in Section A(1)), while benefitting
from and accelerating the pillars of NPS’ Theory of Change to support more schools
attaining that status
As the pyramid-shaped strategic framework introduced in Section A(1) suggests, the speed of
rollout and the number of participating schools in each strand of work narrows as we move up
the diagram. The specific implementation model for each of the three strands of work is
described below:
Strand 1 – Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data – serves as a gateway to the other two
strands of work in the plan. To recap from Section A(1), this strand of work is rooted in
Common Core-aligned interim assessments, which are reinforced by regular on-the-ground
coaching supports and school-based routines to embed practices of data-driven instruction.

What grade levels do we target with this strand of work? These supports are focused on
grades 2-10 and aim to prepare students for annual PARCC assessments that will be the
defining measure of student performance beginning in 2014-15.

What level of scale do we aim to achieve with this work? Over the course of the grant
period, all district schools will participate in this strand of work.
17

What is the timeline for achieving this level of scale? Beginning in the current school
year (2013-14), all K-8 schools are working with the Achievement Network, and all high
schools are utilizing formative assessments developed by CRESST. Although this strand
of work is already at scale in terms of the number of schools covered, significant work
remains to embed routines of data-driven instruction within school culture and build
sustainable capacity within school and district teams.

What is the process for selecting participating schools? By definition, all schools with
grades 2-10 will receive these supports.
Importantly, no school will be selected to participate in pilot work within the other two strands of
our plan if it has not been showing promising traction in this first strand of work. We view the
use of interim assessment data and the practice of data-driven instruction as a necessary and
foundational condition for deeper levels of personalization.
Strand 2: Integrate Social-Emotional Learning with Academics
To recap from Section A(1), at the core of this strand of work is the notion that students create a
“roadmap to success” through their individualized learning plans, which incorporate academic,
social-emotional and college & career goals with achievable milestones. Educators enable
students to achieve their individual goals by teaching, and rigorously assessing, social-emotional
skills aligned to clear standards.

What grade levels do we target with this strand of work? These supports are aimed at
grades 6-12, the point at which social-emotional factors become even more crucial to
navigating the life changes students are facing, and when students becoming increasingly
prepared to take agency over their own path forward.

What level of scale do we aim to achieve with this work? By year four of the grant, we
plan to have scaled this strand of work to all schools with 6-12th grades.

What is the timeline for achieving this level of scale? The development of ILPs will
focus on collaborative work across high schools over the course of the 2013-14 school
year, before expanding to include middle schools over the subsequent two years. For the
R&D period that supports the development of social-emotional standards and curriculu,
we will identify a set of ~5 K-8 schools to serve as partners during year 1, with a pilot in
18
these schools scheduled for year 2. Critically, the focus of this R&D effort will be to
create scalable tools that facilitate later adoption (e.g., clear standards, integrated data
platforms, anchor performance tasks, sample curriculum units). The focus on toolbuilding will enable us to scale this work to 15-20 schools in year 3 (including selected
high schools), and all schools by year 4.

What is the process for selecting participating schools? The identification of schools to
participate in the R&D period during years one and two will be based on two criteria: (1)
demonstrated need for greater social-emotional supports, based on indicators of student
behavior, such as attendance and disciplinary incidents; and (2) school readiness as
defined by the quality of the school leadership, the effectiveness of teaching, and the
cohesiveness of the school’s mission and vision. Finally, we will seek schools to
participate in both this R&D work and the blended learning pilots described below, but
not both simultaneously. This approach reflects our commitment to ensuring that
individual schools do not become overloaded with new initiatives in ways that dilute the
effectiveness of each strand of work.
Strand 3: Pilot blended learning models to accelerate student achievement Acknowledging
the rapidly evolving nature of blended learning nationally, we plan to begin this strand of work
with a smaller group of participating schools, scaling gradually and responsibly over the grant
period.

What grade levels do we target with this strand of work? Based on our definition of the
conditions for success, blended learning pilots are beginning in select K-8 schools – as
this is the grade span in which both the Renew School strategy and the data-driven
instruction strategy began. Schools are being given the flexibility to determine which
grade levels make the most sense for their initial pilot years. Over time, we plan to
extend blended learning pilots to include high schools, pending their ability to meet the
conditions for success outlined below.

What level of scale do we aim to achieve with this work? Given the significant amount of
change management required to successfully implement a blended learning model, our
emphasis will be much more on the quality of adoption than the number of participating
schools. Section E describes the continuous improvement process we will use to make
19
these determinations as part of our ongoing monitoring of the grant. That said, our budget
and operating plan make significant investments to support the quality of implementation,
and we believe that the target we have set for 20-25 schools to adopt one of the blended
learning models by the end of the grant is ambitious yet achievable.

What is the timeline for achieving this level of scale? One thing we know from studying
blended learning pilots across the country is that there is a steep learning curve between
the first and second years of implementation. It is critical that we use this learning curve
to refine our strategy for the second cohort of participating schools. Therefore, we will
identify a set of 8-10 pilot schools (a modest expansion of the current pilots in 2013-14)
for 2014-15 and focus on implementation in these schools only for the first two years of
the grant. Pending results of a rigorous ongoing evaluation, we will resume a
moderately-paced rollout beginning in 2016-17.

What is the process for selecting participating schools? Most important is to launch the
pilots only in schools that have demonstrated the conditions for success to be able to
adapt a blended learning model, which we define to be (1) aligned and effective school
leadership and teaching staff; (2) strong school practices of data-driven instruction; and
(3) both infrastructure and usage of technology in the classroom. As we applied these
conditions to determine participating schools for 2013-14, we found that our Renew
Schools – schools that were reconstituted with new leadership, staff, and intensive
infrastructure investment – made for ideal pilot sites. We expect this pattern to hold over
the course of the grant period. Moreover, Renew Schools are managed as a network,
which creates an opportunity for a single Assistant Superintendent to work with all
participating schools and to leverage peer-to-peer connections among school leaders.
Our Renew School strategy is described in greater detail in Section B(1).
Taken together, these three strands of work amount to a compelling platform for systemic
change: building school by school, grade by grade, to transform student learning district-wide.
Our ultimate goal at Newark Public Schools is for students to graduate high school with a
mastery of the academic, social, and emotional skills they need to succeed in college and life.
Additional detail with the names of specific participating schools in each initiative can be found
in Appendix A(2) Item 1 “Participating Schools by Work Stream”.
20
School Demographics
Table A(2)
Raw Data (Estimates)
A
B
C
D
Percentages (Estimates)
E
F
G
H
I
# of Participating Educators
# of Participating Students
# of Participating high-need
students
# of Participating low-income
students
Total # of low-income students in
LEA
Total # of students in LEA
% of Participating Students in the
School (B/F)*100
% of Participating students from
low-income families (D/B)*100
% of Total LEA or consortium
low-income population (D/E)*100
27111
24078
23545
34715
42939
63%
87%
68%
1326
27111
24078
23545
34715
42939
63%
87%
68%
1326
27111
24078
23545
34715
42939
63%
87%
68%
4
1326
27111
24078
23545
34715
42939
63%
87%
68%
TOTAL
1326
27111
24078
23545
34715
42939
63%
87%
68%
Grades/Subjects included in
Race to the Top – District Plan
1326
Year
1
2
3
Grades 312, LAL
and Math
Note 1: High-need students includes students with disabilities (excluding students whose IEPs require speech and
language services only ), ELL students, and low-income students (i.e., students eligible for free or reduced lunch)
Note 2: Specific schools will be identified during the 100-day planning period. The above estimates are based on a
representative sample of potential participating schools for each year of the grant
21
A(3) LEA-wide reform & change
Based on the strategy described in Section A(2) for rolling out and scaling up the strands of work
in our proposal, our plan in and of itself is poised to drive district-wide change within NPS. By
layering complementary reforms onto each other, targeting outcomes both K-8 and high schools,
and prudently scaling up each strand of work, we have established an approach to
implementation that over time will serve every student who passes through NPS schools.
However, we believe that in order to achieve our ultimate goal for student learning, it is not
enough just to implement our RTT-D work well. Instead, the implementation of RTT-D must
actively reinforce, and be supported by, the broader reforms that are underway through
Superintendent Anderson’s leadership. No plan for this grant, however well-conceived, can
succeed if it is seen and implemented as being separate from the district’s other priorities. All
educators can attest to good ideas that got lost in the mix of what we at NPS refer to as “initiative
salad.”
As introduced in Section A(1), NPS has been pursuing a consistent theory of change to drive
dramatic improvement in student outcomes over the last two years. The key to our success in
RTT-D is how closely linked each of our strands of work is to the activities that are going on in
the broader Theory of Change work. Of the five levers within NPS’ Theory of Change, RTT-D
actively accelerates the district’s progress in four of the key areas (by definition of the grant’s
prescribed focus areas, the RTT-D plan is less involved with the operational aspects of
increasing the service orientation of the NPS central office, which is the fifth lever in the
district’s Theory of Change).
The logic model displayed in the graphic below illustrates how in these four Theory of Change
areas, accomplishments to-date will be accelerated by the activities within the RTT-D strands of
work:
22
Logic Model: NPS’ RTT-D Plan Builds from an Overall Theory of Change to
Accelerate Progress toward the District’s Ultimate Goal for Students
NPS Theory of
Change Levers
Develop Effective
Professionals in
Every Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Engage & Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
Provide Top-Tier
School Options
for All Students
Accomplishments
To-Date
Accelerated by RTT-D
Teacher Evaluation
and Support System
Breakthrough Teacher
Contract (Initial)
Coaching and Feedback
Translate Data to Action
Resources to Support SocialEmotional Learning
Resources to Support
Common Core Adoption
Blended Learning Models
Facilitate Personalization
Hand-Picked Corps
of School Leaders
Principal Evaluation and
Support System
Common Core-Aligned Interim
Assessments Key Data
Provide Key Data for Leaders
Increased Autonomy
and Accountability
Embedded Routines to Enable
Data-Driven Instruction
Opened Office of Family
and Comm. Engagement
Launched Family and
Community Call Center
Share More Data on Student
Trajectory to College
Invest Students and Families in
Individual Learning Plan Goals
Community Meetings in
Every School
Engage Stakeholders to Drive
Continuous Improvement
Opened Eight New “Renew
Schools”
Charter-District Compact
(“Charter 3.0”)
Build on Capacity
in Renew Schools
Provide Tools to be Scaled
Across All Schools
Launched HS
Portfolio Strategy
Collaborate and Share Best
Practices with Charters
RTT-D Strands
Ultimate Goal
Invest in Teacher
Capacity to
Use Data
Integrate SocialEmotional
Teaching and
Learning with
Academics
Ensure all
students
graduate
collegeready
Pilot Blended
Learning Models
to Accelerate
Student
Achievement
6
Below we briefly review the key Theory of Change levers by summarizing the progress made todate, highlighting where further work is required, and describing how Race to the Top can
accelerate that work. Many of the sections that follow will then provide additional detail on
these points. In particular, Section B(1) describes the achievements listed under
“Accomplishments To Date,” and Sections C(1) and C(2) offer detailed summaries and plans for
the activities listed under “Accelerated by RTT-D.”
Develop Effective Professionals in Every Classroom

What have we already achieved? This lever has already led to a breakthrough teacher's
contract , an entirely new evaluation system aligned to the Common Core (with a focus
on personalized instruction), and a Teacher Leaders Institute focused on school-based
teacher leadership teams to accelerate common core adoption

Where is further focus and work required? With new policies and a new contract that
have set a new framework for action, the focus now must be on implementing the
23
evaluation system and contract so they drive student learning and provide ways for
teachers to receive real-time, evidence-based feedback on their instruction

How will RTT-D accelerate this work? RTT-D is entirely focused on supporting teachers
in reaching the higher performance standards that the evaluation system creates: through
investments in coaching and feedback, driving innovation in teacher practice around
personalization, new resources that help teach social-emotional skills more effectively,
and blended learning models that facilitate the work of individualization.
Cultivate Transformational School Leaders

What have we already achieved? This lever has already led 50% of NPS’ principals
being replaced in first 18 months of the administration, through a four-part interview
process and pipeline of over 300 applicants, the creation of a district-wide Principals
Leadership Institute, the launch of weighted student funding and school-based budgeting,
and a new principal evaluation system focused on student outcomes and transformational
leadership

Where is further focus and work required? Further focus and work is needed on building
leadership capacity in schools around effective instruction (including observation and
providing feedback), data-driven decision-making, transformational leadership, and
supporting students’ social and emotional needs

How will RTT-D accelerate this work? RTT-D equips these leaders with the tools to use
data more effectively and to translate a culture of high expectations into concrete, regular
activities: making Common Core standards a part of regular classroom practice through
standard interim assessments, and creating regular collaborative routines that embed datadriven instruction as a school-wide focus.
Engage and Involve Stakeholders to Contribute to College-Readiness

What have we already achieved? This lever has already led to the establishment of the
Office of Community and Family Engagement, bi-monthly community stakeholder
roundtables, the launch of a centralized call center, the re-training and focus of Family
Liaisons and Family Coordinators, and "family friendly" school progress reports
24

Where is further focus and work required? Further focus and work is needed to get better
data in the hands of families about their student's performance, and to continue to engage
all stakeholders in a process where their input translates directly and transparently into
continuous improvement efforts

How will RTT-D accelerate this work? RTT-D provides powerful new ways for students,
families, and other stakeholders to engage with the district and support students in
achieving their goals: sharing information with families that aligns with collegereadiness, using individualized learning plans to invest students and families in a
personalized pathway for student success, and actively engaging the community on how
to refine the plan in future years through our continuous improvement process. See
Section E for additional details on how we will engage stakeholder regularly and toward
clear objectives for the duration of the grant period.
Provide Top-Tier School Options for All Students

What have we already achieved? This lever has already led to the closing of 12 schools
to open eight “Renew Schools” with five common ingredients for success, the launch of a
district-wide high school choice process this past year, and a "One Newark" strategic plan
to align district and charter schools in a common goal to ensure all students are college
ready

Where is further focus and work required? Further focus and work is needed to address
all low performing schools (beyond the original cohort of Renew Schools), ensure the
five ingredients that underlie the Renew effort are present in all schools, and to
strengthen collaboration between the district and the charter sector in ways that make the
One Newark vision a reality

How will RTT-D accelerate this work? The RTT-D plan deepens the progress in schools
with the conditions for success, supports pilots to refine tools that can be applied across
all schools, and creates opportunities for further collaboration between district and charter
schools: As we discuss further below, RTT-D provides concrete ways for NPS and the
charter community to collaborate on areas where R&D must occur and where spreading
promising practices will help students achieve our shared vision of college-readiness
25
NPS’ vision of “top-tier school options for all students” is one that is agnostic to the governance
model of the school. Although NPS can only directly manage district schools, we hope to foster
an environment of collaboration in which all students in Newark have access to great schools. In
Newark, we have the opportunity to imagine the next generation of the charter school movement
in which we move away from the “us versus them” paradigm in the district-charter relationship,
and break new ground to share and leverage all that we know collectively about what is required
to help our students achieve at the highest levels.
Earlier this spring, Superintendent Anderson announced the launch of a formal “One Newark”
campaign that articulates this set of beliefs guiding excellent schools for all Newark children.
Among state, city, district, and philanthropic leadership there is remarkable unity on this
philosophy, and we have begun to codify our approach in concrete agreements between the
district and individual charter schools, and among charter schools themselves. NPS is currently
working with the charter community to design a universal enrollment system that will promote
transparent and equitable student enrollment practices for all schools. .Leases in which charter
schools use space of district-owned buildings commit charters to clear standards of transparency
and equity, involving a common accountability framework. Charter schools themselves have
reflected that spirit with a ground-breaking compact that establishes a core set of values for
collaboration with the district. This compact, which we believe can serve as a national model for
district-charter collaboration that puts the interests of all children first, is also provided in
Appendix A(3) (see Items 2 and 3 for the Newark Charter School Fund announcement of the
compact and the compact itself).
When we see this collaboration in action – when NPS schools are refining their own plans for
personalization through interaction with their charter school peers, and when charter schools can
leverage the best and most effective models developed by NPS schools through Race to the Top
– we will know that we are on our way to achieving our vision of true city-wide excellence.
26
A(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes
As described in the sections above, the NPS strategy for Race to the Top is a plan to transform
student learning outcomes through a series of layered initiatives that build up across schools and
grades to ultimately impact all students in grades 3-12 over the course of the four-year grant
period.
The ambitious yet achievable targets that we establish in the tables below reflect the core logic of
the underlying strategy. For those performance measures that apply to participating students –
proficiency rates, student growth, and closing the achievement gap in grades 3-8 – we establish
targets that are in line with the district’s commitments under the recently agreed-to ESEA
waiver. As the waiver calls for dramatic improvements in student achievement, we believe that
the strands of work proposed in this grant will accelerate our progress within the targeted grades.
These targets are not just part of the waiver, but have been adopted in how NPS manages our
Principals, such that these goals are already integrated into the mindset of our instructional
leaders.
The effect of achieving these targets would be nothing less than a transformation in educational
outcomes for the city of Newark. As the baseline performance in student growth percentiles
indicates, students in Newark have long fallen further and further behind their statewide peers
year after year. By realizing these targets – which we believe clearly reflect the focused strategy
we have developed – students in Newark will reverse that trend, closing the gap vs. state average
performance each year, and beginning to redress the years of inequity represented in the wide
achievement gaps that plague education in our city..
27
Detailed Rationale on Calculation of Ambitious yet Achievable Targets
NJ ASK Math and LAL Grades 3-8 Average Proficiency Rate (Metrics 1-2): Newark is
already accountable for dramatic performance improvement under targets agreed to for the
state’s ESEA waiver. These targets require schools to cut in half the difference between the
2010-11 (the baseline year) proficiency rate and 100% proficiency by 2016-17. We believe we
are well-positioned to leverage RTT-D to further accelerate the progress of our students towards
reaching these ambitious targets. (Metrics 1 and 2, shown in tables below, set targets for Grade
3-8 Average Proficiency Rate. Metrics 5-16, included in Appendix A(4) Item 1 “Supporting
Tables for Section (A)(4)”, break out Average Proficiency Rate targets by individual grade.)
LAL and Math Student Growth Percentiles (Metrics 3 and 4): In order to close the gap with
statewide proficiency rates as quickly as the targets imply, NPS must reverse the fundamental
trend in which students in Newark make less growth each year than the statewide average
(adjusted for starting point, as the SGP methodology does). Newark has made student growth a
priority, and aims to raise the overall SGP average to 50% in the next two years, and to continue
that growth trajectory through 2016-17. While score levels vary across subgroups, the district’s
goal is to have all subgroups showing above-average progress relative to their peers across the
state. As a result, the district is targeting the 57th percentile of SGP for both Math and LAL
across subgroups.
HSPA LAL and Math Grade 11 Average Proficiency Rate (Metrics 17 and 18): Targets for
Grade 11 HSPA proficiency were calculated in the same manner as the grades 3-8 NJ ASK
proficiency targets. Percent proficiency for the total population and subgroups is calculated by
dividing the total number of students scoring proficient or above on the HSPA exam by the total
number of students in grade 11. As a result, non-test takers are treated as not proficient, lowering
overall average district proficiency rates.
NJ ASK LAL and Math Grades 3-8 Proficiency Achievement Gap (Metrics 19 and 20):
Targets for closing the achievement gap are based directly on the proficiency goals for both
Newark and the state of New Jersey. Given the higher trajectory required for NPS to achieve
these proficiency goals as compared to state counterparts, we expect NPS students to close the
achievement gap with their state-wide counterparts over the life of the grant. We took the
28
different rates of growth implied by these proficiency targets to produce the target change in the
achievement gap.
Newark District Average High School Graduation Rate and College Matriculation Rate
(Metrics 21 and 22): Newark is currently implementing aggressive reforms through the broader
Theory of Change introduced in Section A(1), which will bring about ambitious yet achievable
growth in college and career readiness. Our goal is to improve college matriculation among high
school graduates across all subgroups by 15% points from the SY2011-12 baseline through the
end of the grant.
Table A(4)(a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth)
Please See Appendix A(4) Item 1 for Measures 5 – 18, which represent targets by individual
grade
Summative assessments being used: NJ Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (ASK) and NJ
High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA)
Methodology for determining status: percent of tested students in relevant grades for score
proficient or above
Methodology for determining growth: average growth percentile of all students in relevant
grades and subjects within NPS (based on comparison to peers statewide)
Goals
Goal
Area
Metric 1:
NJ ASK
LAL
Grades 3-8
Average
Proficiency
Rate
Metric 2:
NJ ASK
Subgroup
SY
2011-12
Baseline
SY
2013-14
SY
2014-15
SY
2015-16
SY
2016-17
SY
2017-18
(PostGrant)
OVERALL
39%
52%
58%
65%
71%
77%
Black
29%
44%
51%
59%
66%
73%
Hispanic
44%
56%
62%
68%
75%
81%
White/Asian
68%
75%
79%
82%
86%
90%
9%
28%
37%
46%
56%
65%
ELL
21%
38%
47%
56%
65%
73%
Economically
Disadvantaged
37%
50%
57%
64%
71%
77%
OVERALL
50%
61%
66%
71%
77%
82%
Special
Education
29
Math
Grades 3-8
Average
Proficiency
Rate
Metric 3:
NJ ASK
LAL
Grades 4-8
Average
Student
Growth
Percentile
Metric 4:
NJ ASK
Math
Grades 4-8
Average
Student
Growth
Percentile
Metric 17:
NJ HSPA
LAL Grade
11 Average
Proficiency
Rate
Black
38%
51%
57%
64%
70%
76%
Hispanic
59%
68%
73%
77%
82%
87%
White/Asian
84%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
Special
Education
19%
36%
44%
53%
61%
69%
ELL
34%
49%
57%
64%
72%
79%
Economically
Disadvantaged
50%
61%
66%
71%
77%
82%
OVERALL
43
48.6
51.4
54.2
57
59.8
Black
42
48
51
54
57
60
Hispanic
43
48.6
51.4
54.2
57
59.8
White/Asian
46
50.4
52.6
54.8
57
59.2
Special
Education
41
47.4
50.6
53.8
57
60.2
ELL
39
46.2
49.8
53.4
57
60.6
Economically
Disadvantaged
43
48.6
51.4
54.2
57
59.8
OVERALL
43
48.6
51.4
54.2
57
59.8
Black
41
47.4
50.6
53.8
57
60.2
Hispanic
44
49.2
51.8
54.4
57
59.6
White/Asian
49
52.2
53.8
55.4
57
58.6
Special
Education
38
45.6
49.4
53.2
57
60.8
ELL
48
51.6
53.4
55.2
57
58.8
Economically
Disadvantaged
43
48.6
51.4
54.2
57
59.8
OVERALL
62%
68%
73%
79%
84%
90%
Black
57%
64%
70%
77%
83%
90%
Hispanic
63%
68%
74%
79%
85%
90%
30
Metric 18:
NJ HSPA
Math
Grade 11
Average
Proficiency
Rate
White/Asian
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
Special
Education
22%
31%
39%
48%
56%
65%
ELL
20%
31%
42%
53%
64%
75%
Economically
Disadvantaged
61%
67%
73%
78%
84%
90%
OVERALL
46%
52%
58%
64%
70%
76%
Black
36%
43%
51%
58%
66%
73%
Hispanic
54%
59%
64%
69%
74%
79%
White/Asian
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
9%
18%
27%
37%
46%
55%
ELL
16%
28%
40%
51%
63%
75%
Economically
Disadvantaged
44%
51%
57%
64%
70%
77%
Special
Education
Table A(4)(b) Decreasing achievement gaps
Methodology for determining achievement gap: percentage point difference in proficiency
between the relevant Newark subgroup and its relevant state-wide counterpart
Goals
Goal
Area
Metric 19:
NJ ASK
LAL Grades
3-8 Average
Proficiency
Achievement
Gap
Subgroup
SY
201112
Baselin
e
27%
SY
201314
SY
201415
SY
201516
SY
201617
SY
201718
(PostGrant)
25%
23%
19%
15%
11%
47%
42%
36%
30%
24%
18%
32%
29%
25%
20%
16%
11%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
2%
23%
20%
17%
15%
13%
11%
NPS ELL vs State ELL
10%
8%
5%
3%
0%
0%
NPS Economically
Disadvantaged vs State
Economically
Disadvantaged
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
3%
OVERALL
NPS Black vs State
White/Asian
NPS Hispanic vs State
White/Asian
NPS White/Asian vs State
White/Asian
NPS Special Education vs
State Special Education
31
Metric 20:
NJ ASK
Math
Grades 3-8
Average
Proficiency
Achievement
Gap
OVERALL
25%
23%
20%
16%
13%
9%
NPS Black vs State
White/Asian
47%
38%
33%
28%
23%
18%
26%
21%
18%
14%
11%
7%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
28%
26%
22%
18%
14%
9%
NPS ELL vs State ELL
17%
10%
7%
4%
1%
0%
NPS Economically
Disadvantaged vs State
Economically
Disadvantaged
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
2%
NPS Hispanic vs State
White/Asian
NPS White/Asian vs State
White/Asian
NPS Special Education vs
State Special Education
32
Table A(4)(c) Graduation rates
Goals
Goal Area
Metric 21:
Newark
District
Average High
School
Graduation
Rate
SY
2011-12
Baseline
SY
2013-14
SY
2014-15
SY
2015-16
SY 201617
SY
2017-18
(PostGrant)
OVERALL
66%
71%
73%
75%
77%
79%
Black
65%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
Hispanic
64%
69%
71%
73%
75%
77%
White/Asian
78%
83%
85%
87%
89%
91%
Special
Education
57%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
ELL
45%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
Economically
Disadvantaged
68%
73%
75%
77%
79%
81%
Subgroup
Table A(4)(d) College enrollment rates
Note:
o (College enrollment SY 2011-12) = Number of SY 2009-10 graduates enrolled in a highereducation institution during the 16 months after graduation
o (College enrollment rate) = (College enrollment SY 2011-12)÷(Cohort Population, e.g.,
total number of SY 2009-10 graduates)*100
Goals
Goal Area
Metric 22:
Newark
District
Average
College
Matriculation
Rate
SY
2011-12
Baseline
SY
2013-14
SY
2014-15
SY
2015-16
SY
2016-17
SY
2017-18
(PostGrant)
OVERALL
50%
56%
59%
62%
65%
68%
Black
50%
56%
59%
62%
65%
68%
Hispanic
47%
53%
56%
59%
62%
65%
White/Asian
56%
62%
65%
68%
71%
74%
Special
Education
39%
45%
48%
51%
54%
57%
ELL
40%
46%
49%
52%
55%
58%
Economically
Disadvantaged
49%
55%
58%
61%
64%
67%
Subgroup
33
B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform
(B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success (15 points)
The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of—
(1) A clear record of success in the past four years in advancing student learning and
achievement and increasing equity in learning and teaching, including a description,
charts or graphs, raw student data, and other evidence that demonstrates the applicant’s
ability to:
(a) Improve student learning outcomes and close achievement gaps (as defined
in this notice), including by raising student achievement, high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice), and college enrollment (as defined
in this notice) rates;
(b) Achieve ambitious and significant reforms in its persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in this notice) or in its low-performing schools
(as defined in this notice); and
(c) Make student performance data (as defined in this notice) available to
students, educators (as defined in this notice), and parents in ways that inform
and improve participation, instruction, and services.
B(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success
Over the past two years, Newark has launched a transformation from one of the most challenged
educational systems in the state to one of the most watched, most active, and most ambitious
education reform communities in the country. The New Jersey State Department of Education
took control of Newark Public Schools in 1995, and over the ensuing 15 years, student outcomes
remained unacceptably low. In 2011, Cami Anderson was selected to serve as Superintendent of
Newark Public Schools, after which she spent her first year assessing the state of Newark
schools. The following year, the announcement of the Race to the Top-District competition
afforded the district an opportunity to outline a strategy focused on better meeting the diverse
needs of Newark students through personalized instruction. Though NPS’ application was
selected as a finalist, the district did not ultimately receive funding. Nevertheless, the urgency of
the need in Newark drove the administration to move forward with implementation of as much
of the outlined strategy as possible during the 2012-13 school year.
34
Today, early in the 2013-14 school year, the second Race to the Top competition finds Newark
Public Schools at a point of unquestioned momentum and unique opportunity. Why is this?
1. NPS adopted a clear, aggressive, and consistent theory of change, highlighted by a
vision to dramatically improve teaching and leadership district-wide, and by a
commitment to deliver top-tier school options for all students across the city.
2. District leadership demonstrated its ability to deliver change in a short period of time,
including (among other actions described later in this section) the launch of Renew
Schools in some of the city’s most troubled school communities, the creation of new
teacher and principal evaluation systems and the adoption of a new and ground-breaking
labor contract.
3. The vision and energy around reform has made Newark a magnet for talent.
Superintendent Anderson has built a strong leadership team, and brought in a number of
the most highly-regarded thinkers across different reform areas to serve as partners to
the district in accelerating reform. Meanwhile, the new labor contract is helping to
retain Newark’s best teaching talent and attract new professionals by awarding teachers
more responsibility for peer development and aligning pay to performance.
4. Newark benefits from a unique alignment of leaders from the state, city, district, union,
and philanthropic organizations. It will take a comprehensive effort to turn around years
of low outcomes for students in Newark, but there is unprecedented energy on all sides
to work together toward the common goal of college-ready graduation.
Newark has made major progress across all 5 key levers of Newark’s Theory of Change
discussed in section A(1), while simultaneously initiating implementation across all three strands
of work laid out in last year’s application. There were challenges and success stories throughout
the 2012-13 school year, but each offered an opportunity for the district to learn, to refine and to
adjust the strategy. Today, we submit an application from a very different position than last
year: we have established the conditions for success across many schools, initiated efforts within
each of the three strands, and have a clear plan for where, why and how we plan to expand the
work.
35
Amidst all of this progress, the most important barometer of success – student outcomes – have
begun to show initial signs of improvement. Yet there is much farther to go for NPS to reach our
goals. The remainder of this section reviews baseline student performance trends, before
discussing in greater detail our recent track record in reform and accountability.
B(1)(a) Improving student learning outcomes and closing achievement gaps
Newark Public Schools and the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) have historically
tracked multiple indicators of school performance, including proficiency on state tests (New
Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge – NJ ASK – in grades 3-8; High School Proficiency
Assessment – HSPA – in grade 11), high school graduation, and college matriculation. More
recently, NJDOE has also begun measuring student growth on grades 3-8 NJ ASK test scores
using Student Growth Percentiles (defined in the student growth section below).
While Newark continues to trail the State on each of these indicators, we have made significant
progress in high school proficiency rates and graduation rates since 2008. In addition,

In the district’s early childhood centers, 18% of schools were struggling, 24% were
adequate and 58% were good in 2010-11. By 2011-12, 9% of schools were struggling,
55% were adequate and 36% were good.2

In K8, the district went from 74% of schools being poor quality, 9% being “on the
move”, and 17% being “good” in SY 2010-2011 to 61% being “poor”, 17% being “on the
move”, and 22% being “good”.3

In HS, the overall graduation rate has gone from 52% in 2007-2008 to 66% in 20012012, and the HSPA graduation rate4 has climbed from 22% in 2008-09 to 39% in 201112. Early indications show another increase last school year and within the next few
2
District early childhood centers are assessed using the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS),
which is a 1-7 scoring system. A score of 6 or 7 is “good”, 5 is “adequate” and 4 or below is “struggling”.
3
District K8 schools are categorized according to student performance and progress, where schools with low
performance (average NJASK score below 200) and low progress (average SGP below 50) are “poor”, schools
where growth is observed but proficiency remains low are “on the move,” and schools with high performance and
high growth are “good.”
4
HSPA graduates represent a subset of the overall graduates; they are students who achieved proficiency on the
HSPA exam prior to graduation (rather than graduating by meeting the state’s required proficiency standards in
alternative ways).
36
weeks (once the data verification process has been completed), we expect to release more
good news.
These results are encouraging, particularly given that nationally, many districts have found that
high school outcomes are the hardest measures to improve (relative to, for example, 4th grade test
scores). Unfortunately, performance in grades 3-8 has been flat over this same time period.
Recognition of the urgency of this issue drove us to launch the Renew schools, and to develop
new partnerships with organizations focused on academic performance, as well as school culture
and community support. Yet the overarching message of the existing data, and preliminary
findings from our new initiatives, is that we need to reach even higher, and set new goals that
reflect higher expectations, in order to achieve our vision for students.
High School Outcomes
Please see Appendix B(1) Item 1 “Supporting Charts for Section B(1)(a)” for graphs displaying
all of the data figures and trends described below.
11th Grade HSPA Tests

New Jersey tests students in 11th grade in both Language Arts Literacy (LAL) and Math.
Students who pass these exams and then graduate are considered to have graduated at a
higher level of academic achievement than those students who do not pass the HSPA but
who may still graduate through other pathways (see Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B(1)
Item 1).
Graduation Rates

Newark has internally tracked its own graduation rate since 2007-08, and trends over that
four-year period show a 25% improvement in performance, with the rate rising from 52%
in 2007-08 and 66% in 2011-12 (see Figure 3 in Appendix B(1) Item 1).
This progress on the overall graduation rate is undoubtedly reason for optimism, yet at the same
time we recognize that the graduation rate as a single measure does not reflect our goal that all
students graduate college-ready. In particular, the graduation rate as it has historically been
37
calculated lacks the rigor of college-ready standards, and does not convey the wide gaps that
exist between student subgroups.
Moving forward, NPS will continue to track progress on the overall graduation rate even as we
begin to orient our leadership team and our schools to a set of goals focused on rigor and all
students. NPS adopted the ACT for students in grades 8-11 after Superintendent Anderson had
been in her role for only four months, and the new data dashboards that form the centerpiece of
NPS performance management activities with schools emphasize college-readiness benchmarks
from the ACT as the key measure of progress to graduation. Starting this year, the district,
including all high school leaders, is setting goals against these college-ready graduation
standards, rather than against the overall rate.
Section B(1)(c) provides additional detail on the data dashboard effort, and a sample of the
dashboards can also be found in the Eligibility Requirements section of the Appendix (Item 7
“Sample K-8 Data Dashboard” and Item 8 “Sample High School Data Dashboard”).
College Matriculation Rates

Of 2011 high school graduates from Newark Public Schools, 50% attended a 2-year or 4year college within 16 months of high school graduation. This rate is up from 47% in
2008 (see Figure 5 in Appendix B(1) Item 1).
Grade 3-8 Outcomes
NJ ASK Test Scores in Grades 3-8

Since 2007-08, proficiency rates on grade 3-8 test scores in Newark have fluctuated
within a narrow band in both Language Arts Literacy (LAL) and Math (see Figures 6 and
7 in Appendix B(1) Item 1).

As proficiency rates across New Jersey have also been relatively consistent over that
time, the achievement gap between Newark and the State of New Jersey has remained
roughly constant at about 25 percentage points in both LAL and Math.
38
See Figures 6 through 19 in Appendix B(1) Item 1 for charts that break down these trends at an
overall level, as well as by demographic subgroup.
NJ ASK – Student Growth Percentiles
Two years ago, NJDOE began reporting student growth data on the NJ ASK for grades 4-8 using
Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs). SGPs control for a student’s test history when assessing that
student’s growth. In effect, each student’s growth from one year to the next is compared to that
of his/her academic peers—students who started at the same level of proficiency in prior years.

By definition, the median SGP for the State in both LAL and Math is 50. An SGP above
50 indicates that a student has made more growth than his/her academic peers statewide,
while an SGP below 50 indicates that a student has made less growth than his/her
academic peers. Student-level SGPs are aggregated to report school-level and districtlevel SGPs.

In recent years, Newark’s growth has lagged that of the rest of New Jersey, with NPS
students growing on average around the 43th percentile (see Figure 20 in Appendix B(1)
Item 1).
39
In aggregate, these data points on NPS student outcomes communicate two key takeaways: (1)
several key performance measures are showing substantial progress in recent years, yet (2) even
where the trend is positive, all measures demonstrate tremendous room for improvement –
indeed, a need for improvement if NPS is to approach the goal of college-ready graduation for all
students. By focusing initially on the elementary and middle grade levels where performance
has been most stubbornly low and where we’ve already started to concentrate new efforts and
additional resources, our RTT-D plan addresses the area of greatest need in the district and offers
the potential to unleash and accelerate a virtuous cycle of improving outcomes that span up
through the high school grades over time. At the same time, we cannot ignore the dire situation
in our high schools today, which is why we’ve moved quickly to redesign some of our most
challenged high schools, and to establish meaningful new layers of support for students along the
high school spectrum at all schools.
B(1)(b) Ambitious and significant reforms in the lowest performing schools
While this section asks about “reforms in the lowest performing schools,” this must be balanced
against the urgent need we have to improve all schools in Newark. Nearly half of all schools in
the district are identified as Focus or Priority Schools under the state’s ESEA waiver. (Please
refer to Appendix B(1) Item 2 “ESEA Waiver List of Priority and Focus Schools” for a full list
of Focus and Priority schools within NPS.) Comparing the demographic profile of all schools
across the state, all schools in Newark fall into the most-challenged 20% of schools statewide.
NPS must – and has already demonstrated the ability to – take significant action in cases of the
most chronic under-performance. But a focus only on a handful of schools would distract us
from the overarching reality that all of our schools are in need of dramatic improvement.
All of NPS’ efforts to turn around performance – through both district-wide and school-specific
efforts – are rooted in the Theory of Change introduced in Section A. As a recap, the diagram
below highlights the five levers of the Theory of Change within the broader RTT-D strategic
framework:
40
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
Our goal: Mastery of academic, social, and
emotional skills that align with college-readiness
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Three Key Strands of Work for
Race to the Top District:
These three building blocks
represent the work we will pursue
with grant resources to create
more personalized learning
environments for students
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
Core NPS Theory of Change:
District-wide levers form the
pillars of our strategy
Top-tier school options are the
unit of change to personalize the
learning environment
2
This Theory of Change translates directly into the management plan that guides all the work of
the NPS leadership team, with Superintendent Anderson having established no more than six
detailed objectives under each component of the framework. Each section below summarizes the
key objectives the leadership team is focused on within each piece of the Theory of Change, and
details our key accomplishments to date.
41
Develop Effective Professionals in Every Classroom
Accomplishments To Date

Refined and deepened understanding of innovative
teacher framework, based on feedback from
educators across the district. Our Framework for
Effective Teaching is aligned to the instructional
shifts in the Common Core and focused on
demonstration of student mastery. An entirely new
process that includes Peer Validators, centrallymanaged Teacher Quality Specialists, and a data-
driven tracking system is aligned to a first-of-its kind contract that was negotiated and
signed since we submitted our last proposal.

Hired Special Assistants for Teacher Quality, who report to each of the five Assistant
Superintendents, to manage the implementation of our teacher framework and evaluation
system, and to ensure common understanding and inter-rater reliability. As a result of the
clear framework and these advanced supports, the district completed more teacher
observations than ever before (94% completion).

Implemented major portions of the breakthrough teacher contract ratified by teachers in
November 2012. The new contract rewards teachers for performance, and resulted in 190
Newark teachers rated as Highly Effective being awarded more than $1.3M in bonuses
ranging from $5,000 to $12,500 in 2013. Additional measures including training for peer
validators and added flexibility for lowest-performing schools.
o See Section C(2) for more details on key compensation provisions and Appendix
B(1) Items 3 and 4 for additional detail on the NTU-NPS agreement.

Implemented a district-wide strategic staffing initiative to match and maximize existing
talent with current opportunities and end the historic practice of forced placement of
educators into school-based roles. Principals have the opportunity to select teachers;
teachers have the opportunity to seek out best-fit schools.

Hosted frequent Teacher Leadership Institutes where educators and the Superintendent
were able to engage in deep-dive conversations about instructional practice, providing an
42
opportunity to build a culture of deep thinking and collaboration, while also creating a
pathway for all educators to influence district-wide instructional policy and programming
decisions.
Cultivate Transformational School Leaders
Accomplishments To Date:

Recruited and hired 12 new Principals for the 2013-14
school year (~15% of all schools), with every new
hire going through a robust selection process followed
by individual interview with Superintendent
Anderson. Combined with the more than 30 new
Principals brought on board through a similar process
over the last two years, NPS has replaced more than
half of school leaders under the current administration

Received over 150 applications for school leadership
positions over the past year

Refined strategic staffing policy that enables Principals to select teachers based on school
need rather than seniority privileges

Established Network Teams to build out the supports available to principals. Network
Teams are made up of an Assistant Superintendent, a Special Assistant for Teacher
Quality, a Special Assistant for Operations and a Special Assistant for Curriculum and
Instruction. These teams provide different types and levels of support according to the
needs of each school leader and leadership team.

Revised and launched a new Framework for Effective Leadership that clearly outlines
standards for leaders to drive change in our district, and created plans for incorporating
student outcomes and other measures into this Framework and evaluations for all
principals

Graduated the first cohort of Emerging Leaders Program to prepare future Principals, and
launched an updated program to prepare the ELP’s second cohort

Hosted monthly Principal Leadership Institutes, led by Superintendent Anderson to help
build the capacity of our school leaders into truly transformational leaders by engaging in
43
readings on leadership and in discussions and activities that explore ongoing problems of
practice in the district

Worked with Principals to develop, refine, and launch Data Dashboards, which
summarize the information needed to support strategic management of the school
Re-Imagine NPS as a Service-Oriented Team
Accomplishments To Date

Moved to student-based budgeting to increase
Principal autonomy and flexibility over resource
allocation decisions, and provided coaching to help
Principals make strategic budget decisions

Redesigned the district HR function into 1) a new
Talent Office to focus on strategic management of
human capital from pipeline development through
retention and 2) an Employee Services team to focus
on efficient, effective, and accurate operational
transactions

Consolidated central office departments and functions to improve the efficiency and
coordination of services to schools

Streamlined communications and related paperwork for schools so that principals now
receive a single weekly electronic bulletin with brief, informative blurbs and links to
related forms, resources, and additional details. Principals have hailed this step alone as
huge progress in the effectiveness of their interaction with central office

Host regular briefings and staff newsletters to update central staff on district-wide
initiatives and empower them to provide more pertinent and accurate information when
responding to school and public inquiries.

Conducted deep dive financial audit to identify options for more effective use of funds in
schools and central office

Launched district-wide technology upgrades to include bandwidth upgrades and wireless
internet access in all schools
44
Engage and Involve Stakeholders to Contribute to College-Readiness
Accomplishments To Date:

Hosted community meet-and-greets in every ward before
the start of the first day of school and established
monthly roundtables for various stakeholders

Worked with Newark’s mayor and local business and
community leaders to launch a school attendance
campaign with the aim of reducing absenteeism by 50%.

Launched Family and Community Call Center to give
parents a rapid-response channel through which to get
their questions answered and received more than 35K
calls during the 2012-13 school year (more than twice as
many calls as were received during 2011-12 school year)

Continued to host monthly stakeholder forums to provide a structured mechanism for
meaningful two-way dialogue between the district and stakeholders. The forums are
planned in collaboration with each stakeholder group (elected officials, CBOs, clergy,
funders, and civic stewards) to ensure that the content is relevant and tailored to the
audience’s interest and expertise.
o Recent topics have included Common Core State Standards, data use and
interpretation, high school enrollment, the new teacher contract, etc.

Retrained parent liaisons to be a more proactive partner with the schools to engage
families, get the word out about relevant issues, and promote available resources. Recent
initiatives have included the development of a peer mentor program and of professional
learning communities in which parent liaisons are grouped by skill set

Hosted the 26th annual City-Wide Parent Conference with more than 600 participants

Hosted the Grandparent Summit in support of individuals caring for extended family
members or multiple generations

Established the Teen Parent Program in partnership with Rutgers. With more than 125
participants in its first session, the program aims to prepare young parents through
literacy coaching and mentoring experiences in Newark’s Early Childhood centers
45
Provide Top-Tier School Options for All Students
Accomplishments To Date:

Closed 13 failing schools and opened 11 “Renew
Schools” in their place over the past two years

Added middle grade programs at magnet high schools to
catch students up before the rigors of accelerated high
school curriculum, and piloted a choice process for
specialized middle schools

Fully launched a high school choice process with 99%
participation among the district’s 8th graders (vs. 78%
during last year’s pilot in only magnet schools). This
process allows students and their families to select an
appropriate high school, and 74% of applicants were
admitted to one of their top five choices for 2013-14

Entered into an agreement with charters to define and launch next generation districtcharter partnership for shared space, collaboration, and centralized enrollment – “Charter
3.0”

Established 7 shared campuses to house 14 district and charter schools.

Opened 7 new schools with innovative models to expand learning opportunities to middle
and high school students, including single-gender middle schools, model daycare centers
and early college high school programs.
The effort to launch the Renew Schools listed above merits additional detail, considering the
focus of the application on lowest-performing schools. The work done in the Renew Schools
exemplifies NPS’ approach to rebuilding capacity rapidly within the most challenged school
environments in order to create the conditions for success. The decision-making and planning
process for Renew followed a disciplined approach:

NPS’ leadership team examined data on low-performing schools from numerous angles:
absolute performance by subgroup, student growth, enrollment trends, facilities structure,
46
and geographic feeder patterns were all factors in identifying 14 schools that would be
subject to reconstitution (merging into 11 Renew Schools).

All school leaders were asked to re-apply for their position; only four of these were rehired into the Renew Schools. 100+ candidates were interviewed, including a rigorous
process of case studies, group discussions, role plays and individual interviews.
Superintendent Anderson personally interviewed all high-potential candidates.

School leaders were given the autonomy to hire their own faculty based on fit with the
new school’s mission and vision.

Each school consulted a diverse planning team consisting of educators, families,
community organizations and other stakeholders.

School design decisions were based on a common definition of “five essential
ingredients,” including a great school leader, excellent teachers, clear mission and vision,
safe building with flexible resources, and engaged families and students. In particular, by
asking school leaders to begin by defining a unique and compelling mission and vision
for the school, we were able to ensure that subsequent decisions around hiring and
operations were a coherent fit with the school model

All Renew Schools received an infusion of technology infrastructure, including laptop
and tablet devices at a 3:1 student ratio. These resources, combined with district-wide
upgrades to bandwidth and wireless internet access, made the Renew Schools choice
locations for blended learning pilots; several are working with Education Elements
today.

Partnerships were established to provide additional support for the integration of
academic, social, and emotional learning. For example, Turnaround for Children has
partnered with 3 K8 schools to coach educators about how to integrate social and
emotional learning and teaching into the academic curriculum. At the high school level,
the academies at Barringer now teach a social justice curriculum called “Facing History
and Ourselves.” Though academically-focused, its structure fosters social and emotional
learning, with educators trained to engage students in discussions about civil
responsibility, morality and tolerance.
In the end, where NPS had 13 schools that were persistently failing to improve achievement
levels, we now have 11 new schools, aligned around a cohesive mission, with hand-picked
47
leadership and faculty, and up-to-date technology infrastructure. NPS believes this is an
extremely powerful strategy for addressing the needs of the lowest-performing schools, and – for
RTT-D – the Renew School network offers a natural place to further develop proven initiatives
in personalization, and pilot new ones. Though student outcome data are forthcoming, as these
schools enter their second year, the community response to the changes they’ve witnessed has
been positive. Parents and children report feeling that their school is a safer, better place, while
struggling neighborhoods have coalesced around their revitalized schools. We are highly
optimistic about the trajectory of these schools over the coming years.
B(1)(c) – Making student performance data available
A common theme throughout all the levers of NPS’ Theory of Change is that increased
transparency and accountability around data is critical to progress on any front (e.g., from NPS’
accomplishments to-date, teacher evaluation data, principal evaluation data, student-based
budgeting, etc.).
Consistent with this approach, Superintendent Anderson has made an aggressive push to make
student performance and progress data available to schools. Making data “available,” however,
is not just a matter of summarizing the data on a Web site where few will see it. In Newark,
performance measurement means putting the focus on student learning front and center as the
foundation for conversations about school performance and improvement. Having all
stakeholders focused on student achievement and able to access key outcome measures is
fundamental for active involvement in and support for improving school performance. The
District approaches this in two ways: first, by providing dashboards on school and district-wide
performance and, second by providing data on individual student performance to both parents
and educators where appropriate.
Data dashboards
Data dashboards will soon be released to schools for the third year in a row, with separate
versions for K-8 and high schools. The dashboards provide a robust, user-friendly, and
comprehensive view of each school’s end-of-year results in four areas – student performance,
student progress, equity (i.e., closing the achievement gap), and school climate – and include
48
innovative new data elements that reinforce the district’s emphasis on rigor and all students. The
dashboard design goes far beyond the surface-level statistics schools have become accustomed to
– e.g., overall proficiency and graduation rates – by including in all individual measures a
comparison to similar schools within the district, a linkage to college-ready levels of
performance, and a view into the achievement levels of high-need student subgroups. These
dashboards place NPS at the national frontier for how districts can use data in sophisticated but
accessible ways to increase accountability and focus on high standards and inclusive school
strategies.
A sample screen shot of the dashboards appears below, with a complete dashboard included in
the Eligibility Requirements Appendix Item 7 “Sample K-8 Data Dashboard” and Item 8
“Sample HS Data Dashboard” for more detailed review:
49
Specific metrics reported on the dashboards include performance on state tests, progress on state
tests (e.g., Student Growth Percentiles), ACT/PLAN/EXPLORE results, college-ready and
overall graduation rates, college matriculation and persistence, credit accumulation trends, and
leading indicators of schools’ environmental conditions including student absenteeism, and
student mobility. Along with the dashboards, principals also receive the underlying student data
that is used to calculate each metric reported on the dashboard. It is provided in an easy-to-use
format, so that principals can sort and filter the data to specifically identify which students are
50
achieving and making appropriate growth, and which students require additional support or
intervention.
These dashboards inform and improve instruction and student services in several ways. First,
they provide principals with the information they need to drive better instructional decisions in
the classroom. Principals work with their Assistant Superintendents at the beginning of each
school year to review dashboard results and use them to set school-level goals for the year in
four categories: student performance, student progress, closing the achievement gap, and student
mobility/attendance. Additionally, the dashboards guide policy decisions throughout the District,
including principal evaluation and targeted support for low-performing schools.
A parent-friendly version of these dashboards was released for the first time last year, with the
aim of helping parents work with their schools in targeted ways to make improvements, as well
as supporting parents in making informed decisions about which school can best meet the needs
of their child. Based on feedback from parents – much of it positive – we have created an
improved version of the parent-friendly dashboards; an updated version of these dashboards will
be released to families later this year.
School climate dashboards
New this year, school climate dashboards report each school’s attendance, suspension and
referral rates. They were developed for use by school-based Student Support Teams (SST),
which are multidisciplinary teams comprised of principals, teachers and support staff working in
collaboration to develop and correct environmental and structural factors that impact school
culture and performance. During their weekly meetings, each school’s SST uses their dashboard
to identify problem areas and target specific students. At-risk students are identified for
preventative interventions, while students with more significant existing challenges are targeted
for individual pupil action plans.
The school climate dashboards currently exist in beta form, but NPS is working with developers
to build an automated version that will interface with the district’s student information system in
51
order to produce regular reports on demand. (See Appendix B(1) Items 5 and 6 for templates of
the K8 and HS school climate dashboards).
Other sources of student performance data for educators and families
PowerSchool, the Student Information System (SIS) used by NPS, contains all key elements of
student performance data including summative assessments, attendance, course grades, and key
demographics such as Special Education and English Language Learner status. PowerSchool
also contains a parent portal where parents can access all data available to teachers about their
child’s progress. Last year, there was a concerted effort across 15 schools to train parents how to
use the portal to access student information; this year, the initiative was expanded to include all
schools district-wide. PowerSchool staff were on hand at back-to-school nights and open
houses across the district to help parents register for the portal, and to provide training for its use.
Building off of the data available in the SIS today, our Race to the Top plan will significantly
expand the streams of data that are available to educators, students, and families – and offer a
better balance between academic and social-emotional information. Section C provides more
detail on each of the following, including how educators, students, and families can use this
information to improve instructional outcomes:

Interim assessments offered four times annually will provide regular data to gauge a
student’s trajectory towards Common Core standards

Individualized learning plans will expand the domain of data available to educators to
include social and emotional indicators of student assets and needs

Blended learning tools and technology will provide teachers, students, and families with
daily feedback on performance and will support a shift towards competency-based
learning in which students many demonstrate mastery through a variety of forms of
assessment
Finally, to make student-level data even more valuable and user-friendly for educators, Newark
seeks to build on the SIS capability through its work with the state on the development of the
Instructional Improvement System (IIS) called for in the state’s original Race to the Top
application. The IIS will include capabilities such as a formative assessment platform, a targeted
52
instructional content system, assessment- focused reporting, and a professional development
support system. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released in May 2013 with vendor
selection to be announced in the fall of 2013, and initial functionality being rolled out in 2014.
Furthermore, the state will subsidize the use of the IIS for all Priority and Focus schools – which
accounts for nearly half of all NPS schools. All other schools within Newark will have the option
of participating, and NPS expects to do so.
53
B(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments
Newark Public Schools has demonstrated its commitment to transparency by making the
District's budget information available to the public through public budget hearings and
community meetings, by publishing a summary budget in local newspapers, and by posting
information on the district website.
Each year, the district hosts an annual budget hearing, which is open to the public. Parents and
stakeholders are also encouraged to attend community meetings hosted at their local school,
where each spring, these meetings serve as a forum for the sharing and discussion of the local
school’s budget for the upcoming academic year. During these meetings, NPS reviews budgeted
school-level expenditures for regular K-12 instruction, instructional support, pupil support, and
school administration. Students, parents, staff, and other community members then have the
opportunity to ask questions and or request clarification on any budget item.
Around the same time of year, the district’s budget for the upcoming school year is summarized
and published in local newspapers to ensure that it is readily available to community members.
Finally, budget information posted on the district website is available both at the district level,
and at the level of individual schools. The comprehensive district budget is available in a
searchable “user friendly” format, and includes enrollment data, operating costs with source
appropriations, expenses related to instruction and support services, capital expenditures, grants
and entitlements, and salaries and benefits of certain district employees.
Individual school-level budgets are also available on the website; a sample school-level budget
report is included in Appendix B(2) Item 1. The school-level budget includes information on all
four of the following expenditures from State and local funds, in addition to other relevant
budget information:
(a) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and
support staff
Appendix B(2) Item 1 includes a sample of the school-level budgets that are published for each
individual NPS schools. As highlighted on the first page of the sample budget report, actual
personnel salaries are shown separately for teachers, other instructional staff, and support staff.
54
Personnel are grouped by grade level and by type of class (regular, special education, bilingual),
and actual salaries are reported for the current year as well as two prior years to enable readers to
easily compare line-by-line spending over multiple years.
(b) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only;
Instructional staff salaries are separated from salaries of non-instructional staff, with the specific
titles of each position clearly indicated as shown on page 9 of Appendix B(2) Item 1.
(c) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only; and
As described above, actual personnel salaries for all instructional staff are included in the
publicly available school-level budgets. Salaries for teachers are reported separately from those
of other instructional staff so that readers can distinguish between the two.
(d) Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level
As demonstrated in the appended school-level budget, actual non-personnel expenditures for
each school are publicly available. As shown on the first page of the sample budget report, nonpersonnel expenditures for instruction include textbooks, general supplies, and other instructional
materials. As highlighted on the third page of the sample report, non-personnel expenditures for
school-sponsored supplemental and extracurricular programs include the cost of purchased
services as well as the cost of supplies and materials.
In addition to providing these four expenditure categories, the school-level budgets also enable
the public to view:

Special education expenditures broken down by disability type

Before- and after-school program expenditures, including teacher salaries, tutor salaries,
and materials

Expenditures for various other categories, including vocational programs, athletics, and
security

Revenue information, including federal, state, and local sources of funding
55
(B)(3) State context for implementation (10 points)
The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of—
Successful conditions and sufficient autonomy under State legal, statutory, and regulatory
requirements to implement the personalized learning environments described in the applicant’s
proposal.
B(3) State context for implementation
As a state-operated school district, Newark enjoys a high degree of strategic alignment with the
New Jersey Department of Education. Governor Chris Christie and State Education
Commissioner Chris Cerf selected Superintendent Anderson in May 2011 after a rigorous 5month vetting process. The close alignment between Superintendent Anderson, the State
Commissioner, and the Governor lays a strong foundation for reform in Newark. Both Governor
Christie and Commissioner Cerf have made improvement in Newark a leading educational
priority for the state and have actively assisted in defining and achieving the district’s highest
priorities.
Independent analyses have identified a number of policy, regulatory, and financial conditions
that New Jersey has in place to support a personalized learning environment strategy. For
example, the Digital Learning Now! Report published by the Foundation for Excellence in
Education found that “New Jersey is leading the nation in transforming education for the digital
age”5 (see Appendix B(3) Item 1 for New Jersey’s report card). Specifically, New Jersey has
operated a successful statewide virtual school since 2002, serving more than 450 school districts,
agencies, alternative programs, and residential facilities throughout the state. Under state law,
both district- and charter-run public schools are eligible for publicly-funded digital learning
curricula. The state has also established that student-teacher ratios for traditional classrooms will
not apply to blended learning environments, allowing greater flexibility for instruction that
targets personalized learning objectives. New Jersey also has a statewide process for approving
digital content providers to ensure that all content is aligned to Common Core State Standards.
Although seat time restrictions are not specifically an obstacle to our plan, it is worth noting that
New Jersey does not have explicit seat time requirements for students’ progression through
5
http://digitallearningnow.com/spotlight/new-jersey/
56
grades or accumulation of credits. As described in New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:8-5.2(a)2
(included in Appendix B(3) Item 2), the District has full authority to grant credit for the
successful completion of assessments that meet or exceed the State’s standards. These
assessments may be selected or designed by the District and may be administered whenever a
student is prepared to demonstrate mastery. Once a student has demonstrated mastery, he or she
may progress to the next relevant course. A representative from the NJ DOE has confirmed this
interpretation of the State Code.
The New Jersey Department of Education has confirmed that there are no other state policies or
regulations that should interfere with Newark’s ability to implement its plan to personalize
learning for all students as described in this application. In fact, the state has invested in an
innovation department that is actively trying to encourage more districts in New Jersey to take a
similar approach to the one that we propose here.
57
(B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (15 points)
The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of—
Meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the development of the proposal and
meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal, including—
(a) A description of how students, families, teachers, and principals in participating
schools (as defined in this notice) were engaged in the development of the proposal
and, as appropriate, how the proposal was revised based on their engagement and
feedback, including—
(i) For LEAs with collective bargaining representation, evidence of direct
engagement and support for the proposals from teachers in participating schools
(as defined in this notice); or
(ii) For LEAs without collective bargaining representation, at a minimum,
evidence that at least 70 percent of teachers from participating schools (as
defined in this notice) support the proposal; and
(b) Letters of support from such key stakeholders as parents and parent organizations,
student organizations, early learning programs, tribes, the business community, civil
rights organizations, advocacy groups, local civic and community-based organizations,
and institutions of higher education.
B(4) Stakeholder engagement and support
B(4)(a) Description of engagement process and response to feedback
As Newark Public Schools developed the plan outlined in this proposal, we engaged a broad
range of stakeholders along the way. During the plan’s initial development last year, we met
with a series of community leaders, funders, thought partners and more to (1) gather the broadest
range of possible ideas during early concept development; (2) solicit input on the initial proposal
to help refine core concepts of the plan; and (3) secure buy-in and commitment to prepare for
successful implementation of the plan and lay the groundwork for the continuous improvement
process outlined in Section E.
Though we did not receive funding as a result of last year’s Race to the Top competition, over
the past year, we have kicked off efforts within each of the community-approved plan’s three
main strands of work. In parallel, we continued to expand our community engagement efforts in
order to (1) inform stakeholders about educational initiatives and available resources in Newark;
(2) continue to engage with stakeholders about how to better meet the needs of all students and
58
the community; and (3) collect feedback about initial implementation and its impact. We focus
significant energy on fostering the strong connections between Newark schools and students, and
ensuring that students and their families have access to services that meet their needs. These
range from personalized learning in Newark’s classrooms to multi-tiered support systems within
schools to partnerships in the broader community that provide “wraparound” supports for
students and families.
The section below summarizes how each group of stakeholders was engaged during the plan’s
initial development, and the specific feedback from this process that informed our plan. It also
details how engagement with each group has continued over the past year, in order to ensure that
we are continuously improving the plan that was approved last year. Where we have found
reason to make changes to the plan approved last year, we have engaged key stakeholders in
conversations about these changes and they are reflected in our application.. We place the
greatest emphasis on teacher engagement because we believe our effective partnership with the
Newark Teachers Union sets our plan apart from others, and makes it possible – now and in the
future – to execute our plan with fidelity in classrooms across the city.
The stakeholder engagement process
Teachers –
We engaged teachers in the initial development of this proposal in 2012 in the following ways:

We introduced the RTT-D competition and solicited early input from teachers through
the bi-weekly Teacher Talk newsletter. (Please see Appendix B(4) Item 1 for a copy of
the “Teacher Talk Newsletter – September 26th”)

We shared an update on the initial plan and asked for additional feedback during the
October meetings of the Teacher Leadership Institute and Child Study Team meetings

We discussed the content of the initial plan with academic leaders within the Newark
Teachers Union

Superintendent Anderson hosted two interactive Teacher Forums to provide her own
summary of the plan, survey teachers, and gather input on the preliminary plan. Since
teachers will play such an integral part in shaping and executing the plan, we collected
robust data on their level of interest and the specific concerns they had.
59
o Of the 153 teachers who participated in the interactive forums, 74% said they
would be excited to participate in the plan to create more personalized learning
environments for students.
o When asked for which portion of the plan they would need the most support, 45%
of participating teachers responded “Common Core-aligned interim assessments
and coaching,” 18% responded “Individualized Learning Plans” and 21%
responded “Blended Learning Models.”
o When asked whether they had tried any type of blended learning in their
classrooms, 62% of teachers said yes, though half of these teachers indicated that
they would need help making a blended model sustainable. Another 31% of
teachers responded that they had not yet implemented any type of blended
learning in their classrooms but that they were interested in doing so.
o See Appendix B(4) Item 2 “Data from Teacher Forums to Support B(4)(a)” for
full survey results from the interactive teacher forum.
Ratified during the 2012-13 school year, the groundbreaking contract agreement between NPS
and the Newark Teachers Union (NTU) demonstrates a remarkable spirit of partnership in
reform. District and union officials worked side by side to reach an agreement that will have an
unprecedented impact on student outcomes. We hope to build on the deep collaboration
demonstrated throughout the contract negotiations to execute this plan in a way that supports
teachers and empowers them to own, implement, and refine the creation of more personalized
learning environments for NPS students. And indeed, our teachers are making great strides
towards personalizing learning for students today through differentiated instruction based on
formative assessment results, as well as pilots with blended learning partners in some schools,
and homegrown solutions in others.
Principals –
We engaged principals in the development of this proposal in the following ways:

We introduced the RTT-D competition and solicited early input from principals through
the bi-weekly Principal Points newsletter (Please see Appendix B(4) Item 3 for a copy of
the “Principal Points Newsletter – September 18th”).
60

We shared our initial thinking on the plan during the September Principal Leadership
Institute and recruited eight interested principals to join us immediately after the Institute
for a focus group to provide feedback on the plan.

We shared an update on the plan and asked for additional feedback at the October
Principal Leadership Institute.

We held an additional round of conversations with the 12 principals whose schools would
be among the earliest participants in the plan to ensure that they felt confident in the plan
that had emerged from our earlier conversations.
Over the past year, we have engaged with principals on topics that have ranged from the
technical assistance required for early implementation of our plan in schools, to broader
discussions about the role of school leaders in establishing the mission, vision and school culture
in Newark’s changing schools. Principals have:

Met weekly with their Assistant Superintendents and Network Team

Attended monthly Principal Leadership Institutes led by the Superintendent, where recent
sessions focused on introducing NPS’ updated Framework for Effective Leadership,
which includes a competencies ranging from “Student and Family Support” to
“Transformational Leadership”

Developed a strategic plan for their school, including a detailed approach to personalizing
learning for all students within their school

Received intensive professional development, including a 4-day summer institute where
restorative practice training prepared them to meet the needs of individual students and
mediate conflict in a way that helps students and the community heal and grow
Families and Communities We engaged families and communities in the initial development of this proposal in late 2012 in
the following ways:

We solicited the help of community leaders (e.g., heads of community-based
organizations, faith-based leaders, etc.) to engage families and community members:
61
o NPS provided a diverse group of community leaders with information about the
application and facilitation tools to host a discussion and gather feedback from
within their communities
o Participating organizations included Clear View Baptist Church, United Way of
Essex and West Hudson, La Casa de Don Pedro, and the Newark Trust for
Education.
o These community leaders convened their constituents, gathered their feedback,
and shared the feedback they heard with NPS during the month of October.

We presented an overview of the Race to the Top plan to all Parent Liaisons, asked them
to place summary materials in school “family rooms,” and prepared them to answer
questions from families and community members.

We posted a high-level summary of our initial plan to NPS’ website and invited
community members to submit questions or feedback via email.

We shared an update on the plan and asked for additional feedback at the October 18th
meeting of the Committee of Advocates, a convening of non-profit and CBO leaders who
work collaboratively on city-wide education issues.

We updated multiple stakeholder groups on the plan, during regularly scheduled NPS
community briefings in October including: elected officials, non-profits/community
based organizations, clergy, and civic stewards/alumni associations.

We shared more detailed information and requested support from targeted community
leaders who we believe will be instrumental in implementing the plan effectively.
Over the past year, we have continued to engage with families more broadly around topics
pertaining to their student’s learning and school experience, and the district’s plan for better
serving the individual academic, social and emotional needs of students in the following ways:

Superintendent Anderson launched the “One Newark” campaign in July 2013 with the
aim of ensuring that all students in Newark graduate college-ready. The campaign is
focused on improving school quality, ensuring equitable access, increasing school
options and choice, and optimizing district resources for efficiency (see Appendix A(3)
Item 4 “One Newark Press Release” for more detail).

The Office of Community and Family Engagement, established in 2012, has served as a
critical link between schools and families as the district has started to implement
62
changes. They have been responsible for communicating changes, ensuring the
continued engagement of stakeholders and supporting families as they experience the
transformations that have occurred in many Newark schools over the last two years.
Recent efforts have included:
o The continuation of monthly stakeholder engagement meetings, the topic of
which varies by month according to the perceived need of the community and the
participants
o The development of a family-friendly walkthrough program which was launched
in all schools this fall. This program gives families and community members the
opportunity to visit their neighborhood school to assess its culture and school
structure, as well as how it is meeting the needs of students.
o The organization of Parent Universities, which will focus on data interpretation
during the first semester of the 2013-14 school year, and on more general
parenting topics during the second semester. These University meetings
additionally serve as public forums for parents to meet each other and district
representatives, to discuss successes and challenges, and to provide written
feedback about their student’s school and the impact of new initiatives there.
School Advisory Board –
During the initial development of the plan in 2012:

We shared an overview of the plan with the Finance and Operations Committee on
October 15th.

We shared an update on the plan through the Superintendent’s Report, which was
presented at the SAB business meeting on October 16th and the public meeting on
October 23rd.

We invited SAB members to NPS community briefings to learn more about the plan and
provide feedback.

We incorporated detailed changes to a draft proposal based on feedback from the
President of the SAB
More recently, in 2013:
63

We reviewed this year’s application with the SAB president Antoinette BaskervilleRichardson on September 20th to receive feedback about suggested changes and/or
additions to the application.

We outlined this year’s application, and the major changes it includes versus last year’s
application, at the SAB business meeting on September 17th and at the SAB public
meeting on September 24th
o At both meetings, we invited outreach by individuals interested in further
information, or in receiving a copy of the application draft at any point during
this year’s development process
Relevant feedback collected through this process included:
We began gathering stakeholder feedback early in the process of building a plan to create more
personalized learning environments for students. In doing so, we went through a rigorous process
of cataloguing input from various stakeholders and using this input to shape and refine the plan.
Below, you will find a table showing the most common feedback we received, how we’ve begun
to address it, and where in this year’s plan we continue to address these issues.
Common feedback
Addressing this feedback
Teachers said they
would need the most
intensive support on
the first strand of
work, specifically on
using the data from
interim assessments
to inform and refine
instructional
strategies
As described Section A(1), we have already partnered with the
Achievement Network and CRESST for interim assessments; A-Net
provides significant support and coaching to support the use of data.
Teachers indicated
that they would also
need significant
support to implement
blended learning
As described in Section A(1), we have already begun 5 pilots with two
experienced implementation partners, Education Elements and New
Classrooms. Our criteria for selecting these two partners included their
ability to provide assistance to teachers around using instructional time
and physical classroom space effectively; grouping students
strategically; learning the pros and cons of different digital content
providers; becoming more fluent with technology hardware and
software; understanding how to use the learning management system
As is further outlined in Section C(2), NPS will continue to support
these partnerships while seeking to expand coaching supports focused
on 1) translating student data into improvements in instructional
practice, and 2) embedding new routines of collaboration into school
practice so that educators can support one another in this work on an
ongoing basis.
64
Common feedback
Addressing this feedback
(LMS) to access student data; and improving their ability to use data
from the LMS to drive instructional planning decisions.
We are in the early stages of these pilots now, but pending their
success, we would seek to expand our blended learning work with
these and other partners with RTT-D support.
Principals encouraged
us to incorporate a
high school
component in our
plan, particularly
something focused on
supporting students
during their transition
to high school
We have already begun to expand our efforts to meet the needs of our
high school students through partnerships with such organizations as
the International Institute for Restorative Practices (see Appendix X
Item 2 for more detail about their SaferSanerSchools program).
Principals asked that
NPS forge
partnerships with
local health service
providers
As described in the Competitive Preference Priority, we have begun to
partner with organizations who can support schools to:
Principals and other
stakeholders urged us
to focus heavily on
building long-term
Our plan continues to address this feedback in two specific ways:
1. As described in Section C(1), we will support students who enter
high school significantly below grade level in reading through a
blended learning model focused on accelerating adolescent literacy
development
2. Also described in Section C(1), students, initially in grades 9-12,
will be developing individualized learning plans (ILPs) that combine
both academic and social-emotional goals to track their pathway to,
through, and beyond college. We plan to quickly expand the
program to include middle school grades; with the earlier
development of ILPs we seek to ensure a smooth transition to high
school.
1. Establish an effective linkage with nearby mental health providers,
to be put in place and monitored by the partner
2. Establish the permanent role of a school-based social worker trained
by the partner on critical intervention and youth development skills
3. Create structures for ongoing collaboration with juvenile justice,
child protective services or other available social services
We are particularly excited about the relationship we’ve recently
developed with Turnaround for Children. In each school with whom
they partner, Turnaround supports the development of a relationship
with a community mental healthcare provider to ensure affordable and
accessible support for students and families alike (see Section X for
more detail).
Each strand of work, and all of the partnerships we form to support this
work, has a heavy emphasis on building long-term capacity within the
district. To cite one example, the first strand of work (Investing in
Teacher Capacity to Use Data) includes a partnership with an outside
65
Common feedback
Addressing this feedback
capacity to sustain the provider that focuses specifically on embedding routines of
work that we take on collaboration and data-driven instructional planning into the everyday
culture of all K-8 schools. We’ve already partnered with Achievement
through this grant
Network to start this work, and though only a few schools are in year 2
of the partnership, we are already excited about the internal capacitybuilding progress that has been made in just one year. Please refer to
Section C(2) for additional information on how we plan to support and
expand our capacity-building efforts going forward.
Parents asked for
more education on
“real life skills” such
as study skills,
organization, and
motivation
As described in Section C(1), the primary goal of our second strand of
work is to ensure that social-emotional skills (a.k.a. “real life skills”)
and academic skills are taught and measured with the same level of
rigor. As described in Section A(3), our core Theory of Change rests on
the idea that both types of skills are crucial for college readiness.
Social-emotional skills have often taken a back seat to academic ones,
but our plan aims to remedy that by creating rigorous standards,
assessments, and curriculum for social-emotional skills so that teachers
have the tools and resources they need to teach these skills. This strand
of work also supports the creation of individualized learning plans that
help each student create a path to college readiness based on four
domains, including academic progress, social-emotional skills and
competencies, talents and interests, and college knowledge. We’ve
initiated this strand of work by developing relationships with partners
like Turnaround for Children, Ramapo for Children and the
International Institute for Restorative Practices.
Parents asked for
more transparency
and communication
on how their child is
doing
Our plan offers several opportunities for providing parents with more
information on their child’s progress:
1. Our plan is to increase the amount of clear, actionable, and timely
data that parents have access to through students’ individualized
learning plans (ILPs). As described in section A(1), ILPs will help
each student outline a clear “roadmap to success,” defining goals
and tracking progress in four domains: academic, social-emotional,
talents and interests, and college knowledge. Because ILPs will be
built on a web-based platform, they will be accessible to students
and parents from any computer.
2. Additionally, as referenced in section B(1)(c), we are working – and
will continue to work – with parent liaisons to increase awareness
and usage of the parent portal that already exists within Newark’s
student information system, PowerSchool
3. Furthermore, a parent-friendly version of the data dashboards
(described in section B(1)(c)) will again be released this school year
to help parents work with their schools in targeted ways to make
improvements, as well as to support parents in making informed
66
Common feedback
Addressing this feedback
decisions about which school can best meet the needs of their child.
Parents and families
said they’d like to see
NPS make an effort
to connect learning to
real world
experiences
As described in Section C(1), individualized learning plans (ILPs) will
help students develop a holistic view of their preparation for college
and life based on four domains: academic progress; social-emotional
skills and competencies; talents and interests; and college knowledge.
The latter three domains create an explicit bridge from students’
academic work to the “real world experiences” students need to
succeed in life.
As referenced in both C(1) and C(2), NPS plans to aggregate best-inclass tools and resources for social-emotional learning from a
committee of leading national experts. Through this effort, we seek to
develop curricular resources that engage students through the lens of
their own life experiences and expose students to curriculum and
lessons that represent a diverse range of perspectives.
Furthermore, many of the adaptive tools and programs employed
within our blended learning pilots provide real-world learning
opportunities, or alternative ways in which students can demonstrate
mastery. For example, Expeditionary Learning’s literacy program
provides many opportunities – and awards credit – for learning through
project-based work or experiences outside of the classroom.
67
B(4)(b) Letters of support from key stakeholders
In developing this plan, we have gained the enthusiastic support of key partners and stakeholders
within and beyond the city of Newark. The list below summarizes the letters of support offered
by these partners and stakeholders, all of which are included in Appendix B(4) Item 4. The text
that follows highlights some of the key individuals and organizations that have offered support.
Name
Position
Elected Officials
Cory Booker
Mayor
Teresa Ruiz
State Senator
Darrin Shariff
Central Ward Councilman
Current and Potential Partners
Mora Segal
CEO
Director of Continuing
John Bailie
Education
Pamela Cantor
President & CEO
Adam Weiss
CEO
Krista Purnell
Regional Managing Director
Ryan Hill
Founder & Exec. Director
Sheilah A Coley
Chief of Police
Samuel A DeMaio
Police Director
Community- and Faith-Based Organizations
Paul Scire
Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Della Fave
Executive Director
Michaela C.
Murray-Nolan
Executive Director
Laurie A Carter
Vice President
Keith H. Green
President & CEO
SVP & Chief Operating
Peter T. Rosario
Officer
Parent Organizations
Denise Crawford
Parent / Region II Director
Lillian Vargas
Parent / PTO member
Yakeemah Goines
Parent / Treasurer of PTA
Pat Johnson
Parent / PTA member
Local Philanthropic Organizations
Kimberly McLain
President & CEO
Mashea M. Ashton Chief Executive Officer
Ross Danis
President & CEO
Shane Harris
Vice President
Irene Cooper-Basch Executive Officer
Organization
City of Newark
State of New Jersey
Newark Municipal Council
Letter
1
2
3
Achievement Network
International Institute for Restorative
Practices
Turnaround for Children
Ramapo for Children
Citizen Schools
TEAM Schools
Newark Police Department
Newark Police Department
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Boys & Girls Clubs of Newark
Ironbound Community Corp
12
13
Kids Corp
NJPAC
United Way of Essex/West Hudson
14
15
16
YMCA
17
Essex and Hudson County NJPTA
Hawkins St. School PTO
Sussex Avenue School PTA
Technology HS PTA
18
19
20
21
FNF
NCSF
NTE
The Prudential Foundation
The Victoria Foundation
22
23
24
25
26
68
Mayor Cory Booker has offered his strong support of Newark Public Schools’ Race to the Top
plan. In partnership with Superintendent Anderson, Mayor Booker has been a vocal advocate for
education reform in Newark. His belief in this work, along with the demonstrated enthusiasm of
several other local elected officials, will be invaluable in rallying community support and
spurring citywide collaboration to make our plan a success.
Newark Teachers Union (NTU) has offered its support and partnership to make NPS’ Race to
the Top plan a success. The spirit of collaboration demonstrated by this letter of support and by
the initial contract agreement between NPS and NTU makes it possible to execute our Race to
the Top plan in a way that supports teachers and empowers them to own, implement, and refine
the creation of more personalized learning environments for students.
The Newark Charter School Fund (NCSF) has offered its support for our Race to the Top
application and its partnership in hosting the annual city-wide symposiums described in Section
A(3). This collaborative effort, which aims to share best practices between district and charter
schools throughout the city, will be a crucial part of creating top-tier school options for all
students in Newark.
The Foundation for Newark’s Future (FNF) has been instrumental in making some of the
foundational improvements highlighted within the pillars of NPS’ Theory of Change within
Section A(3) and B(1). Over the past year, FNF led the effort to contribute up to $50M toward
the costs of the initial contract agreement reached between NPS and NTU. FNF has expressed its
ongoing support for NPS’ Race to the Top proposal, which build on the Theory of Change.
Furthermore, the Foundation has offered to reinforce our Race to the Top plan in a number of
specific ways, such as using its partnership with Montclair State University to ensure that new
teachers enter NPS prepared to teach in a blended learning environment.
Many community-based, faith-based and parent organizations provided feedback throughout
the process of refining the plan and have demonstrated their ongoing support through the
appended letters. The strong partnerships we have established with community organizations
constitute another one of the foundational pillars in our Theory of Change (as described in
Section A(3)). Our close collaboration with these groups will help ensure that the ongoing
69
continuous improvement and engagement strategies described in Section E will lead to
meaningful refinements in our plan and increasingly positive outcomes for students.
The Achievement Network currently supports 48 NPS schools in by providing robust, on-theground coaching supports that embed a cycle of collaborative, data-driven decision making as
part of each school’s regular routines. The positive initial feedback we received from educators
participating in early pilots informed our decision to expand the partnership to all K8 schools
during the 2013-14 school year, and to continue it into the future. At the same time, it
emphasized the critical importance of building out our internal capacity to support data-driven
coaching and instruction, which we have laid out as a strategic next step in the first strand of our
Race to the Top proposal.
Turnaround for Children has offered its support and partnership for the Race to the Top
application as a whole, with a particular focus on the work described in the Competitive
Preference Priority. Turnaround for Children has deep expertise in establishing multi-tiered
student support systems that integrate the services of nearby mental health providers.
70
C. Preparing Students for College and Careers
(C)(1) Learning (20 points)
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for
improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide
all students the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an
approach to implementing instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in
this notice) that enable participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through
support of his or her needs. This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes an
approach that includes the following:
Learning: An approach to learning that engages and empowers all learners, in particular highneed students (as defined in this notice), in an age-appropriate manner such that:
(a) With the support of parents and educators, all students—
(i) Understand that what they are learning is key to their success in
accomplishing their goals;
(ii) Identify and pursue learning and development goals linked to college- and
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), understand how to structure
their learning to achieve their goals, and measure progress toward those goals;
(iii) Are able to be involved in deep learning experiences in areas of academic
interest;
(iv) Have access and exposure to diverse cultures, contexts, and perspectives
that motivate and deepen individual student learning; and
(v) Master critical academic content and develop skills and traits such as goalsetting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking, communication, creativity,
and problem-solving;
(b) With the support of parents and educators (as defined in this notice), each student
has access to—
(i) A personalized sequence of instructional content and skill development
designed to enable the student to achieve his or her individual learning goals
and ensure he or she can graduate on time and college- and career-ready;
(ii) A variety of high-quality instructional approaches and environments;
(iii) High-quality content, including digital learning content (as defined in this
notice) as appropriate, aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as
defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as
defined in this notice);
(iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, including, at a minimum—
(A) Frequently updated individual student data that can be used to
71
determine progress toward mastery of college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and
(B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the student’s
current knowledge and skills, college- and career-ready standards (as
defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation
requirements (as defined in this notice), and available content,
instructional approaches, and supports; and
(v) Accommodations and high-quality strategies for high-need students (as
defined in this notice) to help ensure that they are on track toward meeting
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and
(c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to students that will
ensure that they understand how to use the tools and resources provided to them in
order to track and manage their learning.
Introduction to Section C
In sum, the story of this application is a blended approach that recognizes that support for
students and support for teachers are inextricably linked; both are necessary, neither alone is
sufficient. The two sections that follow provide us an opportunity to explain our balanced
approach in more detail. In each section, we follow a similar format:

Enumerate the proposed changes that support personalized learning environments for
both students and teachers

Map each of these changes to the overarching strands of work in our strategic framework

Provide detail on our rationale and implementation approach

Link the application criteria in each section with the key changes that we outline
Note: Because many of the strands of work in our plan apply to both students and teachers, we
have tried to avoid the redundancy of explaining the same grant activities and deliverables in
both Section C(1) and C(2) (and in some cases the Competitive Preference Priority). Instead,
the narrative explicitly notes when additional detail can be found in a different section.
C(1): Learning
While the data in Section B(1) offers initial signs of promise for improving student achievement
in Newark, it nonetheless also serves as a stark reminder of the degree of challenge in the district
72
today. Only six in ten students graduate from high school on time, and only half of these go on
to attend a post-secondary institution. Assuming that college completion rates in Newark are inline with other urban districts, this translates to roughly only one in ten Newark students earning
a degree within six years of leaving high school.
It is clear that dramatic change and progress is required to address an educational crisis of this
magnitude. Helping teachers to become more effective in their role is an indispensable part of
the solution (as addressed in Section C(2)), but we also must find ways to increase the
motivation, engagement, and resilience of students themselves – to enable them and their
families to be more active partners with schools in pursuit of common academic and life goals.
Looking across NPS’ plan for RTT-D, we highlight eight key changes that will transform the
learning experience for students, and transform their performance, as well.
Key Changes to Student Learning through the RTT-D Plan
1. Students and families will be able to track their progress in demonstrating mastery of
college-ready standards every 6 weeks
2. Students, initially in grades 9-12, will develop individualized learning plans (ILPs) that
combine both academic and social-emotional goals to track their pathway to college and
beyond
3. Students will spend more classroom time focused on learning key social-emotional
competencies, alongside academic ones, that contribute to success in school and life
4. Students will benefit from social-emotional curriculum that take into account their
experiences and life circumstances
5. Students with the most significant behavioral, social-emotional, and mental health needs
will have additional support from social workers and outside service providers
6. Students who enter the 9th grade significantly below grade level in reading will work
through a blended learning model focused on accelerating adolescent literacy
development
7. Students in grades 3-8 will work in a blended learning model as a part of their core
instruction, engaging both in small groups with teachers and on their own with adaptive
digital content
73
8. Students working in a blended learning environment will receive daily feedback on their
performance and have access to a wide range of content providers
We provide additional detail on each of these changes in the pages that follow.
1. Students and families will be able to track their progress in demonstrating mastery of
college-ready standards every 6 weeks
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
As described in Section A(1), this key action in support of
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
students ties to NPS’ goal to Invest in Teacher Capacity to
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Use Data.
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
While the primary objective of this strand of work is to build
the habits and skills of teachers around personalized learning,
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
the investments that NPS is putting in place through this
initiative will create a valuable stream of information for
students and families. Indeed, regular assessments can provide
2
a backbone of information linked to long-term student outcome goals that is helpful and
clarifying for students who are navigating a range of content providers and adaptive tools in their
blended learning environment.
NPS has already invested significantly in partnerships with widely-recognized organizations who
can begin to build district capacity in this regard. In our application last year, we proposed to
scale up the work of the Achievement Network, then partnering with 18 K-8 schools, to all K-8
schools in the district. To signal the level of priority that we attach to establishing this
foundation for personalized learning, NPS found the funds in our own operating budget to scale
up the A-Net partnership to all K-8 schools on the schedule outlined in our RTT-D plan, even
without the benefit of grant funds.
The interim assessments that A-Net provides have been rigorously mapped not only to new
standards, but to the PARCC model content frameworks that will guide future summative
assessments, and to the six instructional shifts outlined by the authors of the Common Core.
Each school will administer two assessments – one in ELA, one in Math – every 6-8 weeks over
74
these grades, with the administration taking place within a single class period. And the data is
available within 48 hours, providing a nearly real-time view of student performance on collegeready standards that is mapped down to the level of individual skills and potential student
misconceptions within each standard.
For these assessments to serve as a mechanism for teacher development and planning (as
described in detail in Section C(2)), it is critical that they remain low-stakes for students,
teachers, and schools. However, if provided with the right context, the data can be very valuable
for students and families to understand exactly where they stand relative to standards, and to
pinpoint the areas in which they need further work. When linked over time, the record of these
assessments can also give students and families a clear view of their trajectory: where and when
their progress is accelerating or falling off-track. Later in this section, when we discuss blended
learning models, we will explore ways for students to get even more frequent and real-time
feedback on their performance – but these interim assessments provide a foundational way for all
students to be able to view and understand their baseline performance against the most important
measure at any point in time: on-track for college-readiness.
Because these A-Net interim assessments apply only to grades 2-8, we have also launched efforts
to bring this level of data and feedback into the high school grades. Through a partnership with
CRESST, NPS has launched a series of formative assessments in grades 9 and 10 that are
similarly aligned to Common Core standards. The partnership with CRESST builds on the fact
that NPS has already adopted the ACT in all schools for 8th to 11th grade, to ensure that all K-8
and High Schools know exactly how many students they are helping attain college-level
knowledge. Additional investments of grant funds are required to help evaluate and scale the
work with CRESST, and to bolster the assessments with parallel coaching supports.
But combining the partnerships we have established at grades K-8 with our work in high schools,
NPS will have developed a trajectory measuring college-readiness that stretches all the way from
grade 2 to 12. NPS students and their families will – for the first time – have a clear sense of
where they stand against rigorous college-readiness benchmarks. When students know where
they are and where they need to go, they are far more likely to excel.
75
2. Students, initially in grades 9-12, will develop individualized learning plans (ILPs) that
combine both academic and social-emotional goals to track their pathway to college
and beyond
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
The initiative above, as well as numbers 3, 4, and 5 that follow,
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
all tie back to the original strategic framework via NPS’ goal to
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
Integrate Social-Emotional Teaching and Learning with
Academics.
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
The ultimate goal of our RTT-D plan is to help all students
master the skills to succeed in college and life. Core academic
skills that are measured by things like the interim assessments
3
described above – how to read, write, think, and do math at high levels – are one critical piece of
this goal. But in order for young people to succeed in college and to access the full range of life
options they deserve, they also need “non-academic skills” to succeed in our 21st century
economy. Only one out of five jobs will be available for “low skilled” workers in the next five
to ten years even among conservative measures. Additionally, many jobs will be in new, small
businesses where technological and entrepreneurial skills are required.
The bottom line is that all young people need to obtain college-level skill in academics as well as
social and emotional skills to get ahead. Yet the current infrastructure in NPS and the vast
majority of districts treats the academic and social-emotional spheres as distinct, and devotes
little rigor to measuring and sharing social-emotional learning data.
NPS proposes to develop an Individualized Learning Plan (ILP) for each student, starting in
grades 9-12 and then moving down into the middle school grades, that gives that student a
holistic view of their path to college readiness based on four domains of academic and social
emotional data:
76

Academic progress: Using data from Common Core-aligned interim assessments (e.g.
CRESST data) or other achievement data, where does the student stand relative to a
standard of on-track for college-ready graduation? What trajectory have they been on?

Social-emotional skills and competencies: Using data from assessments of key socialemotional traits – e.g., persistence, time management, conflict resolution – what are the
student’s strengths and areas for growth in non-academic skills? Where do they need
additional support?

Talents and interests: Using a self-assessment instrument for students, what career and
life goals does that student have? What does that imply about the coursework and nonacademic skills required to reach that goal.

College knowledge: Using basic questions that NPS can develop building on promising
college bridge curricula, how much do students know and understand about the process
of college preparation, exploration, admissions, and decision-making? What are they
excited for, and what more do they need to do?
By integrating these streams of information, the ILP itself is both a product – i.e., a set of data
that captures and updates the key elements of each student’s pathway to college-readiness – and
even more importantly the launching pad for a process – i.e., a tool that teachers and other school
staff can use to engage students in goal-setting, targeted interventions, and further planning. The
plan to develop robust standards, assessments, and curriculum that focus on social-emotional
instruction is described in greater detail in Section C(2) and goes hand-in-hand with the ILP.
NPS has chosen to implement the ILP beginning in grade 9-12 because it is the period when
students are increasingly thoughtful about their future, and we know – from data and experience
inside and outside of Newark – that this is the period in which student disengagement can
accelerate. If we can invest students actively in their own goals and a carefully mapped future
trajectory through the high school years, and then gradually articulate this down through middle
school to provide a unified process and data set across the high school transition period, we will
be addressing some of the leading points of risk for student engagement.
Our implementation plan and budget include several key elements to ensure the ILP is a success:
77

NPS can benefit from collaborating with other leading thinkers in the field, many of
whom may be locally based. NPS has already made significant strides in thinking about
the construction of an ILP over the past year since our original application, and is
working with a subset of high schools to gather the input of local educators. At the same
time, we recognize that many others in the field are thinking through similar issues, and
want to ensure that our tools and resources benefit from an understanding of the best that
is out there. TEAM Schools – the charter school network that is the local affiliate of
KIPP – is one example of an organization in Newark that is nationally recognized as a
leader in non-academic learning, and that is building a similar tool with one of its
schools. We have launched work with recognized social-emotional learning
organizations such as Turnaround for Children, the International Institute for Restorative
Practice, and Ramapo for Children, all of whom bring a valuable perspective to this
question. In Section C(2), we describe the overall research and development process to
drive the creation of the ILP along with aligned teacher resources.

The budget sets aside funds to invest in a data portal that can integrate existing data from
the district’s student information system with the four domains described above so the
ILP can be shared with teachers, relevant school staff, students, and families. As the
different elements of our plan scale over the course of the grant period, this portal may
overlap and merge with the data platform that supports the blended learning model
described later in this section.
3. Students will spend more classroom time focused on learning key social-emotional
competencies, alongside academic ones, that contribute to success in school and life
4. Students will benefit from social-emotional curriculum that take into account their
experiences and life circumstances
Although both academic and non-academic skills are critical for students to achieve collegeready graduation, the time and resources dedicated to social-emotional learning today do not
reflect this balance. To the contrary, many teachers and school leaders doubt whether teaching
social-emotional skills and competencies is something that a school can or should do. And those
teachers who do see the value of social-emotional learning confront a landscape that lacks clear
78
standards, robust assessments, and comprehensive curricular options. It is hard for even a
motivated teacher today to be truly effective in driving social-emotional learning.
Shifting the current paradigm to one in which academic and social-emotional skills are taught
and learned with equal rigor and focus is one of NPS’ leading objectives with the RTT-D grant.
The work required to achieve this objective, and a more detailed rationale for pursuing it, is
defined in greater detail in Section C(2). From the perspective of a student, this will mean:

Lessons on social-emotional skills will be integrated into broader unit plans, with
clear learning objectives linked to standards and assessments

Given NPS’ desire to aggregate best-in-class tools and resources from a committee of
leading national organizations, students will experience curriculum and lessons that
are designed from a diverse range of perspectives. NPS is seeking in particular
curricular resources that engage students through the lens of their own life
experiences.
5. Students with the most significant behavioral, social-emotional, and mental health needs
will have the benefit of support from social workers and outside service providers
Even as we build the capacity of teachers to integrate social-emotional learning into the
classroom, and dedicate more time to these skills and behaviors, there will be students whose
level of need exceeds the supports that can be offered in a classroom environment. In the
Competitive Preference Priority, we describe a strategy we have launched through partnerships
with Turnaround for Children and the International Institute for Restorative Practices, both of
which operate on the premise that low-performing, high-poverty schools are generally
characterized by high levels of disruption and that this disruption is often due to a small number
of students with intense, unmet needs.
While more details on this part of the plan can be found in the Competitive Preference Priority,
the key investments we are making for direct student service include:

Establishing the permanent role of a school-based social worker (Student Support Social
Worker) trained by the partner on critical intervention and youth development skills
79

Establishing an effective linkage with a nearby mental health provider(s), to be put in
place and monitored by the partner

Creating structures for ongoing collaboration with juvenile justice, child protective
services or other available social services
6. Students in grades 3-8 will work in a blended learning model as a part of their core
instruction, engaging both in small groups with teachers and on their own with adaptive
digital content
7. Students who enter the 9th grade significantly below grade level in reading will work
through a blended learning model focused on accelerating adolescent literacy
development
8. Students working in a blended learning environment will receive daily feedback on their
performance and have access to a wide range of content providers
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Tying the three items above back to the overall strategy
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
presented in Section A(1), these key actions in support of
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
students are tied to NPS’ goal to Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate Student Achievement
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
By Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data and Integrate
Social-Emotional Teaching and Learning with Academics
4
(the first two strands of work in NPS’ RTT-D strategy), we are laying the groundwork for
effective personalized learning environments. The final layer of the strategy – to Pilot Blended
Learning Models to Accelerate Student Achievement – reaches even farther to amplify the
gains in student learning that we can achieve, through the part of our plan that offers the most
fundamental shift in the day-to-day classroom experience of students and teachers.
We are convinced that blended learning models offer tremendous potential to accelerate and
personalize student learning – but also recognize that the emergent state of both practice and
underlying technology creates a higher-than-usual risk of implementation challenges. In a
district like NPS that has struggled for so long with poor student achievement results, it is
80
incumbent on us as leaders to try new things and take responsible risks in favor of student
learning. But we also must be prudent not to overestimate the readiness of the field to widely
adopt models that are still emerging, lest we both discredit another reform as the “flavor of the
month,” and allow our students to continue falling further behind.
Below we review our strategy for blended learning and the impact it will have on the student
learning model by way of three key questions: How do we define blended learning? How did
we choose where to target blended learning models? And what investments are we making to
ensure success?
How do we define blended learning?
We have heard far too many people in the sector who seem to simplify blended learning down to
technology-oriented slogans like “1-to-1 laptops” or “buy all the kids iPads.” In our view,
blended learning is nothing more than a new structural twist on two older and integral goals for
personalizing education: (1) students have daily opportunities for individualized learning; and
(2) teachers have the opportunities, time, and resources to differentiate small group instruction.
Technology, in turn, is one aspect of the model that makes those two goals more achievable. But
the technology is only as valuable as the underlying instructional vision that it enables.
To this end, the NPS model for blended learning is built around four key assumptions:

A classroom rotation model enables small group, teacher-led instruction and reduces the
“effective” class size for a teacher. With other students engaged in individual work on
digital content (or, alternatively, in project-based or group work), the largest benefit that
teachers often see from a blended learning model is the ability to work with much smaller
groups of students for much of their instructional time.

A diverse set of digital content allows students to learn at their own personalized pace,
addresses multiple learning styles and needs, and keeps students engaged in individual
tasks. The marketplace of digital content is rapidly developing, with numerous (but not
limitless) sources of high-quality materials. These programs adapt their assignments
around students’ demonstrated needs, helping students to learn at their own pace while
81
also freeing teachers from the burden of needing to create or find all individual learning
tasks themselves.

Integrating data sources from different assessments and content providers allows students
and educators to set and manage individual goals. At the heart of the blended learning
model is a single sign-on (i.e., not multiple different usernames and passwords for
different vendors) learning management system that stores all data on student needs,
goals, learning outcomes, and trajectory. Students and teachers can use this information
to agree on an instructional plan and regularly monitor progress.

The speed of feedback on student learning is dramatically accelerated. Teachers today
who want to practice data-driven instruction on a daily basis find that it is inevitably
time-intensive – paper-based, and requiring significant effort in data entry and analysis,
planning, and lesson creation. Blended learning offers the promise of more and better
data, packaged in an easy-to-understand way, and delivered almost real-time.
How did we choose where to target blended learning models?
The points above demonstrate the potential promise of blended learning, but we know that we
will only be able to realize that promise if we implement in a targeted and prudent way. Our
plan carefully assesses where the level of need for and potential value of blended learning is
greatest, and then takes a gradual approach to expanding the model across grade levels and
schools. Based on this assessment, we have begun a small-scale blended learning pilot focused
on K-8 schools in 2013-14. Using RTT-D funds, we would continue to scale this work at the K8 level pending ongoing monitoring, while launching additional pilots at the high school level, as
described below:
First, a pilot focused on core literacy and math instruction in our K-8 schools. This pilot offers
several potential benefits:

While NPS has begun to implement new Common Core-aligned curriculum programs,
having gone through a process of identifying and promoting the strongest curricular
resources that are Common Core-aligned, it is nonetheless the case that many students
and teachers at the 3-8 grade level are still operating under the curriculum and instruction
model that was developed under prior, less rigorous standards
82

As students progress through the late elementary grades and into the middle grades, this
grade span is where we observe the most rapid divergence in outcomes between highand low-performing students, and the most decisive divergence in terms of predicting
success in high school. By using blended learning models to address this widening gap
between students, teachers will be able to individualize instruction more easily and
effectively.
Second, a pilot focused exclusively on literacy skill development, especially for students entering
9th grade significantly below grade level in reading.

The level of need is stark. Every year, of the roughly 3,000 students entering 9th grade
for the first time, more than 1,000 are coming to high school more than a year behind
grade level in reading – as measured by prior NJ state standards, much less the Common
Core. If we do not find a way to rapidly accelerate the reading skills of these students,
evidence suggests that they have relatively little chance of succeeding with college-ready
work during high school.

Both the structure of blended learning as an instructional model and the available content
in the marketplace is well-suited to this meeting particular challenge, with the ability to
flexibly diagnose individual student obstacles to literacy development, and use a variety
of content providers to meet students where they are, accelerating their progress toward
standards
What investments are we making to ensure success?
As described above, we believe that blended learning models offer significant potential reward in
terms of student learning outcomes, but simply based on the degree of change management
required, they carry an unusually high risk of poor implementation. Our plan makes several key
decisions and investments to give NPS the highest possible chance of success, and beyond these
investments, we will rely on the continuous improvement process outlines in Section E to help us
refine and course-correct along the way.
1. Significant upfront investments in technology and infrastructure: In our study of existing
case studies of blended learning implementation, probably the most common refrain we
83
heard was, “you cannot underestimate the resources, time, and energy required for
technology upgrades.” This caution resonated with us given our experience with the
significant technology upgrades that were a part of our Renew School strategy – where
heavy investments in devices and other hardware was necessary but far from sufficient
given a relatively weak foundation of “plumbing” in older school facilities, and limited
implementation support capacity (i.e. people, either contracted or employed) at the
central and school level. Our budget reflects the lessons we have learned both from our
own experience and talking to others. RTT-D resources are being used to bolster the
devices available in schools: to take all participating pilot schools to a 3:1 device ratio
(laptops or tablets), iPads purchased specifically to allow students with autism to access
the curriculum more effectively, and further investments to enable some schools that are
showing strong results in early pilot years to move to a 1:1 ratio as a further pilot, given
how we understand that 1:1 dramatically expands the range of possible application for
teachers and students.
At the same time, we are scaffolding this investment in devices with significant supports:
expanded technician and network administrator capacity in the central office; an
instructional technology representative on each school network team to oversee schoollevel work; on-site technical support at each pilot school through the first year of
implementation; and designated instructional technology leads in each school that are
trained to build their own capacity for both technical and instructional skills. This is
why we are beginning the grade 3-5 implementation in the eight Renew Schools: just in
the past six months, they have received the infrastructure upgrades and new device
hardware required to run a blended learning model. As the grant contemplates scaling
outside of the Renew Schools, we budget for significant investments using both district
and RTT-D funds. NPS is already planning to use its own funds to upgrade bandwidth
and add wireless network connectivity across all schools by the start of 2013-14. RTT-D
resources build on that investment by adding, among other things: laptops to blended
learning at a 3:1 ratio, carts to allow for flexible deployment, laptops for all participating
teachers, and.
84
2. Use of multiple digital content providers aligned to Common Core standards: Our
decision to engage multiple digital content providers within any given grade level and
subject area reflects several key findings of our planning process. First, while several
strong programs exist within each of our targeted grade levels that are aligned to
Common Core standards, the market continues to evolve rapidly, and different providers
tend to have different strengths in terms of the skills they emphasize (e.g., some literacy
programs emphasize phonemic awareness, others fluency and comprehension). Second,
given the varied areas of strength across vendors, by including multiple content providers
within a single learning management system, we increase the ability for students to be
matched with the content that most closely personalized to their needs. Finally, use of
diverse content providers helps to keep the greatest number of students engaged in their
work; we have also observed in our case studies that different students tend to learn more
effectively in one provider than other, and that students consigned to a single provider
end up bored and disengaged more quickly.
3. Implementation support, professional development, and data integration: Implementation
of blended learning models requires intensive support for teachers, leaders, and students.
In the pilots that we have launched for the 2013-14 year, NPS is working with Education
Elements in four schools and New Classrooms in one school, having selected these
organizations to be on-site with each school for months leading up to the start of the
school year, leading schools through everything from detailed planning questions (e.g.,
how to re-arrange bell schedules?) to basic technology issues (e.g., how do I sign on to
the Learning Management System?). This level of implementation support is built into
our budget for further RTT-D funded pilots, and we will have the benefit of being able to
evaluate the work of Education Elements and New Classrooms in this first year of limited
pilots before making further investment decisions. The goal is for these partners to also
provide the learning management system, ensuring that there is alignment between the
technology underlying the student and teacher experience and the professional
development being provided. We have budgeted for at least two full-day and four afterschool professional development sessions for participating teachers. In addition to these
sessions, we have budgeted for 3 three-hour “technology boot camp” sessions for
85
teachers, recognizing that the “digital divide” that affects Newark students also often
translates to limited familiarity with technology among our school staff.
4. Staged and strategic approach to rollout: The sequence by which NPS proposes to
expand blended learning over the course of the grant period is carefully calibrated to
facilitate effective implementation. As noted previously in the application, the group of
five schools that we have selected to begin pilot work in 2013-14 are drawn
disproportionately from our Renew Schools, and we anticipate that pattern continuing as
we seek to expand to eight pilot schools in 2014-15. This choice is both for reasons of
school capacity and also managerial coherence. All Renew K8 Schools and all Renew
High Schools are overseen by a single Assistant Superintendent (one for each group) and
work regularly together in a network – giving each school a natural peer set with whom
to reflect and share lessons learned. Second, NPS after the expanded set of eight pilot
schools are identified for 2014-15, NPS will not expand blended to any additional schools
until 2016-17. Our first priority is on learning and refinement, rather than on the speed of
scale-up. From studying other schools and districts that have started down the path of
blended learning, we recognize that the first year of implementation is often full of
unintended consequences and lessons learned. We want district leadership to be able to
focus on getting the model right, and not have to have their focus diluted by a recruitment
and professional development effort for a second cohort of schools.
Linking the NPS Plan to Detailed Application Criteria
The pages above attempt to provide an overall narrative structure that describes the changes NPS
is putting in place through RTT-D to drive improvements in the student learning model, and to
offer more detail on our implementation approach. Across the narrative, in aggregate we believe
that each one of the specific items within the application criteria is addressed. However, to make
it easier for a reader of this application to see the points of connection between our broader
narrative and the detailed application criteria, we offer the grid below. This grid lists each
specific point within the application structure, and then links it with one or more of the eight
changes to student learning listed at the start of Section C(1) (these changes are labeled in the
grid as “ITEM 1,” “ITEM 2,” etc.)
86
Criteria
within
C(1)
Definition of Criteria
Where Criteria Is Addressed within the NPS Plan
(a) With the support of parents and educators, all students—
(a)(i)
Students understand that what
they are learning is key to their
success in accomplishing their
goals
 ITEM 1: By clearly aligning interim assessment to teacher
instruction and college-ready standards and providing this data
transparently to students and families, NPS will connect students’
day-to-day learning and ultimate college-readiness outcomes
 ITEM 2: Individualized Learning Plans to be developed in Grades
6-12 include inventory of student talents and interests, and engage
them in a process of goal-setting that links personal goals, socialemotional skills, and academic achievement
(a)(ii)
Students identify and pursue
learning and development goals
linked to college- and careerready standards, understand how
to structure their learning to
achieve their goals, and measure
progress toward those goals
 ITEM 2: All aspects of the Individualized Learning Plans are to be
linked to college-ready standards, so that the integrated plan for
students presents a complete pathway to college across academic
and social-emotional indicators. ILPs will become a platform for
teachers and other school staff to work with students to translate the
ILP into a specific plan of study. ILPs will be maintained and
updated dynamically to trace progress toward student goal
 ITEMS 6 and 7: Blended learning models include adaptive digital
content that help craft a personalized path for students to progress
through a range of content and learning modalities toward the goal
of college-readiness
(a)(iii)
Students are able to be involved
in deep learning experiences in
areas of academic interest
 ITEM 4: Students will experience unit plans that blend academic
and social-emotional skills to create a learning experience that is
deeper, more nuanced, and more personalized for students
 ITEMS 6 and 7: The classroom model for blended learning is a
classroom rotation model, in which one of the stations will often
call for small group teacher-led instruction or project-based work.
The mix of modalities should allow students more opportunities for
in-depth work
(a)(iv)
Students have access and
exposure to diverse cultures,
contexts, and perspectives that
motivate and deepen individual
student learning
 ITEM 4: NPS will go through a R&D process to create socialemotional curriculum that combines best-in-class resources from a
diverse range of existing organizations, many of whom emphasize
individual student backgrounds and culturally relevant experiences.
This R&D process is also described in greater detail in Section C(2)
(a)(v)
Students master critical
academic content and develop
skills and traits such as goalsetting, teamwork, perseverance,
critical thinking,
communication, creativity, and
problem-solving
 ITEM 1: Interim assessments that are aligned to the Common Core
ensure that students are mastering the most critical academic skills
 ITEM 3: To complement the focus on college-ready academics,
NPS is investing RTT-D funds to develop resources (standards,
assessments, and curriculum) that help schools be more effective in
teaching social-emotional behaviors and skills such as those listed
in the application criteria. These resources will all be researchbased and will draw from the best thinking of local and national
leaders in this space
 ITEM 2: The Individualized Learning Plans that students develop
will integrate social-emotional and academic data, framing goal-
87
setting for students as a process that works to improve both
academic and non-academic competencies
(b) With the support of parents and educators, there is a strategy to ensure that each student has
access to—
(b)(i)
(b)(ii)
a personalized sequence of
instructional content and skill
development designed to enable
the student to achieve his or her
individual learning goals and
ensure he or she can graduate on
time and college- and careerready
 ITEM 2: The Individualized Learning Plans that NPS will develop
for all students in grades 6-12 embody their personalized pathway
toward college-readiness by mapping their trajectory on both
academic and non-academic indicators that research suggests are
needed to attain college-readiness
a variety of high-quality
instructional approaches and
environments
 ITEMS 3 and 4: NPS is ensuring that the instructional approaches
and environments taken by students incorporate more variety by
balancing academic scope and sequence with additional time and
resources for social-emotional learning. The process of identifying
and developing these resources will be one of learning from “best in
class” materials offered by leading thinkers in the field, to ensure
diversity in the underlying content
 ITEMS 6 and 7: Students participating in a blended learning model
will experience a personalized learning path that is driven by realtime feedback on their performance on adaptive digital content,
combined with performance with teacher-led small group
instruction and other project-based or group work
 ITEMS 6 and 7: The blended learning model that NPS will pilot is
a classroom rotation model, in which students rotate through
adaptive digital content, small group teacher-led instruction, and
project-based or group work. Each student would experience all of
these instructional approaches within a single typical school day.
Building on this variety, within the digital content part of the
learning process, NPS will engage a range of content providers to
ensure a diversity of resources
(b)(iii)
(b)(iv)(A)
high-quality content, including
digital learning content as
appropriate, aligned with
college- and career-ready
standards
 ITEM 6 and 7: All digital content that NPS selects through for the
blended learning pilots will be rigorously evaluated for its
alignment with Common Core standards
Frequently updated individual
student data that can be used to
determine progress toward
mastery of college- and careerready standards
 ITEM 1: Common Core-aligned interim assessments will be
administered every 6-8 weeks in both ELA and Math, with data
from the assessments available inside of 48 hours after the
administration.
 ITEM 2: Individualized Learning Plans will add to this academic
data by incorporating measurement of non-academic indicators that
research suggests are required to achieve college-readiness
 ITEM 1: NPS will be able to directly evaluate the efficacy and
alignment of academic content – digital and otherwise – vs.
Common Core standards, by using data from Common Core-aligned
interim assessments that are administered every 6-8 weeks to see
which standards are being effectively taught, and where common
gaps are emerging across participating schools
 ITEMS 6 and 7: Performance information from students
participating in blended learning will be available daily, almost in
real-time, and stored in an integrated learning management system
that tracks student trajectory toward college-ready standards
88
(b)(iv)(B)
Personalized learning
recommendations based on the
student’s current knowledge and
skills, college- and career-ready
standards
 ITEM 1: Results from Common Core-aligned interim assessments
will serve as the baseline for assessing a student’s overarching
trajectory toward standards, and will both inform the Individualized
Learning Plan and be included within the learning management
system for blended learning students
 ITEM 2: The Individualized Learning Plans that NPS will develop
for all students in grades 6-12 embody their personalized pathway
toward college-readiness by mapping their trajectory on both
academic and non-academic indicators that research suggests are
needed to attain college-readiness
 ITEMS 6 and 7: Students participating in a blended learning model
will experience a personalized learning path that is driven by realtime feedback on their performance on adaptive digital content,
combined with performance with teacher-led small group
instruction and other project-based or group work
(b)(v)
Accommodations and highquality strategies for high-need
students to help ensure that they
are on track toward meeting
college- and career-ready
standards
 ITEM 5: Through a partnership with outside organizations to help
integrate public and private resources, NPS will ensure that our
highest-need students receive the services they require to stay ontrack academically (e.g., support from a social worker, mental
health agency, social service agency, etc.). This partnership is
described in greater detail in the Competitive Preference Priority
 ITEMS 6 and 7: For students with disabilities and other high-need
students, technology can be a very powerful way for them to access
academic content through multiple points of engagement. NPS’
plans to upgrade technology infrastructure take account of needs
that certain segments of high-need students may have to access the
standards and curriculum (e.g., iPads being purchased for use by
students with autism)
(c)
Mechanisms are in place to
provide training and support to
students that will ensure that
they understand how to use the
tools and resources provided to
them in order to track and
manage their learning
 ITEM 8: Teachers and other school staff will receive extensive
direct support in learning how to use new technology and resources
effectively, and they, in turn will be the first level source of support
for students. However, NPS’ plan goes further than this by setting
aside resources in the budget for students and families to be able to
participate in training on new technology that will be offered after
school hours
89
(C)(2) Teaching and Leading (20 points)
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan for improving learning and teaching
by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students the support to
graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to implementing
instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable
participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as
defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or her needs.
The quality of the plan will be assessed based on the extent to which the applicant proposes an
approach that includes the following:
Teaching and Leading: An approach to teaching and leading that helps educators (as defined
in this notice) to improve instruction and increase their capacity to support student progress
toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) by enabling the full
implementation of personalized learning and teaching for all students such that:
(a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage in training, and in
professional teams or communities, that supports their individual and collective capacity
to—
(i) Support the effective implementation of personalized learning environments
and strategies that meet each student’s academic needs and help ensure all
students can graduate on time and college- and career-ready;
(ii) Adapt content and instruction, providing opportunities for students to engage
in common and individual tasks, in response to their academic needs, academic
interests, and optimal learning approaches (e.g., discussion and collaborative
work, project-based learning, videos, audio, manipulatives);
(iii) Frequently measure student progress toward meeting college- and careerready standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready graduation
requirements (as defined in this notice) and use data to inform both the
acceleration of student progress and the improvement of the individual and
collective practice of educators; and
(iv) Improve teachers’ and principals’ practice and effectiveness by using
feedback provided by the LEA’s teacher and principal evaluation systems (as
defined in this notice), including frequent feedback on individual and collective
effectiveness, as well as by providing recommendations, supports, and
interventions as needed for improvement.
(b) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) have access to, and know how
to use, tools, data, and resources to accelerate student progress toward meeting collegeand career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). Those resources
must include—
(i) Actionable information that helps educators (as defined in this notice) identify
optimal learning approaches that respond to individual student academic needs
and interests;
90
(ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content and assessments),
including digital resources, as appropriate, that are aligned with college- and
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), and the tools to create and
share new resources; and
(iii) Processes and tools to match student needs (see Selection Criterion
(C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and approaches (see Selection Criterion
(C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously improving feedback about the
effectiveness of the resources in meeting student needs.
(c) All participating school leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this
notice) have training, policies, tools, data, and resources that enable them to structure an
effective learning environment that meets individual student academic needs and
accelerates student progress through common and individual tasks toward meeting
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). The training, policies, tools,
data, and resources must include:
(i) Information, from such sources as the district’s teacher evaluation system (as
defined in this notice), that helps school leaders and school leadership teams (as
defined in this notice) assess, and take steps to improve, individual and collective
educator effectiveness and school culture and climate, for the purpose of
continuous school improvement; and
(ii) Training, systems, and practices to continuously improve school progress
toward the goals of increasing student performance and closing achievement
gaps (as defined in this notice).
(d) The applicant has a high-quality plan for increasing the number of students who
receive instruction from effective and highly effective teachers and principals (as
defined in this notice), including in hard-to-staff schools, subjects (such as mathematics
and science), and specialty areas (such as special education).
C(2) Teaching and Leading
Personalized learning environments are a goal that the best teachers and school leaders have
always strived for, but all too rarely achieved. The obstacles to realizing the vision of
personalized learning are numerous and intertwined: unclear definitions of what personalized
instruction looks like; a lack of timely information on student performance; information on
student performance not aligned to what teachers are actually teaching; a lack of feedback and
resources to help teachers reach that definition; school cultures that prevent the kind of teamwork
and collaboration between teachers that can improve instruction.
91
The challenges that have kept personalized learning from taking root among teachers have been
comprehensive and systemic; we believe it takes an approach just as comprehensive and
systemic to change the story to one of success.
Under Superintendent Anderson, Newark Public Schools has already achieved groundbreaking
progress on a district-wide agenda to increase effective teaching. Many of these successes have
already been outlined in prior sections, and our plan for Race to the Top is a logical extension of
that initiative. The plan itself uses the three key strands of work to build progressive supports for
teachers and leaders that – taken together – can transform the effectiveness of teaching and
leadership in the district.
The elements that define NPS’ plan to transform teaching and leadership are articulated below in
12 items, four of which set a foundation that exists outside of the RTT-D plan, and eight of
which stem directly from investments proposed in our RTT-D plan.
The Pillars: Elements of NPS’ Broader Theory of Change
1. Teachers will be evaluated on a framework that was built with a singular focus on
defining the competencies that help students achieve mastery of Common Core standards
2. Teachers and leaders will have more frequent observations and conversations about
classroom practice aligned to the framework
3. Teachers and leaders will have access to effectiveness data based on goal-setting,
observation results, and student growth
4. Teachers who demonstrate “highly effective” performance will receive additional bonus
compensation; teachers who are “partially effective” or “ineffective” will remain on
their “step” until their performance rating improves
The RTT-D Plan: How the strands of work accelerate NPS’ human capital strategy
5. Teachers and leaders will have timely access to student data from rigorous, Common
Core-aligned interim assessments
6. Teachers and leaders will receive coaching supports that help them translate that data
into changed instruction and embed new routines of collaboration into school practice
92
7. Teachers and leaders will pilot innovative new ways of using technology to get more
rapid, formative feedback for teachers
8. Teachers and leaders will have access to data on students’ social-emotional learning to
provide a fuller picture of student assets and needs
9. Teachers and leaders will benefit from standards and curriculum developed to increase
rigor and improve instruction on social-emotional learning
10. Teachers and leaders will be supported in adopting blended learning models that reduce
effective class sizes by offering more time for small group and individual instruction
11. Teachers and leaders participating in blended learning will be able to access daily
information on student learning through an integrated data platform that combines
content streams
12. Teachers and leaders will receive professional development, upfront training, and
ongoing technical support to help them make effective instructional use of new
technology investments
In sum, these 12 items align to each part of the scoring criteria outlined for this section. In the
summary that follows, we will first describe each of the 12 items, and how they connect to the
overall strategy that we presented in Section A(1). We conclude this section with a table that
maps which of the 12 items link to each of the specific scoring criteria.
The Pillars: Elements of NPS’ Broader Theory of Change
We at Newark Public Schools believe that the adoption of
Common Core State Standards provides us with a great
opportunity to chart a new course for our educators. Our
track record demonstrates that we are aggressively seizing
this opportunity and making Newark a national leader in
driving teacher effectiveness reforms aligned to college-ready
goals.
The first three items relate to the adoption of a new Framework for Effective Teaching and
related teacher evaluation system that were implemented for the 2012-13 school year.
93
1. Teachers will be evaluated on a framework that was built with a singular focus on
defining the competencies that help students achieve mastery of Common Core standards
The first step toward improving teacher effectiveness in personalizing learning is to organize all
educators around a single vision and definition for what personalization looks like in practice,
when applied in an environment of rigorous college-ready standards.
The process of articulating these expectations, and codifying them into a series of competencies
and indicators, was a deeply collaborative one for NPS. In order to both inform the decisionmaking process and ensure buy-in for the new framework, NPS sought feedback from
stakeholders at every stage of the process through a variety of engagement events. These events
included the Educator Evaluation pilot workshops, District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee
(DEPAC) meetings, focus groups with teachers and administrators, Principal Leadership
Institutes, small design team sessions, and meetings with NTU leadership. Over 900 individuals,
including 626 teachers, were invited to 36 engagement events between May 2011 and September
2012. 831 individuals, including 476 teachers, attended at least one event (count may include
individuals who attended more than one event).
The resulting product, NPS’ Framework for Effective Teaching, is a roadmap for all educators
for good instruction, prioritizing those competencies that will have the most impact on student
mastery. The organizing principles of our framework are Fewer, Clearer, and Higher:

Fewer – The Framework focuses on FEWER competencies, all of which are observable
in the classroom.

Clearer – The Framework uses CLEARER and more concise language to describe what
each competency looks like in practice.

Higher – The Framework sets a HIGHER bar for the competencies we need to meet in
order to ensure rigorous instruction takes place in every classroom.
Even with an emphasis on brevity and focus in the framework – for example, there are only four
key competencies for classroom practice – the through-line to building personalized learning
environments is clear. Some examples of the linkage between NPS’ Framework and the RTT-D
vision include (please see Eligibility Requirements Appendix Item 3 for the full Framework):
94

All of the language in the Framework, throughout every competency and indicator, is
oriented around moving individual students toward mastery of standards, a key
component of a personalized learning approach

Competency 2 focuses teachers on establishing multiple pathways to mastery, with
indicators that seek evidence of tailored instructional strategies and responsiveness to
student outcomes

Competency 3 incorporates the youth development and social-emotional aspects of
effective teaching, with indicators focused on students’ enthusiasm, persistence, and
engagement levels

Competency 4 assesses teachers’ ability to use data and evidence to understand student
progress toward mastery, as well as, in turn, students’ understanding of their own
trajectory
2. Teachers and leaders will have more frequent observations and conversations about
classroom practice aligned to the framework
The Framework for Effective Teaching described above will only improve instruction to the
extent that it is embedded in a school culture of feedback and professional growth. Teacher
evaluation should not be comprised exclusively of one summative evaluation; instead, a formal
observation should be only one part of an ongoing process of gathering data about a teacher's
instruction and taking action to help that teacher improve. The diagram below illustrates the
cycle of discussions, observation, feedback that NPS teachers will receive under the new teacher
evaluation system:
Goal Setting
Conference
Ongoing
Observations
PreObservation
Conference
(Optional)
Mid-Year
Review
Conference
Ongoing
Observations
Partial Period
Observation
Informal
Feedback
Formal
Observation
PostObservation
Conference
Annual
Evaluation
95
According to state administrative code, teachers must have at least one formal, full-period
observation if they are tenured and at least three formal, full-period observations if they are not
tenured. At NPS, we view the state regulation as a minimum, and we are more focused on
building school cultures in which observation and feedback at all levels – between peers, with
supervisors, with school leaders – is regular, evidence-based, formal and informal, and
developmental. Please refer to the Newark Excels guidebook for teachers and administrators in
Eligibility Requirements Appendix Item 4 for more details on the observation and performance
evaluation process.
3. Teachers and leaders will have access to effectiveness data based on goal-setting,
observation results, and student growth
In the past, teacher evaluation at NPS – not unlike the vast majority of urban districts – has
always been a paper-and-pencil system enforced with varying levels of rigor across schools,
lacking the systems and infrastructure that would allow leaders to use the information
strategically, or teachers to reflect on feedback and student growth as a part of their regular
practice. As NPS launches a new teacher evaluation system in this school year, we are also
developing portals that allow educators to enter teacher evaluation data and access it more easily.
This includes information on individual student achievement growth (first on state summative
assessments, and then, through the RTT-D plan, on regular interim assessments).
4. Teachers who demonstrate “highly effective” performance will receive additional bonus
compensation; teachers who are “partially effective” or “ineffective” will remain on
their “step” until their performance rating improves
NPS views teacher evaluation reform as a process that must be done with teachers. In that vein,
last year we and the Newark Teachers Union (NTU) agreed on a groundbreaking, progressive
new contract that shifts the way that we develop and support teachers and strengthens the teacher
evaluation system with a series of rewards for teachers who demonstrate excellence. We do not
believe that any “pay for performance” system alone can generate growth in student
achievement; but when teachers are receiving the supports that they require and excellent
instruction leads to higher compensation, the alignment of incentives can further strengthen
96
teacher practice and student learning. Some of the key changes included in this recent agreement
between NPS and NTU are:

Teachers who earn a rating of Effective or Highly Effective qualify for an automatic
“step” increase on the new salary scale. Teachers rated Partially Effective or Ineffective
will remain on their “step” until their performance rating improves.

A teacher can earn a bonus of up to $5,000 annually for receiving a Highly Effective
rating on his/her annual evaluation.

A teacher can earn a bonus of up to $5,000 annually for working in a school performing
in the lowest 25% in the district AND receiving a Highly Effective on his/her annual
evaluation.

A teacher can earn a bonus of up to $2,500 annually for working in a hard-to-staff subject
AND receiving a Highly Effective rating on his/her annual evaluation.

The above rewards are cumulative, meaning that a teacher who earns a Highly
Effective rating on his/her annual summative evaluation, works in one of the 25% of
lowest performing schools, and serves in a hard-to-staff subject area could receive
an annual bonus of up to $12,500 on top of his/her annual salary.

Please see Appendix B(1) Item 4 for additional detail about the compensation portion of
the agreement between NTU and NPS.
Teachers themselves play a key role in the observation and feedback process. Recognizing that
some of the best feedback that teachers receive often comes from their colleagues, the agreement
includes provisions for Peer Validators to be used by the district to conduct independent
evaluation reviews. Any teacher who receives a rating of ineffective will have the opportunity to
request a review.
The RTT-D Plan: How the strands of work accelerate NPS’ human capital strategy
In sum, the four foundational reforms outlined above establish a pathway for teachers to
understand and pursue excellence by creating personalized learning environments for students.
NPS’ plan for Race to the Top is constructed to accelerate teachers’ progression down that
pathway, through a series of reforms that build on each other to give teachers the resources and
97
support they need to accelerate their own development, and by extension, the achievement of our
students.
5. Teachers and leaders will have timely access to student data from rigorous, Common
Core-aligned interim assessments
6. Teachers and leaders will receive coaching supports that help them translate that data
into changed instruction, and embed new routines of collaboration into school practice
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Tying the items above (and item #7 to follow) back to the
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
overall strategy presented in Section A(1), these key actions
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
in support of teachers are tied to NPS’ goal to Invest in
Teacher Capacity to Use Data.
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
As referenced in past sections, this school year, Newark
Public Schools is scaling up our partnership with the
Achievement Network to include all K-8 schools district2
wide, believing that this work holds great promise for building the foundations of personalized
learning environments through improved data and stronger supports for teachers. Through the
use of RTT-D grant period, NPS plans sustain its investment in the Achievement Network
partnership, while expanding similar supports to the high school grades – based on our ongoing
formative assessment partnership with CRESST in those grades.
The Achievement Network partnership contains several key elements that are emblematic of our
strategy for improving teaching and learning, and which we would seek to replicate and expand
across grades:

The Right Assessments with the Right Data: The RTT-D plan calls for schools
participating in this strand of work to administer interim assessments every 6-8 weeks in
both ELA and Math, to students in grades 3-8. Each assessment will take place during
one regular classroom period and will test recently taught material, such that student
assessment and teacher planning are fully aligned. As with NPS’ Framework for
Effective Teaching, the Achievement Network assessments are aligned to the Common
Core State Standards, the PARCC Model Content Frameworks, and the six shifts outlined
98
by the authors of the Common Core, ensuring our leaders and teachers understand the
increased rigor of Common Core expectations. The interim assessment design allows
teachers to pinpoint precise aspects of the standards that they must re-teach and other
parts of the standards through which they can move faster. Based on our early experience
with this work, this data is most helpful when it reaches educators within 48 hours of
administering interim assessments. Educators access the data through a user-friendly
online resource, which automatically presents trends, prioritizes standards and sub-skills
for focus, identifies student misconceptions, and allows teachers to group students based
on their targeted needs.

Embedded Routines for Teachers to Plan and Personalize Instruction: In the
Achievement Network model, educators participate in highly collaborative, actionoriented conversations in which they develop personalized plans, assess students, use
data to adapt instruction, and reflect on what they learned:
o Teacher teams meet weekly to plan from standards, ensuring they deeply
understand the content they are going to teach.
o Each quarter, schools set aside half-day professional development blocks in their
instructional calendars to ensure that content and grade level teams meet. During
this time, teams diagnose student needs based on the results of the interim
assessments, identifying specific standards, sub-standards and skills that need to
be addressed.
o Teachers create action plans based on student misconceptions and discuss
instructional strategies across grade level teams to share best practices with their
peers.
o At the same time, each teacher receives targeted professional development in
planning from standards, using assessment data to target student needs and
improving their toolkit of instructional strategies.
o This data, action planning and reflection routine occurs every 6 weeks and over
time, turns into a regular routine for teachers.

Allowing school leaders to identify successes and pinpoint weaknesses in student
learning and teacher practice: The interim assessments provide specific detail to
teachers and leaders on sub-skills within the standards students have mastered and sub-
99
skills students struggle with – detailing information that leads directly to personalized
instruction. Through an integrated data platform, school leaders see data across teachers
and grades to allocate resources to the greatest professional development needs across the
school and identify best practices in the highest performing classrooms. Leaders also
have the ability to share strategies and management practices across schools because they
can discuss and compare student learning along the same standards and over the same
window of time. This common dataset gives educators the ability to create solutions to
the common challenges that NPS schools often face.
All of these practices are essential aspects of a personalized learning environment, and NPS has a
proven model that it can scale up to employ these practices across the system. It will take
significant time and investment for all schools to reach a point of comfort and fluency with the
routines and behaviors that are implicit in this strand of work, but NPS has prioritized financial
resources and management focus to ensure that this work receives the sustained attention that it
requires at all levels of the organization. We see this type of work as foundational to our
approach and as a key gateway for any school looking to take on more ambitious forms of
personalization, such as blended learning.
7. Teachers and leaders will pilot innovative new ways of using technology to get more
rapid, formative feedback for teachers
All of the reforms we have described – the Framework for Effective Teaching, the agreement on
a new contract, the interim assessments – combine to ensure that teachers will, more than ever,
have a shared vision of excellence, incentives to improve, and data to help diagnose student
needs. How do we help teachers act on this information to improve? The regular feedback
provided through the evaluation system, and the coaching supports offered through the
Achievement Network partnership, provide two answers to that question. But NPS is eager to do
even more to ensure that a motivated teacher can access rapid-response, low-stakes feedback
whenever he or she feels it would be helpful.
As the number of districts overhauling their teacher evaluation system grows, new technologies
are offering more ways for teachers to get feedback on their performance. Our RTT-D plan
100
provides resources for 5-10 schools to conduct a two-year pilot of some of these new systems for
teacher feedback, with the explicit goal of identifying effective tools that can then be scaled up
using district funds, even before the grant period is over. Not only do we have the ability to
reallocate resources from the overall operating budget for tools like these, but Principals– now
armed with greater autonomy over their budgets via our weighted-student funding reforms – are
also looking for promising investments to make with their school-based professional
development resources.
While NPS will allow schools applying for these funds to propose the tools they want to use,
there are several emergent models that we see as having high potential value for our educators,
including:

Video libraries that can be used for individual and group reflection on teacher practice
aligned to rubric standards (numerous vendors are offering to support such services).
Indeed, over the past year, NPS has already launched a video library containing exemplar
practices – and one of the investments we envision for the use of RTT-D funds is to
enrich the content available in the video library with more local examples and even more
relevant content for the NPS framework.

New tools that allow teachers to submit videos of their classrooms to panels of third-party
expert reviewers, who respond within 48 hours with specific, tactical feedback that is
customized to a district’s specific teacher rubric (this service is offered by The New
Teacher Project)

“Earbuds” that teachers can wear during class to receive real-time feedback from a
trained educator observing their classroom either in-person or remotely (this service is
offered by the Center for Transformative Teacher Training)
Piloting these innovations with RTT-D funds represents a highly strategic investment: as we give
schools more discretion over how to use their funds, expanding the market of evidence-based
tools they can use to drive continued increases in teacher effectiveness can have a significant and
sustainable impact on student outcomes.
101
8. Teachers and leaders will have access to data on students’ social-emotional learning to
provide a fuller picture of student assets and needs
9. Teachers and leaders will benefit from standards and curriculum developed to increase
rigor and improve instruction on social-emotional learning
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Tying the two items above back to the overall strategy
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
presented in Section A(1), these key actions in support of
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
teachers are tied to NPS’ goal to Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
Education has made great strides, most recently represented in
the Common Core State Standards, to define precisely what
students need to know and be able to do academically, and to
3
measure it through increasingly rigorous and accurate assessments. The partnerships described
earlier in this section that NPS has forged with the Achievement Network and CRESST are
exemplary of this trend: with tests that are back-mapped from college-ready standards, teachers
can now have data about how students are progressing academically on their journey to collegereadiness every six to eight weeks.
NPS’ focus on ensuring high-quality assessments is based on two core rationale: (1) often,
what’s measured is what is what is focused on, so the quality and rigor of assessments is
paramount, and (2) curricular materials – books, scope and sequences, unit maps, supplemental
materials – should be in support of clear and meaningful standards that are measured well
(indeed, Section A outlines some of the significant progress we have made .
NPS wants to employ this same focus and cutting-edge work to help our students attain
excellence in social and emotional skills. In order for this effort to succeed, it has to be researchbased and focus on clear standards, rigorous assessments, and top-notch curricular resources –
and it also has to be integrated with academic teaching. While pieces of all three exist, no
districts (or charter management organizations) that we are aware of have put them all together.
The strong leadership and deep expertise of Superintendent Anderson and her team position NPS
to be a national pioneer in social-emotional learning. Prior to coming to Newark, Superintendent
102
Anderson led New York City’s District 79, a network of alternative schools and programs for atrisk and off-track youth. NPS’ Executive Director of College and Career Readiness, Robert
Clark will serve as the leader of this strand of work, and has also devoted his career to youth
development. Before joining NPS, Robert founded YouthBuild Newark, and partnered with the
district to create an alternative vocational high school program. NPS’ Assistant Superintendent
for Special Education, Dr. Lauren Katzman, recently served as the Executive Director of Special
Education for the New York City Department of Education during a citywide reform of Special
Education. Dr. Katzman has also conducted and published a large body of research on special
education and has served as an independent evaluator of special education services in five
districts over the past ten years. For these three senior leaders, youth development and socialemotional learning are both a passion and an area of deep expertise. Superintendent Anderson
has included these individuals on her Cabinet because NPS sees social-emotional development as
core to our mission of helping all students graduate college-ready (see Appendix D(1) Item 1 for
more detailed biographies).
Our vision is to convene a steering committee comprised of the leading national experts in the
field to articulate the social-emotional skills that young people growing up in difficult
circumstances need to succeed. We will build on research in risk and resilience, youth
development, and achievement motivation to create cutting edge resources for students and
teachers that can serve as a model across the nation. Our co-developers and thought partners in
this work will include charter partners with deep expertise in social-emotional learning, such as
TEAM Charter Schools in Newark (a KIPP Region); school transformation organizations with a
focus on student supports, such as Turnaround for Children; national character education
programs, such as CASEL and Educators for Social Responsibility; respected curricular
providers, such as Responsive Classrooms, Facing History and Ourselves; as well as university
partners, such as the Rutgers Center for Social Justice Education. Our plan is to collaborate with
these national experts to develop best-in-class standards, assessments, curriculum, and data
systems that empower teachers to place social-emotional learning at the core of their classroom
practice.
NPS’ View of the National Landscape for Social-Emotional Standards, Assessment, and
Curriculum
103
Our approach to implementation and proposed use of RTTT funds is informed by our view of the
available research and leading partners in the space:

Defining social-emotional standards: Very few school districts – or schools – have
adopted a clear set of social and emotional standards that articulate what students should
know and be able to do with the same precision that the Common Core affords to
academics. However, we believe that pockets of existing research provide clues and
tools that could be used to articulate clear social-emotional standards with a concerted
planning effort. Risk and resilience research has identified the skills and competencies
possessed by young people who succeed despite growing up in difficult circumstances
(e.g., poverty, group homes, and/or early experience with violence/substance
abuse). Youth development research has identified the characteristics of programs that
promote and teach these competencies effectively. Achievement motivation research has
identified what non-academic skills students possess – and teachers teach – that are most
correlated to student achievement. Unfortunately, while some individual schools have
experimented with how to teach these skills, those efforts are often devoid of the research
base that provides critical piece of the puzzle.

Assessments of social-emotional learning: As for assessments, virtually none exist at the
level of quality and rigor that we seek. Given the tendency of schools to focus on what is
measured, the lack of rigorous assessments for social-emotional skills ensures that these
skills will always take a back seat to academic skills. Compounding the challenge, many
schools and teachers believe it is not the school’s job to teach social-emotional skills –
even though research tells us they are not only critical for success later in life, but are also
inextricably linked to student achievement.

Identifying curricular resources: As described above, some high-quality curricular
resources exist, though none provides a comprehensive approach to teaching all of the
most important skills that students need according to the most recent research. The
potential partners we list above have begun to create individual pieces of the broader
puzzle. Curricula such as Facing History and Ourselves teach students about decisionmaking and empathy through historical case studies. Materials in programs like
Responsive Classroom and PBIS help teachers create rituals to practice healthy group
dynamics. Unique approaches like restorative practices help young people who have been
104
both the victims and the perpetrators of violence to move forward in a productive manner.
Character education programs like those offered by CASEL and Educators for Social
Responsibility aim to teach social and emotional skills, often in a “pull out” setting.
While each of these programs has promise and contains a piece of the puzzle, none articulates
clear standards that students must master, spells out how that will be measured, aligns the
resources to these standards and assessments, and helps teacher understand how to teach these
skills effectively. Over the course of this grant, it is NPS’ goal to build on best-in-class
resources and partner with the leading experts in the field to create a comprehensive, aligned set
of standards, assessments, and curriculum to support social-emotional learning.
NPS Approach to Implementation
Given the assessment of the national landscape we just described, this effort is clearly one that
must begin with an intensive R&D period. Our implementation plan and budget set aside the
first 18 months of the grant to serve as the R&D phase. The key structures to drive R&D will be:

A dedicated senior leader within the NPS central office whose 100% focus will be on
driving this effort. This leader will report to Robert Clark and is already posted, and will
be funded with NPS operating budget.

A steering committee of experts in the field, potentially comprised of organizations listed
above as well as other key related partners of the district (e.g., Turnaround for Children
and the International Institute for Restorative Practices as described in the Competitive
Preference Priority section)

Four to six schools identified as R&D partners based on the capacity and skill set of their
leaders as well as the level of need in their student population. These schools will
commit time and energy to the design phase and will serve as pilot sites for the initial
implementation in 2014-15

Funds to support teams of teachers within the R&D schools to assist with the
development of assessments and curriculum, and to “test out” what we are developing to
ensure it is the right depth and breadth
The R&D period is followed by a gradual scaling up to all teachers in grades 6-12 over the
course of the final two years of the grant. Ultimately, we aim to marry social-emotional
105
assessments with the academic interim assessments described earlier in this section. Perhaps
equally important, we aim to articulate a professional development approach that supports
teaching and non-teaching staff in increasing their capacity to help students master socialemotional skills.
10. Teachers and leaders will be supported in adopting blended learning models that reduce
effective class sizes by offering more time for small group and individual instruction
11. Teachers and leaders participating in blended learning will be able to access daily
information on student learning through an integrated data platform that combines
content streams
12. Teachers and leaders will receive professional development, upfront training, and
ongoing technical support to help them make effective instructional use of new
technology investments
Newark Public Schools Strategy for Personalized Learning
Ensure all students
graduate college-ready
Tying the three items above back to the overall strategy
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
presented in Section A(1), these key actions in support of
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics
Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
teachers are tied to NPS’ goal to Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate Student Achievement.
Provide Top Tier School Options for All Students
Develop
Effective
Professionals
in Every
Classroom
Cultivate
Transformational
School Leaders
Re-Imagine
NPS as a
ServiceOriented Team
Engage and
Involve
Stakeholders to
Contribute to
CollegeReadiness
Section C(1) describes in detail NPS’ definition of blended
learning and the approach that we are taking to pilot blended
4
learning models beginning in grades 3-8 for core instruction and in high school grades for
struggling readers. The first five of these pilots are already underway in 2013-14 at the K-8
level, and will be expanded with RTT-D funds starting in 2014-15. At its core, blended learning
is a strategy for making the work of differentiated instruction that teachers have always tried to
do much more efficient (in terms of the time and effort required for teachers) and effective (in
terms of the ability to truly personalize a path for each student).
In the way that NPS is approaching blended learning, there will be three major benefits for the
teaching experience (Items #10-12 in the box above, also described below):
106

Blended learning creates more time for teachers to lead instruction in small groups: The
basic model of blended learning calls for students to rotate between 2-3 stations
conducting a mix of individual work on adaptive learning software, project-based or
group work, and small group teacher-led instruction. In a class of 25 students, a teacher
may spend the majority of his or her blended learning time working with a group of 8-15
students instead. This creates an opportunity for teachers to drive students towards more
in-depth learning experiences and higher levels of thinking: by letting technology assist
with more basic skills instruction and using the resulting data to group students
strategically, teachers can work with small groups of students to use higher order skills
and reach a deeper level of mastery.

Blended learning will provide teachers with daily information on student performance
across content providers. Blended learning pilots in NPS will include a learning
management system with teacher data dashboards that combine data from all content
providers through a single sign-in. Using this data, teachers will be able to access nearly
real-time feedback on student performance, using that to refine the optimal rotations for
students and select the content that best meet their demonstrated needs. While we know
from experience in other leading schools and districts that technology and content
providers still have more work to do to make multiple data streams “speak to each other”
more effectively, the market is rapidly evolving, and significant improvement is expected
even over the next 12-24 months. This is where the continuous improvement approach
outlined in Section E will be most important.

Our plan offers teachers substantial training and professional development, both upfront
and ongoing. The teachers who provided feedback on this plan were enthusiastic about
the potential value of blended learning for them and for their students, but they also
described the change management obstacles they will encountered during
implementation. Teachers need assistance with, among other things: restructuring their
physical classroom and how they use time; learning the pros and cons of different new
digital content providers; becoming more fluent with technology hardware and software;
understanding how to use the learning management system to access student data; and
improving their ability to use data from the LMS to drive instructional planning
decisions. Recognizing this need in designing our initial pilots this school year, NPS
107
selected to work with experienced implementation supports whose work is recognized
nationally: Education Elements is working with four schools, and New Classrooms is
working with one school. Our plan for RTT-D includes resources for support to begin 6
months before a school launches blended learning and continue for at least two years
following the initial implementation. Support will include classroom planning (use of
space, use of time), selection of content providers, use of learning management systems,
and how to integrate feedback from the LMS into existing routines of data-driven
instruction. .
One risk that we are aware of is that, even if teachers are interested in the educational benefits of
technology and personalization, they are likely to “shut down” if they experience initial
challenges accessing or using new technology and cannot find adequate support. This risk is all
the more present in Newark, where the “digital divide” that affects so many of our students and
families also applies to our staff. Through the intensive investment in technology that was a part
of the Renew School strategy, we gained some valuable lessons about how to structure and
scaffold investment in technology support, which we have integrated into our RTT-D plan.
These investments include:

Ensuring that technology is led with an instructional rather than a technical mindset:
Through our planning and early implementation around blended learning, we quickly
realized that the district lacked sophisticated leadership around instructional technology,
and that the leadership that did exist resided within our CIO office where connection to
pedagogy was limited. NPS is now recruiting a Director of Instructional Technology,
funded through operating dollars, who will report through the Special Assistant for
Academics (a direct report to Superintendent Anderson, and the district’s version of
CAO) rather than through the technology group.

Scaffolded supports at the central office, network, and school level: For the intensive
investment that we are making in technology infrastructure and usage, the reality is that
more capacity will be needed at every level of the system. The challenge is to build this
capacity so that it builds sustainable capacity at the school level rather than creating a
significant ongoing central office bureaucracy. Our plan includes limited additional
ongoing capacity in the central office, to manage ongoing needs for technicians and
network administrators in line with standard ratios of personnel to the number of active
108
devices. But we also invest in temporary, contracted technical resources who will sit at
both the network (i.e. Assistant Superintendent) and school level for the first year of
blended learning pilots at any given school. School-level resources will ensure that
teachers and administrators have ready access to assistance when needed, and network
level resources will ensure that these supports are managed consistently across schools
and in line with the overall themes the Assistant Superintendent is promoting. Finally,
each school will designate a point person (typically the School Operations Manager,
though the decision will be up to each school), and will invest in training and certification
for those individuals to be the ongoing, sustainable school-level expertise around both the
technology and the pedagogy associated with blended learning.

Funding for the “plumbing” of school level technology: Another lesson learned is that
investments in devices often expose more fundamental gaps in the technology readiness
of schools that are in old facilities – for example, in the level of electrical capacity or
network bandwidth required to support a far greater level of device activity. Our plan
includes a modest set-aside portion of funds to ensure that the district can make these
basic infrastructure investments where needed, so that we can ensure that those funds
allocated to devices and adaptive content can be put to good use in classrooms and
buildings that can accommodate their use.
Linking the NPS Plan to Detailed Application Criteria
As in Section C(1), the pages above provide an overall narrative structure that describes the
changes NPS is putting in place and to offer more detail on our implementation approach.
Across the narrative, in aggregate we believe that each one of the specific items within the
application criteria is addressed. To clarify specific points of connection between our broader
narrative and the detailed application criteria, we offer the grid below. This grid lists each
specific point within the application structure, and then links it with one or more of the twelve
elements that define NPS’ plan to transform teaching and leadership listed at the start of Section
C(2) (these elements are labeled in the grid as “ITEM 1,” “ITEM 2,” etc.)
Criteria
within
C(2)
Definition of Criteria
Where Criteria Is Addressed Within the NPS Plan
109
(a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage in training, and in professional teams or
communities, that supports their individual and collective capacity to:
Support the effective
All of the strands of work within the NPS application include
(a)(i)
implementation of personalized
significant time and resources for teacher training, especially
learning environments and strategies working with teachers in collaborative settings. For criteria (a)(i),
that meet each student’s academic
we would highlight two components that we view as especially
needs and help ensure all students
foundational to teachers learning other elements of personalized
can graduate on time and collegelearning. However, the broad wording of (a)(i) makes it arguably
and career-ready;
relevant to many other strands of our application:
 ITEM 2: The observations and feedback that are a part of NPS’
teacher evaluation system include a significant emphasis on
personalizing student learning toward college-readiness, given the
focus that these concepts have within the overall Framework for
Effective Teaching
 ITEM 6: NPS will contract with a partner to provide both interim
assessments aligned to the Common Core, and on-site coaching
supports that facilitate teachers’ ability to work with this data in
routines that emphasize collaborative planning. Achievement
Network, to use one example of a potential partner, has shown the
ability to institute robust data planning cycles with teachers and
school leadership teams. This work with teachers builds much of
the “muscle memory” around data-driven instruction that supports
all elements of personalized learning environments
(a)(ii)
Adapt content and instruction,
providing opportunities for students
to engage in common and individual
tasks, in response to their academic
needs, academic interests, and
optimal learning approaches
 ITEM 6: As part of the coaching supports and collaboration
described immediately above (under criteria (a)(i)), teachers will
work in content and grade level teams, with facilitation from an
outside partners, to develop action plans that adapt content and
instruction to meet students’ needs based on the results of
students’ interim assessments. This data-drive instructional
planning routine will initially be facilitated by an external partner
every 6-8 weeks, but one of the explicit goals of such a partnership
is to embed ongoing systems and processes within each school so
that teachers continue to plan collaboratively and adapt content
and instruction to students’ needs over time
 ITEM 10: NPS will engage with an implementation support
partner as it launches the blended learning pilots, with this partner
scheduled to work with school leadership teams and teachers from
six months before launch through at least the first two years of
implementation. One of the roles of this partner will be to conduct
professional development with teams from participating schools
that focuses on how to use adaptive digital content and classroom
rotations to make instructional time personalized to student needs
(a)(iii)
Frequently measure student progress
toward meeting college- and careerready standards and use data to
inform both the acceleration of
student progress and the
improvement of the individual and
collective practice of educators
 ITEM 6 and ITEM 10: Both the interim assessment strand of
work and the blended learning strand of work focus on the ability
of teachers to frequently measure student progress toward collegeready standards and understand how to translate this data into
concrete actions they can take in the classroom to improve
outcomes. As described in the narrative for this section as well as
in the box above for criteria (a)(ii), a robust plan exists to provide
hands-on training and support around these skills to school leaders
and teachers
110
(a)(iv)
Improve teachers’ and principals’
practice and effectiveness by using
feedback provided by the LEA’s
teacher and principal evaluation
systems, including frequent
feedback on individual and
collective effectiveness, as well as
by providing recommendations,
supports, and interventions as
needed for improvement
 ITEM 2: The new teacher and leader evaluation systems in NPS
include robust policies and support for providing and reflecting on
feedback. For example, we have provided principals and
administrators with guidance on how to give specific and actional
feedback tailored to teachers’ individal growth areas. All educators
are encourage to have regular conversations to discuss strengths
and growth areas, set professional goals, and create inidividualized
professional development plans to meet those goals.
 ITEM 7: This plan also provides for a small number of schools to
pilot innovative forms of rapid, formative feedback for teachers.
Pilot schools will help identify the most promising tools and
approaches that offer specific, actionable feedback to help teachers
improve their practice. We expect many schools to adopt the tools
that teachers and leaders in pilot schools find most helpful.
(b) All participating educators have access to, and know how to use, tools, data, and resources to accelerate student
progress toward college- and career-ready graduation requirements, including:
Actionable information that helps
(b)(i)
 ITEMS 5, 6, and 11: Both the interim assessment strand of work
educators (as defined in this notice)
and the blended learning strand of work focus on providing
identify optimal learning approaches
teachers with actionable data and information on students’
that respond to individual student
progress toward college-ready standards so that they respond to
academic needs and interests
individual students’ academic needs by grouping students
strategically, selecting appropriate content, and reviewing
concepts as required based on student needs
 ITEM 8 and 9: As described in Section C(1), part of our plan is to
create Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) for each student,
beginning in grades 6-12. These ILPs will contain information and
data not only on students’ academic progress, but also on their
social-emotional skills and competencies; talents and interests;
and “college knowledge.” We believe that all four domains are
critical to student success, and the R&D phase of our work in this
strand will focus on ensuring that the information in all four
domains is actionable for educators and that the accompanying
training provided on ILPs helps educators understand how to use
this diverse set of information in the classroom
(b)(ii)
High-quality learning resources
(e.g., instructional content and
assessments), including digital
resources, as appropriate, that are
aligned with college- and careerready standards, and the tools to
create and share new resources
 ITEM 5: As described above, NPS will contract with a partner to
provide interim assessments for students aligned to the Common
Core. The same partner will support teachers and leaders in
facilitating content and grade level team meetings each quarter
that use a standard set of reports, data resources, and facilitation
tools, during which educators will have opportunities to co-create
learning resources or share the resources they have found most
effective with their peers.
 ITEMS 10 and 12: NPS will engage with an implementation
partner to support our launch of blended learning. One of the
selection criteria for this partner is deep expertise in the rapidly
changing field of digital content so that the partner can help
111
teachers select rigorous digital content that meets the specific
needs of their students. As described above, this partner will also
provide professional development to ensure that teachers know
how to use adaptive digital content effectively in the classroom.
 ITEM 9: NPS plans to collaborate with national experts on socialemotional learning to develop best-in-class standards,
assessments, curriculum, and data systems that empower teachers
to place social-emotional learning at the core of their classroom
practice. We will engage teacher leaders throughout the district in
creating and testing these learning resources in order to ensure
that they meet the needs of both students and teachers
(b)(iii)
Processes and tools to match student
needs (see Selection Criterion
(C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources
and approaches (see Selection
Criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide
continuously improving feedback
about the effectiveness of the
resources in meeting student needs
 ITEMS 5 and 6: Our partner and interim assessment provider will
also provide intensive professional development to support
teachers in using interim assessment data to select appropriate
resources and tailor instructional strategies to meet students’
individual needs
 ITEM 12: Our implementation partner for blended learning will
also provide significant training to help teachers understand the
strengths and weakness of different content providers and build
routines around selecting specific content to meet specific student
needs. Additionally, some digital content providers have the
capacity to recommend specific content for individual students
based on their performance over multiple sessions. Because this
technology is so nascent, NPS may consider these
recommendations but will focus heavily on assessing their validity
and effectiveness over time by comparing algorithm-generated
recommendations with teachers’ own recommendations
 ITEM 11: Through the LMS we use for blended learning, school
leaders and administrators will be able to examine aggregate data
to assess which resources seem to be driving the most promising
outcomes for students. With this information, school leaders and
administrators can provide ongoing feedback on the effectiveness
or instructional resources and can promote the increased use of the
most effective resources over time
 Please refer to Section E for additional information on driving
continuous improvement and evaluating the effectiveness of
specific resources
(c) All participating school leaders and leadership teams have access to training, policies, tools, data, and resources
that include:
Information, from such sources as
(c)(i)
 ITEMS 1 and 2: The new teacher and leader evaluation systems
the district’s teacher evaluation
at NPS include robust policies and tools that provide school
system, that helps school leaders and
leaders with (a) a clear and common vision for effective teaching,
school leadership teams assess, and
and (b)) makes the resulting information available to teachers and
take steps to improve, individual and
leaders through a user-friendly portal that helps educators track
collective educator effectiveness and
and improve their effectiveness.
school culture and climate, for the
 ITEM 3: As we launch or systems, we are also developing portals
purpose of continuous school
that allow teachers to access their individual evaluation
improvement
information (including observation scores, comments, and
specific recommended interventions). Principal portals will
provide access to the same information for all teachers within a
school
112
 ITEM 11: As described immediately above (under criterion
(b)(iii), the LMS system for blended learning will also enable
school leaders to examine aggregate data on student outcomes
across multiple classrooms. Trend in this data may also help
school leaders identify and share promising instructional
practices within and across schools
 As described in Section E, we will administer regular stakeholder
surveys that assess the culture and climate of individual schools
to inform continuous improvement efforts.
(c)(ii)
Training, systems, and practices to
continuously improve school
progress toward the goals of
increasing student performance and
closing achievement gaps
 ITEM 12: Our plan provides for intensive professional
development and training to increase teachers’ and school leaders’
effectiveness with the ultimate goal of improving student
outcomes and closing achievement gaps. Much of this
professional development will be provided initially by our
partners, but each partnership will include an explicit goal of
embedding training systems and practices into the school culture
and increasing the capacity of school leaders to sustain these
systems and practices on an ongoing basis
 ITEMS 2 and 3: Our new leader evaluation system focuses on
developing and assessing leaders’ capacity to continuously
improve school progress by supporting high quality instruction,
increase teacher effectiveness, establishing a positive school
culture, and demonstrating transformational leadership qualities
(see Principal Evaluation System summary in Eligibility
Requirements Appendix Item 1). These elements work together to
improve student performance on an ongoing basis.
 ITEMS 8 and 9: One of the big gaps in schools’ capacity to
improve involves their lack of focus on social-emotional teaching
and learning. By providing training and instructional resources on
social-emotional learning for teachers and leaders, we hope to
help schools address some of the underlying, persistent barriers to
improved student outcomes
(d)
The applicant has a high-quality
plan for increasing the number of
students who receive instruction
from effective and highly effective
teachers and principals (as defined in
this notice), including in hard-tostaff schools, subjects (such as
mathematics and science), and
specialty areas (such as special
education)
 ITEMS 2 and 7: Our new teacher and leader evaluation and
support systems are explicitly designed to increase the
effectiveness of all teachers and leaders, thereby increasing the
number of students who are served by effective educators. The
plan to pilot innovative forms of rapid, formative feedback for
teachers is also intended to boost the effectiveness of our
educators overall.
 ITEM 4: Our groundbreaking agreement with the NTU includes
bonuses for teachers who earn a rating of Highly Effective, who
teach hard-to-staff subjects, and who work in our lowestperforming schools. These provisions will help ensure that
students who are most in need of effective instruction have access
to our most effective teachers. Additionally, this system will
create an added incentive for teachers to take advantage of the
many supports we offer to help increase instructional
effectiveness over time
113
 ITEMS 9 and 12: NPS will also boost educators’ effectiveness
through the work that we are doing to increase the role of socialemotional skill-building in the classroom. Many educators have
never had the resources to teach social-emotional skills
effectively, and some do not see this type of teaching as part of
their jobs. By creating rigorous standards, assessment, and
curriculum for social-emotional learning and providing intensive
supports to educators to help them integrate these resources into
their classrooms, will equip educators with the tools they need to
address some of the systemic causes of student
underperformance.
114
D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure
D(1) LEA practices, policies, rules
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) to support
project implementation through comprehensive policies and infrastructure that provide every
student, educator (as defined in this notice), and level of the education system (classroom,
school, and LEA) with the support and resources they need, when and where they are needed.
This includes the extent to which-(D)(1) LEA practices, policies, and rules (15 points)
The applicant has practices, policies, and rules that facilitate personalized learning by—
(a) Organizing the LEA central office, or the consortium governance structure (as
defined in this notice), to provide support and services to all participating schools (as
defined in this notice);
(b) Providing school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) in participating
schools (as defined in this notice) with sufficient flexibility and autonomy over factors
such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing
models, roles and responsibilities for educators and non-educators, and school-level
budgets;
(c) Giving students the opportunity to progress and earn credit based on demonstrated
mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic;
(d) Giving students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of standards at multiple
times and in multiple comparable ways; and
(e) Providing learning resources and instructional practices that are adaptable and fully
accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners;
D(1)(a) Central office organization
Restructuring the central office in support of schools has been a principal focus of the current
administration. Most critically, the central office has been re-envisioned as a service provider to
schools, rather than merely an administrator of them. Prioritizing the needs of schools and
students above all else has led to increased efficiency in a more streamlined central office, and a
better support system for schools, students and educators (see section B(1)(b) for additional
detail).
A major initiative of the current administration was to organize Newark schools into networks
and hire experienced Assistant Superintendents to oversee them. Today, the district’s six
Assistant Superintendents each oversee a network of approximately 12 schools. The Assistant
Superintendents spend much of their time in schools, coaching and evaluating educators, and
115
ensuring a safe and productive school environment. At each school, they interact with the
principal and their broader school leadership team on a weekly basis, and thus are finely attuned
to the successes and challenges in each school. Their unique position between schools and the
central office render them a valuable constituent for both parties: they can surface school-level
issues or feedback to Superintendent Anderson, but can also serve as a strong implementation
partner in schools for centrally-run initiatives.
As discussed in section A, we have made great strides over the past year in establishing the
conditions of success necessary to fully execute on our stated goal of personalizing learning for
all students in the future. Because of their close ties to both schools and Superintendent
Anderson, the Assistant Superintendents are a critical component of any new initiative of this
sort in the district. However, ensuring that the day-to-day operations of Newark schools run
smoothly is a significant responsibility, and so we have designated additional central office
leaders to oversee each of the three strands of work laid out in last year’s plan. For each
individual, this responsibility is not a departure from or an unnatural addition to their current
role, but instead dovetails neatly with their existing responsibilities and the areas where each has
focused over the last year. Going forward, we anticipate that these strand leaders will continue to
oversee the efforts with which they are currently involved (see Appendix D(1) Items 1 and 2 for
detailed biographies and resumes):

The first strand (Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data) will be led by Peter Turnamian,
the Assistant Superintendent who oversees all of the Renew Schools and the current
contract with the Achievement Network.

The second strand (Integrate Social and Emotional Teaching and Learning with
Academics) will be overseen by Robert Clark, Special Advisor to the Superintendent for
the Office of College and Career Readiness and other related areas. The OCCR oversees
the district’s Student Support Teams, and is currently supporting the development of
individualized learning plans (ILPs) for all high school students.

The third strand (Pilot Blended Learning Models) will be led by Caleb Perkins,
Superintendent Anderson’s Special Assistant for Academics, who oversees the District’s
work on Common Core as well as all teaching and learning supports, and helps lead the
Curriculum Office. He is also deeply involved with the second strand of work.
116
These strand leaders work closely with the Assistant Superintendents to ensure that all
participating schools have the necessary supports and resources in place to excel in their
implementation of each of the strands. Where there are large initiatives or new pilots, these
strand leaders may interact directly with principals and school leadership teams as well. It is
important to highlight the fact that all of the district’s K-8 Renew schools exist within a single
network, because (a) the conditions for success have already been established in these schools,
and (b) there is a coherent management structure in place. As a result, these schools are wellpositioned to pilot new initiatives, demonstrate what works, and troubleshoot challenges before
scaling across other networks in the district. Last year, many of our pilot efforts began in these
schools. This year, successful pilots are being expanded into new schools, while the Renew
schools continue to pave the way for innovation in the district.
D(1)(b) Providing school leaders with sufficient flexibility and autonomy
Since joining NPS in 2011, Superintendent Anderson has made principal autonomy one of the
district’s highest priorities. In the past 24 months, principals have been empowered with
significantly more flexibility and autonomy over school-level budget, personnel, and use of time:
School-level budgets: In the last two years, NPS has instituted a weighted student funding
formula to ensure equity, transparency and autonomy. The district provides core resources to all
schools while granting principals the flexibility to make decisions that ensure each school
program is tailored to meet the needs of its individual students. Non-discretionary funds must be
used to budget for the staff that the District has identified as Required Core Staff. The majority
of school funds are discretionary funds, which the principal has autonomy to allocate in whatever
way s/he believes will best support the needs of his/her individual students.
Personnel: Newark has made a financial investment in giving principals more autonomy to staff
their schools with highly qualified teachers. By creating a pool of Educators without Placement
Sites (EWPS), Newark has helped avoid forced placement of teachers and empowered principals
and teachers to design schools that they believe will drive student success. The district offers
scaffolded support for all principals during the hiring process, providing coaching on such topics
as conducting interviews and using clear rubrics to evaluate candidates. Tenured teachers who
are left without a classroom due to school closures or consolidations are placed in the EWPS
117
pool and get first priority for openings at other schools. However, if principals cannot find
qualified candidates within the EWPS pool, they have the flexibility to hire non-tenured teachers
based on competency and fit with the mission and vision of the school.
For a variety of reasons, class sizes within NPS are significantly below the maximum allowable
student: teacher ratio. Moving to a blended literacy model in the early grades provides principals
the ability to consider combining classrooms and increase the number of adults in each
classroom without significant additions of personnel.
Use of time: There have also been dramatic changes made to increase principals’ flexibility in
using their own time, guiding teachers’ use of time, and guiding students’ use of time. With
respect to principals’ time, NPS has significantly reduced the administrative burden on
principals. Before the start of the 2011-12 school year, Superintendent Anderson announced a
long list of compliance activities for principals that were removed or significantly reduced (e.g.,
completing 20 hours of operations training during school opening, posting 3-part learning
objectives in all classrooms, administering duplicative summer reading tests, etc.) With respect
to teachers’ time, principals now have significantly more autonomy to focus teacher professional
development days on whatever content they believe will be most impactful, rather than sending
all teachers to district-run professional development sessions. With respect to students’ time,
schools have significant autonomy to design the school schedule to meet the specific needs of
their students (e.g., through block scheduling).
D(1)(c) Enabling students to progress based on demonstrated mastery
As described in Section B(3), students within NPS have the opportunity to earn credit and
progress based on demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. As described in New Jersey
Administrative Code 6A:8-5.2(a)2 (included in Appendix B(3) Item 2), the District has full
authority to grant credit for the successful completion of assessments that meet or exceed the
State’s standards. These assessments may be selected or designed by the District and may be
administered whenever a student is prepared to demonstrate mastery. Once a student has
demonstrated mastery, he or she may progress to the next relevant course. A representative from
the NJ DOE has confirmed this interpretation of the State Code.
118
Creating even further opportunities for mastery-based learning is the announcement by Governor
Christie in April 2012 that New Jersey is moving towards new competency-based end-of-course
assessments aligned to the Core Curriculum Content Standards. Each district will determine
when a student has completed the relevant content and is ready to take an end-of-course exam,
empowering students to progress based on demonstrated mastery of rigorous standards. For
example, a student may take the Algebra I assessment in 9th grade, or s/he may take the
assessment in an earlier grade after having completed the relevant coursework. Whenever a
student has mastered the content as demonstrated by passing the end-of-course assessment, s/he
will have fulfilled the Algebra I content graduation requirement. PARCC and NJ DOE will take
the lead on the development of assessments in most grade levels/subject areas, while NPS will
have the flexibility to create or select its own assessments if we choose.
D(1)(d) Giving students multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery
The theory of action behind this plan is oriented around holding all students to high standards,
using instructional time and content strategically to meet students where they are. Our goal is to
help students master as many skills as possible in the time allotted, but not necessarily to
accelerate students through grade progression or high school credit accumulation. Based on this
theory of action, our plan includes both Common Core-aligned interim assessments (through the
“Data-Driven Instruction” strand) as well as regular, digital snapshots of students’ understanding
(embedded in the “Blended Learning” strand). Through these frequent assessments, students will
have many opportunities to demonstrate mastery of each topic so that teachers can adjust their
instruction in order to help students progress through standards as efficiently as possible.
Current state policies enable students to demonstrate mastery in multiple ways at multiple times:

For students in grades 3-8, NJ DOE is exploring the possibility of administering NJASK
assessments more than once per year to provide students with additional opportunities to
demonstrate mastery. For students who do not pass these assessments, teachers will be
given increased opportunities to provide individualized remediation at each grade level.
Students will then be able to retake only the portion of the assessment that they failed,
helping them get back on the track to graduation more quickly.
119

At the high school level, the NJDOE already provides students with multiple
opportunities to demonstrate mastery in multiple ways. To meet the state’s graduation
requirements, students may take the HSPA up 3 times prior to high school graduation. If
students still do not meet the standards, they may instead meet the requirements by (1)
completing the Alternative High School Assessment (AHSA); (2) satisfying the “Just
Proficient Means”6 standards for the HSPA; or (3) successfully completing the state
appeals process.
District policies in Newark also support multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate
mastery. According to NPS policy, students are awarded grades each quarter based on at least
nine opportunities to demonstrate mastery. Across schools and grades, these opportunities
include a variety of summative assessments, formative assessments, and homework assignments.
A student’s final grade should reflect the student’s mastery of the relevant grade level standards
as demonstrated over the course of the academic quarter. Many of the district’s newer initiatives
naturally provide opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery in multiple ways, by turning
everyday classroom activities and exercises into alternative assessment opportunities. For
example, Expeditionary Learning, whose literacy program is used the large majority of NPS’ K8
schools today, enables students to demonstrate progress through not only in-class writing, but
also through in-depth case studies and project-based assignments, many of which take them
outside of the classroom to take on real-world challenges and interact with the local community.
Similarly, all of the Common Core-aligned literacy and math curricular programs that schools
have implemented this year, such as Math in Focus, provide a similar range of opportunities to
demonstrate mastery.
D(1)(e) Providing adaptable and accessible learning resources
Newark Public Schools is committed to serving ALL students by ensuring that learning
resources and instructional practices are adaptable and accessible to every student, regardless of
disability, English proficiency, behavioral needs, or other individual circumstances.
6
Students may satisfy the state’s proficiency requirements by meeting the HSPA’s “Just Proficient Mean”
standards. After at least 2 attempts to pass the HSPA, students can meet graduations requirements for the
subsections in which they did not achieve proficiency by achieving a score at least equivalent to the mean achieved
on that subsection by those students who were proficient on the exam overall.
120
To ensure that our instructional practices and learning resources meet the needs of all students,
we have recently trained teachers and principals on Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
through our summer professional development program, as well as our Teacher and Principal
Leadership Institutes. UDL is a framework that guides educators in creating flexible goals,
approaches, materials, and assessments that can be customized to meet students’ individual
needs. We introduced UDL as a tool for educators to help make the Common Core accessible to
all students. We will continue to offer training sessions this fall to ensure that all teachers have a
comprehensive understanding of the framework, and are comfortable using it to help students
reach the rigorous standards outlined in the Common Core.
In addition to our work with UDL, we offer a number of adaptive resources for all students. For
example, every student has a license to SOLO, which makes learning resources more accessible
through speech to text, text to speech, and co-writing tools. Furthermore, as we implement our
new Common Core literacy and math programs, the district is encouraging teachers to regularly
carve out instructional time for small group instruction so that lessons and units can be truly
differentiated to meet students where they are. In particular, the district is promoting the
implementation of a literacy block that includes time not only for the core program, but also
additional time for students to engage in guided and accountable independent reading to ensure
students are exposed to a large volume of engaging literature. Additional training for teachers is
aimed at helping them use this time to better support struggling readers with supplemental
literacy supports. Such restructuring of time and resources is undertaken with the aim of
increasing the accessibility of curriculum to all students.
We offer additional supports and services to students with specific needs. For example, all
students with print disabilities have free access to any text in audio format. Furthermore, our
Renew Schools are currently piloting the adoption of iPads as communication devices for all
students with autism.
To support students with varying behavioral needs, NPS is using the Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework for school-wide behavioral supports. In 2012-13,
five of our schools joined a statewide pilot that offers intensive positive behavior supports, with
three new schools joining for 2013-14. These supports include universal interventions to promote
a positive school climate, small-group strategies for students with repeated behavior problems,
121
and an individualized problem-solving process for students with the most intensive needs. A
growing body of research has shown that such interventions result in the following improved
outcomes for students:
1. Improvements in overall building climate;
2. Reduction in discipline referrals and suspensions, including students with disabilities
3. Reduction in the number of students referred for special education services; and
4. Increase in the number of students with disabilities and challenging behaviors who are
successful in general education settings.
Please refer to Appendix D(1) Item 3 “New Jersey Positive Behavior Support in Schools
Brochure” for additional information on the statewide pilot and related research.
NPS’ Office of Bilingual Education provides support, coaching and technical assistance to help
teachers meet the needs of English language learners. The Office provides individualized
coaching to teachers, helping them adapt their instructional practices and learning materials to
support the unique needs of each English language learner. The Office also provides mentorship
to ELL teachers and supports teachers in implementing best practices, including the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol Model, a research-based and validated instructional model that
has proven effective in addressing the academic needs of English learners throughout the United
States.
122
D(2) LEA and school infrastructure
The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan to support project implementation
through comprehensive policies and infrastructure that provide every student, educator (as
defined in this notice), and level of the education system (classroom, school, and LEA) with
the support and resources they need, when and where they are needed. The quality of the plan
will be determined based on the extent to which–
(D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure (10 points)
The LEA and school infrastructure supports personalized learning by—
(a) Ensuring that all participating students (as defined in this notice), parents,
educators (as defined in this notice), and other stakeholders (as appropriate and
relevant to student learning), regardless of income, have access to necessary content,
tools, and other learning resources both in and out of school to support the
implementation of the applicant’s proposal;
(b) Ensuring that students, parents, educators, and other stakeholders (as appropriate
and relevant to student learning) have appropriate levels of technical support, which
may be provided through a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, online support, or
local support);
(c) Using information technology systems that allow parents and students to export
their information in an open data format (as defined in this notice) and to use the data
in other electronic learning systems (e.g., electronic tutors, tools that make
recommendations for additional learning supports, or software that securely stores
personal records); and
(d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools use interoperable data systems (as defined in this
notice) (e.g., systems that include human resources data, student information data,
budget data, and instructional improvement system data).
D(2)(a) Ensuring access to learning resources
As described in section D(1)(e), Newark Public Schools is committed to serving and supporting
ALL students by ensuring that learning resources are accessible to every student, regardless of
disability, English proficiency, behavioral needs, or other individual circumstances, including
income. While section D(1)(e) focused on making all learning resources available and accessible
to all students, this section focuses on making the specific resources that are most relevant to our
Race to the Top plan available to all students, families and educators with a particular emphasis
on low-income populations. The content, tools, and learning resources that are most relevant to
our proposal include:

For students: hardware, software, digital learning content and progress data to support
students’ learning
123

For parents: student progress data so that parents can support students’ learning, and
multiple channels through which they may access this data

For teachers: hardware, software, student progress data, and data tools to inform
instruction
We recognize that there is a significant digital divide in Newark that is largely mediated by
income. In the context of our 21st century economy – where information, media and technology
skills are prerequisites for a successful career – this digital divide places the students who need
the most support at a further disadvantage, exacerbating the cycles of poverty that have persisted
across the United States for far too long. The first step towards closing this digital divide is to
give all students, regardless of income, access to high quality digital resources during school
hours. The next step is to ensure that students, families, and community members have access to
the same high quality resources outside of school hours. As the strategies below describe, and
our budget reflects (see section F), we are committed to ensuring that students, parents, and
educators have access to the resources they need to be successful:
Students:
NPS will provide 100% of the necessary instructional materials and supports – including but not
limited to hardware, software, and digital learning content – that students need in order to take
advantage of the learning opportunities available to them. While we know that some districts
have instituted a “bring your own device” strategy to save money, we have chosen to take an
approach that is costlier but, importantly, more equitable, by providing all of the devices and
supports required for blended learning and Individualized Learning Plans. Further, our plan is
intentionally designed to ensure that students have sufficient time to utilize these digital learning
resources during the school day and that they are not required to do so outside of school.
As described above, equal access during the school day is the first step in narrowing the digital
divide. We recognize, however, that to close the divide fully, students will also need to have
equal access to digital resources outside of school. To that end, we will partner with local
libraries and community-based organizations to provide a list of locations at which students and
parents can access computers outside of school. We will use the grant period also explore
strategies that would allow students to bring home devices on certain days, pending operational
and financial considerations.
124
Parents:
In order to effectively support their children’s academic, social and emotional growth, parents
must have access to clear, actionable and timely information on their child’s performance and
progress against rigorous standards. As referenced in section B(1)(c), we are working with
parents and parent liaisons to increase awareness and usage of the parent portal that already
exists within Newark’s student information system, PowerSchool. Furthermore, our plan is to
increase the amount of clear, actionable, and timely data that parents have access to through
students’ individualized learning plans (ILPs). As described in section A(1), ILPs help each
student outline a clear “roadmap to success,” defining goals and tracking progress in four
domains: academic, social-emotional, talents and interests, and college knowledge. Because ILPs
will ultimately be housed on a web-based platform, they will be accessible to students and
parents from any computer.
Recognizing that many families do not have access to a computer at home, we will employ the
following strategies to ensure that parents have access to PowerSchool’s parent portal and to
their child’s ILP.

First, as described above, we will partner with local libraries and community-based
organizations to provide students and parents with internet access outside of school.

Because we know that access is only one part of the equation, we will also provide open
training sessions for parents in schools across the city at rotating times and locations each
week. These sessions, which will be conducted in school computer labs, will serve as an
opportunity for parents to both access their student’s data as well as to learn how to
access it remotely.

Finally, we will also send printed copies of students’ performance data and
Individualized Learning Plans to parents along with their student’s report cards at the end
of each quarter; parents can receive this information more frequently upon request.
Taken together, these three strategies will ensure that all parents have access to the resources
they need to support their child’s progress.
125
Teachers:
To ensure that all teachers have access to the hardware, software, student progress data, and data
tools they need to inform instruction, we will provide all teachers participating in the plan with
laptops that they can use both during and outside of school. Equally importantly, we will provide
intensive training for educators to build the technical and instructional skills required to translate
these resources into meaningful changes in instructional practice. Please refer to section C(2) for
additional details on the training and supports we plan to provide to teachers.
D(2)(b) Providing Appropriate Technical Support
Newark’s IT department provides technical services and supports to students, parents, and
educators. The IT department uses a systematic ticketing process to respond to all requests for
support in a timely manner. As NPS increases its use of digital technology to support student
learning, we expect the number and frequency of requests for technical support to increase
significantly. We are committed to building additional capacity within IT department to meet
the increases in demand and ensure that students, parents, and educators have appropriate levels
of technical support to implement this plan. We will build this additional capacity through a
multi-tiered approach, which includes:

Adding nine full-time employees to the central team that provides technical support to
schools. Currently, a team of 8 FTEs supports the whole district. We will hire three
Network Administrators and six Field Technicians, based on the best-practice ratio of one
FTE per ~2,000 devices (see Appendix D(2) Items 1 and 2 for job descriptions for these
two positions). These nine employees will be needed on an ongoing basis to support the
higher number of instructional devices throughout the District and to ensure that service
can be proactive, rather than reactive.

Contracting with an outside provider that will provide assistance during periods of
peak activity (largely years one and three), as well as to train and build capacity among
district staff members on instructional technology. Currently, we work with a provider
offering these services and would likely expand the relationship to manage grant-related
activities.
126

Providing each school launching a blended learning pilot with a contracted IT support
resource to provide on-site support for technical issues during the school’s initial year.
We believe that providing a resource in the building to manage any issues that occur
during the blended learning pilot will minimize interruptions in instruction for both
students and educators. Additionally, this resource will be responsible for training the
school’s School Operation Managers who will manage their school’s instructional
technology after year one.

Providing each School Operations Manager with a stipend to receive professional
development in the use of blended learning technology. The goals of this activity are to
both build the capacity of our school-based staff and to reduce the need for outside
technical assistance.

Launching a “technology boot camp” to help teachers master the basics of using their
new devices. While teachers will receive professional development related to blendedlearning instruction, this boot camp will specifically focus on building our educators’
comfort level with the various software and hardware that we will deploy.

Expanding the family hotline to answer questions about the web-based software used to
share information on student progress with students and families. We currently have a
call center that provides technical support to district employees and a family contact
center that answers more general questions for parents (e.g., on subjects such as
schedules, school choice, uniforms, etc.). Our plan is to expand the purview of the family
contact center so that it has the capacity to response to families’ requests for more
technical support as well.
D(2)(c) Empowering students and parents to use data
Currently in Newark, parents are able to access student information in PowerSchool and copy
and paste this information into other outside sources or programs. Although this is technically
not an export feature within the platform, it effectively serves the same purpose for students and
families. As NPS migrates to more advanced information technology systems over the course of
the next four years, we will ensure that our new systems have the functionality required to allow
parents and students to export their information to in an open data format for use in other
programs and electronic learning systems.
127
D(2)(d) Ensuring data system interoperability
Newark’s Student Information System (SIS), PowerSchool, is fully interoperable with the State’s
SIS, NJSMART. Because the state is investing heavily in an effort to create in interoperable
Instructional Improvement System (as described in New Jersey’s initial RTTT application), NPS
has elected not to devote resources to designing a separate system. Rather, NPS will leverage the
statewide system. In the development of additional data platforms through the RTT-D plan (e.g.,
web-based portal for Individualized Learning Plans, data platform for blended learning pilots),
NPS will ensure that all systems remain interoperable with PowerSchool and the State’s
Instructional Improvement System.
128
E. Continuous Improvement
Because the applicant’s plans represent the best thinking at a point in time, and may require
adjustments and revisions during implementation, it is vital that the applicant have a clear and
high-quality approach to continuously improve its plans. This will be determined by the extent
to which the applicant has—
(E)(1) Continuous improvement process (15 points)
A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for implementing a rigorous continuous
improvement process that provides timely and regular feedback on progress toward project
goals and opportunities for ongoing corrections and improvements during and after the term of
the grant. The plan must address how the applicant will monitor, measure, and publicly share
information on the quality of its investments funded by Race to the Top – District, such as
investments in professional development, technology, and staff;
(E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement (5 points)
A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for ongoing communication and engagement
with internal and external stakeholders; and
(E)(3) Performance measures (5 points)
Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by subgroup (as defined in this
notice), with annual targets for required and applicant-proposed performance measures. For
each applicant-proposed measure, the applicant must describe—
(a) Its rationale for selecting that measure;
(b) How the measure will provide rigorous, timely, and formative leading information
tailored to its proposed plan and theory of action regarding the applicant’s
implementation success or areas of concern; and
(c) How it will review and improve the measure over time if it is insufficient to gauge
implementation progress.
The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to 14 performance measures.
(E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments (5 points)
A high-quality plan to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of Race to the Top – District
funded activities, such as professional development and activities that employ technology.
129
E(1) Continuous improvement process
Introduction
Any plan as ambitious and innovative as NPS’ plan for personalized learning must have a
disciplined process in place for continuous learning, and an openness to adjusting the planned
course as outcomes and implementation milestones are or are not reached. That is especially the
case now that NPS has begun to implement pieces of the strategy that was articulated in last
year’s application: the further investments that we make through the use of RTT-D funds must
reflect the lessons we are already learning each day in implementation.
The details below outline our high-quality plan for ensuring that a robust continuous
improvement process is at the heart of all our work with RTT-D:
Activities Supporting Continuous Improvement
While the magnitude of activity and investment that would be triggered by RTT-D merits a
greater level of formalization around a continuous improvement process, NPS does not need to
invent a series of brand new procedures. As we have implemented and learned over the first 2+
years of this administration, the district has dramatically improved the degree to which core
processes and structures are in place to support improvement. In sum, four key activities will
drive our approach to RTT-D:

Real time feedback through the school network structure: As described elsewhere in
the application, oversight of NPS schools is divided into five networks, each led by an
Assistant Superintendent that reports directly to Superintendent Anderson. Over time,
the network teams have developed to ensure sufficient capacity for real-time feedback
from different stakeholders. Assistant Superintendents themselves spend at least three
days per week in schools, working with and hearing directly from school leaders. Each
network team consists of a Special Assistant of Operations, a Special Assistant of
Curriculum and Instruction and a Special Assistant of Teacher Quality, who interacts
directly with teachers and regularly observes classroom work. These roles provide realtime feedback on nearly every aspect of school operations, and the streamlined nature of
the structure ensures that such feedback makes its way quickly both to Superintendent
130
Anderson and to content leads (e.g. academics) throughout the district. In the case of
RTT-D, Assistant Superintendents will be able to communicate quickly and seamlessly
with the leader of each of the three strands of work about what they are seeing and
hearing about implementation on a daily basis. (See Section D(1)(a) for identity and
background on the leaders of each strand)

Rigorous process for vetting, matching, and monitoring partners: From our earliest
planning stages, we recognized that the support and expertise of partners would be
critical to achieving our vision. As we began to consider partners and develop
relationships with those most closely aligned to our vision, we established an external
affairs team to ensure rigorous comparison across partner options, to select those that are
the best fit and highest quality, and manage and monitor these relationships once
established. External Affairs, in turn, works closely with the network structure, to ensure
that schools are primed for new partnerships by their Assistant Superintendent.
Meanwhile, the network structure easily allows the district to (1) identify those schools
which have established the conditions for success or demonstrated readiness for
innovation, and (2) intervene quickly if a pilot appears to be overloading the capacity of a
school to manage effectively, or if the match of a partner and school feels like a poor fit.

Regular briefings with stakeholder groups: Beginning last year, the Office of
Community and Family Engagement began to host monthly stakeholder meetings. These
meetings were established to ensure that there was a structured mechanism for
meaningful two-way dialogue between the district and stakeholders. Participants range
from elected officials and civic stewards to CBOs, funders and the clergy, and sessions
are planned in collaboration with each group to ensure that content is relevant and
tailored to the interests and expertise of participants. These monthly meetings will
continue to serve as a forum for open dialogue with a broad range of constituents, with a
focus on collecting constructive feedback and developing collaborative solutions to any
issues that arise.

Formal governance and monitoring for RTT-D: As outlined in the three activities
above, the district already has numerous existing structures to support a continuous
improvement model. The opportunity that exists through Race to the Top is to formalize
and more closely align these ongoing activities through a structured governance,
131
monitoring, and reporting process. This structure will be driven by a Steering Committee
and Stakeholder Committee, as described in the next section.
Governance Committees and Responsibilities
There are two formal governance bodies that we envision operating at the core of our
implementation and continuous improvement process, bringing coherence and structure to all of
the activities outlined above:

:Steering Committee: The purpose of the RTT-D Steering Committee is to aggregate
feedback from all stakeholders, review implementation indicators, determine course
corrections to the implementation plan where necessary, and report out externally on
progress.
o Membership: This 6-person committee will be comprised of Superintendent
Anderson, a full-time RTT-D project manager, the district leader of each of the
three strands of work (Peter Turnamian, Robert Clark, Caleb Perkins), and a
leader from External Affairs (to represent the significant role of partner vetting
and selection in the execution of the RTT-D plan). It is important to note that
Superintendent Anderson and the 3 strand leaders have been deeply involved in
the shaping and revision of this proposal over the past year, so a role on the
Steering Committee is a logical progression for each.
o Timing: The Steering Committee will meet formally each month through the first
twelve months of the grant period, and then at least quarterly thereafter. That
said, these six individuals work closely on a day-to-day basis in their regular
work, and would be expected to interact / communicate at all times.
o Milestones: In addition to the implementation milestones implied by indicators
described later in this section, the Steering Committee will be responsible for
producing an annual public report updating stakeholders on our progress toward
formal achievement targets as outlined in Sections (A)(4) and (E)(3), as well as
more qualitative lessons learned and course corrections determined through
monitoring of implementation.
132
1. Stakeholder Committee: The purpose of the RTT-D Stakeholder Committee is to
represent the diverse positions of various constituent groups in Newark, promote
positions that are in the best interests of students, and ensure that the Steering Committee
is receiving all specific concerns and opportunities that emerge throughout RTT-D
implementation

Membership: This group will be made up of a diverse group of stakeholders
including educators, parents, high school students, local community leaders and
partners. Eight to ten participants from the ongoing monthly stakeholder engagement
meetings organized by the Office of Community and Family Engagement (see section
B(4)(a)) will be selected by the Steering Committee to serve on the RTT-D
Stakeholder Committee. This Committee will also include a member of the School
Advisory Board, to be selected by the chairperson of the Board.

Timing: This group will meet quarterly, and will be joined by the members of the
Steering Committee

Milestones: Members will be expected to collaborate with the Steering Committee in
advance of the publication of the annual progress report to finalize the report itself
and to prepare a presentation to be shared with the School Advisory Board, which
will represent community stakeholder perspectives on RTT-D implementation.
Indicators to Monitor Quality of Implementation
Overarching Goal:
As articulated above, the ultimate goal of Newark Public Schools is that all students graduate
with a mastery of the academic, social, and emotional skills they need to succeed in college and
life. As summarized in Section A(1), our plan to accomplish this goal builds upon the broadreaching reform work that is already underway at NPS to accelerate student outcomes across the
grade continuum. It will take time to achieve this goal, and yet it is aligned with all of the
bigger-picture and longer-term reform efforts we have initiated. Therefore, we are confident that
both the efforts underway within each strand of work, and those proposed for the future, will
support our students towards this goal.
133
Long-term Measures of Success
Due to the fact that our plan is united by a single overarching goal, the Steering Committee will
measure ultimate success across the three proposed strands of work by considering a common set
of quantitative student outcomes measures, which include:

District-wide summative measures, as established in Section A(4)

Performance measures tailored to the activities and scope of the grant plan, as described
in Section E(3)

Academic and non-academic measures influenced by the partnership outlined in the
Competitive Preference Priority (section X)
Short-Term Implementation Indicators:
However, even observing measurable change in the long-term measures mentioned above
requires some time. Therefore, the Steering Committee will consider a series of interim
indicators which will serve as milestones on the path to achieving our desired outcomes and
ultimate goal. These interim indicators may be quantitative or qualitative, and will vary by
strand due to the different focus and different types of activities anticipated within each.
In the sections below, we outline specific short-term implementation indicators for the overall
plan, and for each of the three strands, which we seek to reach to ensure we are making good
progress towards our stated long-term outcomes, and ultimately achieving our overarching goal:
Short-Term Implementation Indicators for the Overall Plan

June 2014:
o Have a broad range of stakeholders been engaged in the 100-day planning process
to finalize the specific goals, activities, deliverables, timelines, budgets, key
personnel, and annual targets for key performance measures?
o Has NPS created a public calendar of opportunities to provide feedback by
stakeholder group?
o Has the Steering Committee selected all relevant partners and contractors
described in the plan?
o Has the Steering Committee selected members of the Stakeholder Committee?
134
o Can students, teachers, parents, partners, and other stakeholders articulate the
vision and goals of the Race to the Top plan?

January 2015:
o Has the district established structures to collect feedback from students, teachers,
principals, parents, partners, and other relevant stakeholders at regular intervals
during and beyond the grant period?
o Have participating schools designated time during the school day for students,
teachers, and school leaders to provide regular feedback on the progress of the
plan and the effectiveness of specific investments?
o Have district- and school-level leaders been effective in owning, communicating,
implementing, and continuously improving the plan?
o Has the Stakeholder Committee presented to the School Advisory Board about the
first year of implementation?

June 2015 and beyond:
o How closely are we adhering to the planned resource allocation? Is it necessary to
amend the budget in any way?
o What feedback have students, educators, and other stakeholders provided on the
quality of investments made under this plan and their relative effectiveness in
driving student outcomes?
o Have school leadership and Student Support Teams been given the opportunity to
review the first full year’s worth of data and consolidate feedback to propose
specific refinements to the plan?
o Has the Steering Committee reviewed the findings of school leadership and
adopted refinements as appropriate?
o Has NPS published biannual progress reports to update a broad range of
stakeholders on implementation and student outcomes to date?
Short-Term Implementation Indicators for Strand 1: Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use
Data, Setting a Foundation for Other Strands of Work
135
(Because our partnerships with the Achievement Network and CRREST were established during
the 2012-13 school year, we have outlined short-term implementation indicators for this strand of
work as early as January 2014.)

January 2014:
o Have participating schools established weekly teacher team meetings and
quarterly content and grade-level meetings?
o Have formative assessments been administered as planned?
o Have teachers received the resulting data within 48 hours of administering the
assessments?
o Are current assessments sufficiently aligned to the Common Core State
Standards?
o Do teachers and principals find that the ongoing coaching has increased their
capacity to use of formative data to guide instruction?
o What feedback does the Achievement Network/CRREST (or other partner in
future years) have on the quality of implementation to date?
o What feedback does the district have for the Achievement Network/CRREST (or
other partner in future years) on their support and efforts in NPS schools to date?

June 2014:
o What challenges have participating schools encountered in the first year of
implementation? How might we help schools beginning this work in 2013-14
avoid or address these challenges?

January 2015 and beyond:
o For schools in their first year of participation, please refer to the questions listed
under January 2014.
o For schools in subsequent years of participation:

How much implementation support do schools require after year 1?
136

Which supports can be scaled back in years 2, 3, and 4? What additional
tools and supports are needed during these years?

Are teachers and principals satisfied with the quality of assessments and
supports being provided?

What additional feedback can our partner organization or other external
observers offer to improve implementation over time?
Short-Term Implementation Indicators for Strand 2: Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics

June 2014:
o Has NPS’ experience with Turnaround for Children been positive, and should
they be retained as a partner going forward? IIRP? Ramapo?
o Has NPS hired a Deputy Director of Student Supports?
o Has NPS established a Working Team of teacher leaders to assist with the
development of social-emotional standards, assessments, and curriculum?
o Has the District conducted a complete market scan to identify and assess the
relative strengths and weakness of these and other existing resources for socialemotional learning?
o Has NPS selected and consulted experts in the field of social-emotional learning
to serve as the partners during the development of a rigorous social and emotional
curriculum?
o Has NPS determined if PowerSchool can support an ILP for each student?
o Does each high school student have a fully developed ILP?

January 2015:
o Has NPS approved a working list of social-emotional standards around which
assessments and curriculum will be assembled/created?
o Has NPS outlined the relevant specifications required for a platform to create and
maintain individualized learning plans for students (if PowerSchool is not capable
of doing so)?
137
o Has NPS begun to assess whether to build or buy such a platform (if PowerSchool
is not capable of storing ILPs)?
o Does each middle school student have a fully developed ILP?
o Are parents able to access and interpret their child’s ILP?

June 2015:
o Has enough internal capacity been developed across NPS schools to begin to draw
down partner support (i.e. Turnaround for Children, IIRP, etc.)
o Has NPS approved a comprehensive set of standards, assessments and curriculum
for social-emotional learning?
o Has the ILP platform been purchased, or the appropriate functionality built into
PowerSchool?
Short-Term Implementation Indicators for Strand 3: Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate Student Achievement

June 2014:
o Has NPS conducted a district-wide assessment to gather the input of teachers and
principals who have experience with blended learning?

Has NPS reached out to other LEAs/CMOs to gather input on what works
(and what doesn’t) in blended learning?
o Has NPS’ experience with Education Elements been positive, and should they be
retained as a partner going forward? New Classrooms?

Does Ed Elements and/or New Classrooms have the capacity to
significantly increase scale in Newark?
o Is NPS on track to receive and install all necessary hardware and software to
facilitate professional development on blended learning prior to the 2014-15
school year?
o Has NPS finished making the upgrades to its technology infrastructure in
participating schools (e.g., power, connectivity, storage) that are prerequisites for
blended learning?

January 2015:
138
o Are teachers and principals satisfied with the quality and rigor of digital resources
selected?
o Which content providers and platforms do teachers and principals find most
useful?
o How frequently do participating students use digital resources? What feedback
do students have about the digital resources available to them, and the ways in
which they are used in instruction?
o How frequently do teachers access the data generated through students’ use of
digital resources?
o Has the technology infrastructure been sufficient to enable widespread adoption
of the blended learning strategy?

June 2015 and beyond:
o Have teachers and principals found that blended learning increases their ability to
individualize instruction?
o Which content providers/platform(s) do students, teachers, and principals find
most useful?
o What roadblocks have teachers and principals encountered during the first year of
implementation? How can we avoid or address these roadblocks for future
participants?
Using the short-term implementation indicators above and the long-term goals described in
Sections A(4) and E(3), the Steering Committee will regularly assess the effectiveness of this
plan and, in conjunction with the Stakeholder Committee, will make regular adjustments to
increase its impact on student outcomes over time. These assessments, along with the findings of
the rigorous evaluation described in section E(4) will inform NPS’ long-term allocation of
resources to support student growth. As described in section F(2), we hope that the results of our
rigorous evaluation will justify not only sustaining certain elements of the plan, but actually
scaling them even more broadly after the end of the grant period.
139
E(2) Ongoing communication and engagement
Section E(1) summarizes NPS’ continuous improvement process, which includes significant
engagement and communication with a broad range of stakeholders. To recap the elements of the
broader continuous improvement plan that relate specifically to ongoing stakeholder
engagements, we plan to:
Engage a broad range of stakeholders in goal setting and overall progress monitoring by:

Involving students, parents, educators, community partners, and other relevant
stakeholders in the 100-day planning process to finalize the specific goals, activities,
deliverables, timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for the plan

Ensuring that students, parents, educators, and partners can clearly articulate the vision
and goals of the Race to the Top plans

Maintaining a RTT-D page on the NPS website where frequent informal progress
updates, school news, upcoming events and the public calendar (see below) are posted

Providing formal updates on implementation progress, student outcomes, and proposed
course-corrections to the public at least twice per year
Solicit ongoing feedback from participants by:

Creating a public calendar of opportunities to provide feedback by stakeholder group

Collecting additional qualitative feedback on the progress of the plan, the effectiveness of
specific investments, and the quality of implementation twice annually through student,
educator, and parent surveys

Holding a public Steering Committee meeting at least once per year to solicit additional
feedback and share updates with a broad range of stakeholders
Monitoring online feedback channels and responding as appropriate (e.g. emails to
[email protected], comments on NPS’ RTT-D webpage)
Sharing our lessons learned by:

Encouraging school leaders to celebrate and spread best practices through regular
positive feedback to participating teachers in their schools (e.g., a weekly email
highlighting a specific teacher’s success)
140

Hosting annual city-wide symposiums, regular city-wide educator trainings, and quarterly
parent workshops as described in section A(3)

Partnering with local charter schools/charter school management organizations to
organize educator convenings, host reciprocal school visits and share best practices

Publicizing the findings of the rigorous evaluation described in section E(4) to contribute
to the broader dialogue on strategies to accelerate achievement for all students nationwide
E(3) Performance measures
NPS is committed to performance measures that not only reflect our ambitions for ultimate
achievement gains through RTT-D, but also provide valuable feedback to inform the continuous
improvement process outlined earlier in this section. As we have built the foundation over the
past year for our three strands of work, NPS has begun to align the district around key
performance metrics, many of which are included in the RTT-D plan. For example, all principals
are involved in a goal-setting process where they identify metrics to track at their individual
school, including student proficiency and growth, college and career-readiness, and socialemotional well-being (see Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix E(3) Item 1).
This section presents a set of 13 performance measures for our RTT-D plan. Following the
requirements established by the application, these performance measures are a mix of required
and applicant-proposed measures within four groups: all students, students in grades K-3,
students in grades 4-8, and students in grades 9-12.
Following the summary tables, we offer comments on selected measures that we believe can be
improved, refined, or replaced over the course of the grant period in order to more precisely
assess the change in outcomes or behavior that we are targeting.
Performance Measures for All Students
Measure
1. The number and percentage of
participating students whose teacher of
record and principal are a highly effective
teacher and a highly effective principal
2. The number and percentage of
participating students whose teacher of
record and principal are an effective
teacher and an effective principal
Source
Required measure
Rationale
N/A (Required measure)
Required measure
N/A (Required measure)
141
3. Percent of students with disabilities
served in the least restrictive environment
Applicantproposed
Performance Measures for Grade K-3 Students
Measure
Source
4. Percent of students scoring proficient
Required
or higher on the grade 3 NJASK LAL test measure
(Academic
growth)
5. Percent of students absent for 10% or
fewer of school days
Required
(Non-cognitive
Indicator)
Performance Measures for Grade 4-8 Students
Measure
Source
6a. Percent of students who meet or
Required
(On-track for
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
college- career8th Grade ACT EXPLORE Math
ready indicator)
6b. Percent of students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
8th Grade ACT EXPLORE Reading
7a. Average student growth percentile
score on NJASK Math tests
7b. Average student growth percentile
score on NJASK LAL tests
Required
(Academic leading
Indicator)
NPS believes that the conditions that lead to
personalized learning environments are the same
conditions that enable effective special education.
Contrast this with the situation the district faces
today, in which a highly disproportionate share of
students with disabilities is being served in selfcontained classrooms (vs. national averages). Our
RTT-D approach is one that should drive
improved achievement for all students, and
students with disabilities learn most effectively in
inclusive settings. To support this measure, we
emphasize to teachers the need to create multiple
points of access to a lesson in ways that facilitate
engagement of all learners
Rationale
NPS has chosen to use the percent of grade 3
students scoring proficient or higher on the
NJASK LAL test as a timely indicator of
performance for grade 3 students. Given the plan’s
large focus on leveraging individualized learning
to boost literacy performance, this metric will
enable NPS to track the plan’s impact on students
from an early age.
As a measure of student engagement, attendance is
a strong proxy and is available in rapid formative
increments. Please note the specific measure
being selected: NPS believes that the number of
students demonstrating weak attendance patterns is
a far more useful measure for improvement
purposes than an average “attendance rate” that
may disguise trends with individual students or
student subgroups
Rationale
NPS has begun to administer the ACT assessment
sequence EXPLORE-PLAN-ACT for all students
in grades 8-11. These assessments have
substantial reliability as indicators of collegereadiness, with the ability to conduct longitudinal
analyses and to compare performance against a
national sample of students.
Whether NPS will be able to meet its ambitious
yet achievable targets outlined in Section A(4) for
student proficiency and closing the achievement
gap is largely a function of how quickly the district
can close the gap with the state in terms of the
growth students make in a school year. The
critical benchmark is an SGP score of above 50,
which would indicate that NPS students are
making faster-than-average growth relative to their
142
8. Percent of students reporting high
levels of motivation and engagement on
student surveys
Required
(Social-emotional
indicator)
Performance Measures for Grade 9-12 Students
Measure
Source
9. The number and percentage of
Required
participating students who complete and
submit the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) form
11. % of students who both pass New
Required (OnJersey’s HSPA exams and graduate from
track for college
high school
and career-ready
indicator)
11. Percent of students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Required (Ontrack for careerready indicator)
12. % of students finishing grade 9 at an
age-appropriate level with the expected
number of credits
Required
(Academic
leading
indicator)
13. % of 9th and 10th grade students with
1 or more suspensions during the school
year
Required
(Social-emotional
indicator)
peers statewide, adjusted for initial achievement
levels
As students move through the middle grades,
surveys become a more valid tool for measuring
levels of engagement and motivation, and can
provide important feedback to teachers, school
leaders, and other staff regarding both individualand school-level factors. Student survey results
are also integral to measuring the success of our
proposed work in the Competitive Preference
Priority
Rationale
N/A (Required measure)
Students passing New Jersey’s HSPA exams and
then graduating are considered to have graduated
at a higher level of academic achievement than
those students who do not pass these exams but
who may still graduate through other pathways.
Whether NPS is enabling all students to surpass
this benchmark for college and career readiness
will be a key indicator of success for this plan.
As with measure 6, the 11th grade ACT test is a
key part of the EXPLORE-PLAN-ACT testing
sequence. These assessments have substantial
reliability as indicators of college-readiness, with
the ability to conduct longitudinal analyses and to
compare performance against a national sample of
students. Moreover, these tests focus on assessing
students’ foundational skills that are critical for
success in their careers.
Reducing the number of students who are underage
and over-credited is critical for continuing to
improve NPS’s high school graduation and college
matriculation rates. This metric is of particular
important for NPS’s blended learning initiative, as
the ability to remediate and boost student
performance through personalized learning is a key
part of the district’s theory of change.
Improving student performance requires that
students are present for all available learning time,
and suspensions are one critical way in which
students can be removed from the learning
environment. This measure, coupled with measure
8, will provide NPS with strong indicators around
the district’s social-emotional efforts.
Plans to Refine or Improve Selected Performance Measures
143
While the list above provides a comprehensive view of implementation and achievement under
NPS’ RTT-D plan, we anticipate that several of the measures will be able to be improved or
refined over the course of the grant period:

Use of PARCC assessments (potential to affect measures #4, #6, #7): A key underlying
challenge in setting performance measures for the grant is the lack of alignment between
current NJASK summative assessments and Common Core standards. Faced with a
situation in which the summative assessments do not provide a reliable view of collegereadiness, NPS is instead using a collection of measures: mastery of standards on interim
assessments, 8th grade EXPLORE benchmarks, and student growth on summative
assessments. Following the launch of PARCC in 2014-15, NPS will review whether any
of the academic indicators would be better measured with the new assessments.

Refinement of non-cognitive and student engagement measures (potential to affect
measure #8): NPS believes there will always be value in metrics, such as measure #5,
that look at student attendance as a proxy for engagement levels, given the substantial
research that exists linking attendance to outcomes. But we also believe that direct
student feedback – through student surveys or other administered self-assessments – can
play an important role in providing nuance to understanding of engagement and
motivation. Over the past year NPS has engaged with partners, including the Institute for
Restorative Practices, and Ramapo College, to develop the district’s capacity to provide
social-emotional supports and to begin define measures by which to judge success in this
area. NPS intends to work over the course of the grant period to continue to identify and
refine the right instruments to measure non-cognitive and social-emotional development,
with an understanding that these may differ by grade level.
144
Performance Measure 1a: The number and percentage of participating students whose teacher of record is a highly effective teacher
Applicable Population: All participating students
SY 2017-18
Baseline 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
(Post-Grant)
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Teacher
OVERALL
2660
27111
10%
3755
27111
14%
4849
27111
18%
5944
27111
22%
7039
27111
26%
8133
27111
30%
Black
1146
14532
8%
1789
14532
12%
2431
14532
17%
3074
14532
21%
3717
14532
26%
4360
14532
30%
Hispanic
1090
10035
11%
1474
10035
15%
1858
10035
19%
2242
10035
22%
2626
10035
26%
3011
10035
30%
White/Asian
419
2285
18%
472
2285
21%
526
2285
23%
579
2285
25%
632
2285
28%
686
2285
30%
Special
Education
385
4677
8%
589
4677
13%
792
4677
17%
996
4677
21%
1199
4677
26%
1403
4677
30%
ELL
194
1836
11%
265
1836
14%
337
1836
18%
408
1836
22%
479
1836
26%
551
1836
30%
Economically
Disadvantaged
2359
23545
10%
3300
23545
14%
4241
23545
18%
5182
23545
22%
6123
23545
26%
7064
23545
30%
Subgroup
Methodology: NPS’s goal is to have 30% of students across all subgroups have a teacher of record who is highly effective by 2017-2018
Source: 2012-2013 NPS Teacher Evaluation System
145
Performance Measure 1b: The number and percentage of participating students whose teacher of record is a highly effective principal
Applicable Population: All participating students
SY 2017-18
Baseline 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
(Post-Grant)
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
Total # of Participating
Students
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
% Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
# Participating
Students with Highly
Effective Principal
OVERALL
2434
27111
9%
3574
27111
13%
4714
27111
17%
5854
27111
22%
6993
27111
26%
8133
27111
30%
Black
269
14532
2%
1087
14532
7%
1905
14532
13%
2723
14532
19%
3541
14532
24%
4360
14532
30%
Hispanic
1559
10035
16%
1849
10035
18%
2140
10035
21%
2430
10035
24%
2720
10035
27%
3011
10035
30%
White/Asian
602
2285
26%
619
2285
27%
635
2285
28%
652
2285
29%
669
2285
29%
686
2285
30%
Special
Education
362
4677
8%
570
4677
12%
778
4677
17%
987
4677
21%
1195
4677
26%
1403
4677
30%
ELL
199
1836
11%
269
1836
15%
340
1836
19%
410
1836
22%
480
1836
26%
551
1836
30%
Economically
Disadvantaged
2153
23545
9%
3135
23545
13%
4117
23545
17%
5099
23545
22%
6081
23545
26%
7064
23545
30%
Subgroup
Methodology: NPS’s goal is to have 30% of students across all subgroups have a principal of record who is highly effective by 2017-2018
Source: 2012-2013 NPS Administrator Evaluation System
146
Performance Measure 2a: The number and percentage of participating students whose teacher of record is an effective teacher
Applicable Population: All participating students
Baseline 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
# Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
Total # of Participating Students
% Participating Students with
Effective Teacher
OVERALL
20365
27111
75%
21040
27111
78%
21714
27111
80%
22389
27111
83%
23063
27111
85%
23738
27111
88%
Black
10339
14532
71%
10758
14532
74%
11178
14532
77%
11597
14532
80%
12016
14532
83%
12436
14532
86%
Hispanic
7937
10035
79%
8147
10035
81%
8357
10035
83%
8566
10035
85%
8776
10035
87%
8986
10035
90%
White/Asian
2053
2285
90%
2076
2285
91%
2099
2285
92%
2123
2285
93%
2146
2285
94%
2169
2285
95%
Special
Education
3521
4677
75%
3637
4677
78%
3752
4677
80%
3868
4677
83%
3983
4677
85%
4099
4677
88%
ELL
1486
1836
81%
1521
1836
83%
1556
1836
85%
1591
1836
87%
1626
1836
89%
1661
1836
90%
Economically
Disadvantaged
18231
23545
77%
18762
23545
80%
19294
23545
82%
19825
23545
84%
20357
23545
86%
20888
23545
89%
Subgroup
Methodology: NPS’s goal is to have over 85% of students across all subgroups have a principal of record who is effective by 2017-2018
Source: 2012-2013 NPS Teacher Evaluation System
147
Performance Measure 2b: The number and percentage of participating students whose teacher of record is an effective principal
Applicable Population: All participating students
SY 2017-18
Baseline 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
(Post-Grant)
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
# Participating Students with
Effective Principal
Total # of Participating
Students
% Participating Students
with Effective Principal
OVERALL
15835
27111
58%
16963
27111
63%
18090
27111
67%
19218
27111
71%
20345
27111
75%
21473
27111
79%
Black
7170
14532
49%
7906
14532
54%
8642
14532
59%
9379
14532
65%
10115
14532
70%
10851
14532
75%
Hispanic
6542
10035
65%
6891
10035
69%
7241
10035
72%
7590
10035
76%
7939
10035
79%
8289
10035
83%
White/Asian
2092
2285
92%
2111
2285
92%
2131
2285
93%
2150
2285
94%
2169
2285
95%
2189
2285
96%
Special
Education
2691
4677
58%
2890
4677
62%
3088
4677
66%
3287
4677
70%
3485
4677
75%
3684
4677
79%
ELL
1272
1836
69%
1328
1836
72%
1385
1836
75%
1441
1836
78%
1498
1836
82%
1554
1836
85%
Economically
Disadvantaged
14223
23545
60%
15155
23545
64%
16087
23545
68%
17020
23545
72%
17952
23545
76%
18884
23545
80%
Subgroup
Methodology: NPS’s goal is to have 75% of students across all subgroups have a principal of record who is effective by 2017-2018
Source: 2012-2013 NPS Administrator Evaluation System
148
Performance Measure 3: Percent of students with disabilities served in the least restrictive environment
Applicable Population: All students with disabilities
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
# Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
Total # of Participating Students
% of Participating Students with
disabilities served in the least
restrictive environment
OVERALL
2023
4674
43%
2555
4677
55%
2820
4677
60%
3085
4677
66%
3351
4677
72%
3616
4677
77%
Special
Education
2023
4674
43%
2555
4677
55%
2820
4677
60%
3085
4677
66%
3351
4677
72%
3616
4677
77%
Methodology: The baseline statistic of 43% reflects the fact that 57% of students with disabilities are in the general education environment for less than 40% of
their time (this compares with about 20% of students with disabilities nationally). NPS' goal is to cut the percentage of students in self-contained classrooms in
half over the next five years
Source: NPS enrollment records from PowerSchool
149
Performance Measure 4: Percent of students scoring proficient or higher on the grade 3 NJASK LAL test
Applicable Population: Grade 3
Total # of Participating Students
Total # of Participating Students
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
1169
2743
43%
1484
2743
54%
1641
2743
60%
1799
2743
66%
1956
2743
71%
2113
2743
77%
Black
467
1344
35%
642
1344
48%
730
1344
54%
818
1344
61%
906
1344
67%
993
1344
74%
Hispanic
527
1147
46%
651
1147
57%
713
1147
62%
775
1147
68%
837
1147
73%
899
1147
78%
White/Asian
173
248
70%
188
248
76%
196
248
79%
203
248
82%
211
248
85%
218
248
88%
Special
Education
15
280
5%
68
280
24%
95
280
34%
121
280
43%
148
280
53%
174
280
62%
ELL
48
179
27%
74
179
41%
87
179
49%
100
179
56%
114
179
63%
127
179
71%
1057
2525
42%
1351
2525
53%
1497
2525
59%
1644
2525
65%
1791
2525
71%
1938
2525
77%
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
% of of participating students
scoring proficient or higher on the
grade 3 NJASK LAL test
# of participating students scoring
proficient or higher on the grade 3
NJASK LAL test
OVERALL
Economically
Disadvantaged
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
Methodology: Targets align with NJ’s ESEA waiver which requires schools to cut in half the difference between the 2010-2011 proficiency rate and 100%
proficiency by 2016-17
Source: NJ State 3rd Grade LAL Test Data
150
Performance Measure 5: Percent of students absent for 10% or fewer of school days
Applicable Population: Grade 3
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
OVERALL
2447
2800
87%
2506
2800
89%
2535
2800
91%
2565
2800
92%
2624
2800
94%
2624
2800
94%
Black
1158
1372
84%
1194
1372
87%
1212
1372
88%
1229
1372
90%
1265
1372
92%
1265
1372
92%
Hispanic
1035
1168
89%
1057
1168
91%
1068
1168
91%
1079
1168
92%
1102
1168
94%
1102
1168
94%
White/Asian
250
256
98%
251
256
98%
252
256
98%
252
256
98%
253
256
99%
253
256
99%
Special
Education
253
306
83%
262
306
86%
266
306
87%
271
306
88%
280
306
91%
280
306
91%
ELL
174
187
93%
176
187
94%
177
187
95%
178
187
95%
181
187
97%
181
187
97%
Economically
Disadvantaged
2238
2573
87%
2294
2573
89%
2322
2573
90%
2350
2573
91%
2406
2573
93%
2406
2573
93%
Methodology: Determine how many students participating are missing more than 10% of school days. Targets are based on closing half the gap to 100% by
2017-2018
Source: NPS attendance and enrollment records from PowerSchool
151
Performance Measure 6a: Percent of students who meet or exceed college-readiness benchmarks on 8th Grade ACT EXPLORE Math
Applicable Population: Grade 8
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Math
OVERALL
591
2623
23%
997
2623
38%
1201
2623
46%
1404
2623
54%
1607
2623
61%
1810
2623
69%
Black
210
1361
15%
440
1361
32%
555
1361
41%
670
1361
49%
786
1361
58%
901
1361
66%
Hispanic
263
1019
26%
414
1019
41%
490
1019
48%
565
1019
55%
641
1019
63%
717
1019
70%
White/Asian
116
236
49%
140
236
59%
152
236
64%
164
236
69%
176
236
75%
188
236
80%
Special
Education
22
462
5%
110
462
24%
154
462
33%
198
462
43%
242
462
52%
286
462
62%
ELL
5
93
5%
23
93
24%
31
93
34%
40
93
43%
49
93
53%
58
93
62%
Economically
484
2264
21%
840
2264
37%
1018
2264
45%
1196
2264
53%
1374
2264
61%
1552
2264
69%
Disadvantaged
Methodology: Determine how many students are getting above or a 17 on EXPLORE Math. Targets based on closing half the gap to 100%, consistent with the
approach in the NJ ESEA waiver
Source: NPS EXPLORE data
152
Performance Measure 6b: Percent of students who meet or exceed college-readiness benchmarks on 8th Grade ACT EXPLORE Reading
Applicable Population: Grade 8
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks
on 8th Grade EXPLORE Reading
OVERALL
720
2623
27%
1101
2623
42%
1291
2623
49%
1481
2623
56%
1672
2623
64%
1862
2623
71%
Black
278
1361
20%
495
1361
36%
603
1361
44%
711
1361
52%
820
1361
60%
928
1361
68%
Hispanic
317
1019
31%
457
1019
45%
528
1019
52%
598
1019
59%
668
1019
66%
738
1019
72%
White/Asian
121
236
51%
144
236
61%
156
236
66%
167
236
71%
179
236
76%
190
236
81%
Special
Education
41
462
9%
125
462
27%
167
462
36%
209
462
45%
252
462
54%
294
462
64%
ELL
6
93
6%
23
93
25%
32
93
35%
41
93
44%
50
93
53%
58
93
63%
Economically
603
2264
27%
935
2264
41%
1101
2264
49%
1267
2264
56%
1434
2264
63%
1600
2264
71%
Disadvantaged
Methodology: Determine how many students are getting above or a 15 on EXPLORE Reading. Targets based on closing half the gap to 100%, consistent with
the approach in the NJ ESEA waiver
Source: NPS EXPLORE data
153
Performance Measure 7a: Average student growth percentile score on NJASK Math
Applicable Population: Grades 4-8
Baseline 2011-12
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK Math test
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
Subgroup
SY 2016-17
OVERALL
N/A
11283
43
N/A
11283
49
N/A
11283
51
N/A
11283
54
N/A
11283
57
N/A
11283
60
Black
N/A
5717
41
N/A
5717
47
N/A
5717
51
N/A
5717
54
N/A
5717
57
N/A
5717
60
Hispanic
N/A
4529
44
N/A
4529
49
N/A
4529
52
N/A
4529
54
N/A
4529
57
N/A
4529
60
White/Asian
N/A
1020
49
N/A
1020
52
N/A
1020
54
N/A
1020
55
N/A
1020
57
N/A
1020
59
Special
Education
N/A
1804
38
N/A
1804
46
N/A
1804
49
N/A
1804
53
N/A
1804
57
N/A
1804
61
ELL
N/A
309
48
N/A
309
51
N/A
309
53
N/A
309
55
N/A
309
57
N/A
309
59
Economically
N/A
9992
43
N/A
9992
49
N/A
9992
51
N/A
9992
54
N/A
9992
57
N/A
9992
60
Disadvantaged
Methodology: Based on the student growth percentiles for each student with two consecutive years of test results on the NJASK. Targets are based on reaching
an SGP of 57 in 2016-2017
Source: NJ State Student Growth Percentile Data
154
Performance Measure 7b: Average student growth percentile score on NJASK LAL
Applicable Population: Grades 4-8
Baseline 2011-12
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
N/A
Total # of Participating Students
Mean SGP on NJASK LAL test
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
Subgroup
SY 2016-17
OVERALL
N/A
11272
43
N/A
11272
49
N/A
11272
51
N/A
11272
54
N/A
11272
57
N/A
11272
60
Black
N/A
5715
42
N/A
5715
48
N/A
5715
51
N/A
5715
54
N/A
5715
57
N/A
5715
60
Hispanic
N/A
4529
43
N/A
4529
49
N/A
4529
51
N/A
4529
54
N/A
4529
57
N/A
4529
60
White/Asian
N/A
1011
46
N/A
1011
51
N/A
1011
53
N/A
1011
55
N/A
1011
57
N/A
1011
59
Special
Education
N/A
1814
41
N/A
1814
47
N/A
1814
50
N/A
1814
54
N/A
1814
57
N/A
1814
60
ELL
N/A
292
39
N/A
292
46
N/A
292
50
N/A
292
53
N/A
292
57
N/A
292
61
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
9981
43
N/A
9981
48
N/A
9981
51
N/A
9981
54
N/A
9981
57
N/A
9981
60
Methodology: Based on the student growth percentiles for each student with two consecutive years of test results on the NJASK. Targets are based on reaching
an SGP of 57 in 2016-2017
Source: NJ State Student Growth Percentile Data
155
Performance Measure 8: Percent of students reporting high levels of motivation and engagement on student surveys
Applicable Population: Grades 4-8
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2012-2013
Subgroup
Total # of Participating Students
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
N/A
N/A
62%
9622
13745
70%
10172
13745
74%
10722
13745
78%
11271
13745
82%
11821
13745
86%
Black
N/A
N/A
62%
4994
7133
70%
5279
7133
74%
5564
7133
78%
5850
7133
82%
6135
7133
86%
Hispanic
N/A
N/A
62%
3787
5410
70%
4004
5410
74%
4220
5410
78%
4437
5410
82%
4653
5410
86%
White/Asian
N/A
N/A
64%
844
1172
72%
891
1172
76%
938
1172
80%
985
1172
84%
1032
1172
88%
Special
Education
N/A
N/A
63%
1672
2354
71%
1766
2354
75%
1860
2354
79%
1954
2354
83%
2048
2354
87%
ELL
N/A
N/A
61%
364
527
69%
385
527
73%
406
527
77%
427
527
81%
448
527
85%
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
N/A
62%
8515
12163
70%
9001
12163
74%
9488
12163
78%
9974
12163
82%
10461
12163
86%
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
% of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
# of participating students reporting
high levels of motivation and
engagement on student surveys
OVERALL
Methodology: Baseline data is derived from a pilot student survey administered to 3170 students (1763 4-8 grade students) across 10 schools in SY2012-2013.
Goals are based on increasing positive responses across all subgroups by 4% per year.
Source: TNTP NPS Student Survey Pilot
156
Performance Measure 9: The number and percentage of participating students who complete and submit the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) form
Applicable Population: Grade 12
SY 2017-18
Subgroup
Baseline 2011-12
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
(Post-Grant)
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
# Participating Students who
have completed and
submitted FAFSA
Total # of Participating
Students
% who completed and
submitted FAFSA (A/B)*100
OVERALL
1172
2426
48%
1407
2426
58%
1528
2426
63%
1650
2426
68%
1771
2426
73%
1892
2426
78%
Black
N/A
N/A
48%
880
1518
58%
956
1518
63%
1032
1518
68%
1108
1518
73%
1184
1518
78%
Hispanic
N/A
N/A
48%
416
718
58%
452
718
63%
488
718
68%
524
718
73%
560
718
78%
White/Asian
N/A
N/A
42%
90
174
52%
99
174
57%
108
174
62%
117
174
67%
125
174
72%
Special
Education
N/A
N/A
43%
252
476
53%
276
476
58%
300
476
63%
324
476
68%
347
476
73%
ELL
N/A
N/A
48%
50
87
58%
55
87
63%
59
87
68%
64
87
73%
68
87
78%
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
N/A
50%
1093
1822
60%
1184
1822
65%
1275
1822
70%
1367
1822
75%
1458
1822
80%
Methodology: Baseline data for subgroups is estimated based on the composition of the FAFSA applicant’s high school. Targets are determined by a goal of
increasing the FAFSA completion rate by 5% each year across all subgroups.
Source: FAFSA Completion by High School (http://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/student/application-volume/fafsa-completion-high-school)
157
Performance Measure 10: Percent of students who both pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and graduate from high school
Applicable Population: Grade 12
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
# of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who both
pass New Jersey’s HSPA exam and
graduate from high school
OVERALL
1173
2983
39%
1531
2983
51%
1710
2983
57%
1889
2983
63%
2078
2983
70%
2257
2983
76%
Black
662
1875
35%
887
1875
47%
1000
1875
53%
1112
1875
59%
1269
1875
68%
1381
1875
74%
Hispanic
360
884
41%
448
884
51%
493
884
56%
537
884
61%
622
884
70%
666
884
75%
White/Asian
145
209
69%
162
209
77%
170
209
81%
178
209
85%
177
209
85%
185
209
89%
Special
Education
32
586
5%
114
586
19%
155
586
26%
196
586
33%
309
586
53%
350
586
60%
ELL
14
134
10%
33
134
24%
42
134
31%
52
134
38%
74
134
55%
83
134
62%
Economically
Disadvantaged
917
2267
40%
1189
2267
52%
1325
2267
58%
1461
2267
64%
1592
2267
70%
1728
2267
76%
Methodology: Determine how many students are both passing the NJ HSPA exam and graduating from high school. Targets based on increasing subgroup
performance by 4%-7% based on current performance, with higher growth for lowest performing subgroups.
Source: NPS HSPA and Graduation Data
158
Performance Measure 11: Percent of students who meet or exceed college-readiness benchmarks on 11th Grade ACT Reading
Applicable Population: Grade 11
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
# of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students who meet or
exceed college-readiness benchmarks on
11th Grade ACT Reading
OVERALL
426
1721
25%
592
1721
34%
753
1721
44%
914
1721
53%
1076
1721
63%
1220
1721
71%
Black
218
1028
21%
317
1028
31%
419
1028
41%
520
1028
51%
622
1028
61%
713
1028
69%
Hispanic
139
524
27%
189
524
36%
237
524
45%
285
524
54%
333
524
64%
375
524
72%
White/Asian
69
167
41%
81
167
48%
93
167
56%
105
167
63%
118
167
71%
128
167
77%
Special
Education
4
250
2%
36
250
14%
66
250
27%
97
250
39%
128
250
51%
156
250
62%
ELL
2
63
3%
10
63
15%
17
63
27%
25
63
39%
32
63
52%
39
63
63%
330
1369
24%
459
1369
34%
589
1369
43%
719
1369
53%
849
1369
62%
965
1369
71%
Economically
Disadvantaged
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
Methodology: Determine how many students are getting above or a 18 on ACT Reading. Targets based on closing half the gap to 100%, consistent with the
approach in the NJ ESEA waiver
Source: NPS ACT data
159
Performance Measure 12: Percent of students finishing grade 9 at an age-appropriate level with the expected number of credits
Applicable Population: Grade 9
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
OVERALL
1722
2196
78%
1810
2196
82%
1858
2196
85%
1906
2196
87%
1954
2196
89%
2003
2196
91%
Black
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
1128
1282
88%
1128
1282
88%
Hispanic
557
707
79%
559
707
79%
559
707
79%
559
707
79%
633
707
90%
633
707
90%
White/Asian
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
189
196
97%
189
196
97%
Special
Education
283
395
72%
284
395
72%
284
395
72%
284
395
72%
340
395
86%
340
395
86%
ELL
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
72
93
77%
72
93
77%
Economically
1424
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1604
1782
90%
1604
1782
90%
Disadvantaged
Methodology: Determine the number of students finishing grade 9 with the number of credits to be on-track for college graduation at an appropriate age for
grade 9. Targets based on closing half the gap to 100% by SY2016-2017, consistent with the approach in the NJ ESEA waiver
Source: NPS PowerSchool records
160
Performance Measure 13: Percent of 9th and 10th grade students with 1 or more suspensions during the school year
Applicable Population: Grades 9-10
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
# of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1 or
more suspensions during the school
year
OVERALL
600
5267
11%
425
5267
8%
348
5267
7%
270
5267
5%
193
5267
4%
140
5267
3%
Black
481
3069
16%
360
3069
12%
295
3069
10%
229
3069
7%
164
3069
5%
133
3069
4%
Hispanic
104
1643
6%
72
1643
4%
59
1643
4%
46
1643
3%
33
1643
2%
16
1643
1%
White/Asian
15
428
4%
13
428
3%
10
428
2%
8
428
2%
6
428
1%
6
428
1%
Special
Education
171
1004
17%
125
1004
12%
102
1004
10%
80
1004
8%
57
1004
6%
47
1004
5%
ELL
20
210
10%
15
210
7%
13
210
6%
10
210
5%
7
210
3%
5
210
2%
Economically
Disadvantaged
501
4109
12%
362
4109
9%
296
4109
7%
230
4109
6%
164
4109
4%
123
4109
3%
Methodology: Reduce suspensions across all subgroups by one third by 2016-2017
Source: NPS PowerSchool records
161
E(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments
Due to the innovative and experimental nature of this plan, it is crucial that we rigorously
evaluate the effectiveness of our investments and adapt NPS’ long-term strategy accordingly.
While section E(1) focuses primarily on monitoring the implementation and the short-term
outcomes of the plan during the grant period to inform ongoing mid-course corrections and
refinements, this section focuses on a longer-term evaluation that is more rigorous, scientific, and
“summative” in nature. Because such an evaluation takes years to conduct, it is unlikely that its
results will inform significant course corrections during the first four years of our work.
However, the results of this evaluation will be useful in two primary ways: first, they will inform
NPS’ long-term resource allocation by helping us understand the relative effectiveness of various
investments intended to accelerate student outcomes; second, they will contribute to a national
dialogue on the effectiveness of personalization strategies. While the research on blended
learning, social-emotional learning, and individualized learning plans is nascent, NPS hopes to
contribute to this body of research over the next few years in ways that have the potential to
accelerate achievement for all students nationwide.
In order to conduct a rigorous evaluation, NPS will contract with an independent research
organization with deep expertise in the education sector. Criteria for selecting the independent
contractor will include prior experience conducting similar evaluation efforts, the design of a
high quality evaluation plan for Newark Public Schools, and cost effectiveness. Although the
nature of evaluation varies by research question, Newark is committed to employing
sophisticated strategies and quasi-experimental designs as appropriate.
While other sections of this application have been organized by strand of work, this section
presents several guiding research questions that apply to all three strands of our plan. The
primary goal of our evaluation effort will be to determine the relationship of the overall plan to
the learning outcomes of participating students as well as the instructional practices of
participating educators. Our secondary goal will be to assess the relative contribution of
individual investments to those student outcomes and instructional practices. Individual
investments include things like digital learning content, professional development on data-driven
162
instruction, community partnerships, etc. This more granular evaluation of effectiveness presents
significant research challenges but will provide us with actionable information to guide ongoing
investment decisions throughout the district.
One challenge in achieving the secondary research goal described above is that the drivers of
student outcomes and teacher practice overlap so significantly that it is nearly impossible to
completely isolate the impact of any particular driver. To mitigate this challenge as much as
possible, we will engage our research partner in the 100-day planning process to help ensure that
our approach to implementation supports a rigorous research methodology that will help isolate
the impact of specific investments, interventions, and environmental conditions. For example, in
order to answer the first research question below (Did students participating in the Race to the
Top plan show statistically significant improvements in academic outcomes compared to their
non-participating peers?), we would need to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT). While
we may not be able select participating schools and students in full accordance with an RCT
experimental design, we will work with our research partner during the 100-day planning period
to ensure that our implementation plan approximates this design as closely as possible.
We will work with our independent evaluator to refine the plan and the research questions, but
guiding questions may include the following:
1. Did students participating in the Race to the Top plan show statistically significant
improvements in academic outcomes compared to their non-participating peers?

Do effects differ for students with various characteristics (e.g., grade, disability,
ELL status, etc.)?

Are improvements in student outcomes correlated with any specific strand of work
or investment made at the student or teacher level (e.g., professional development,
hardware, digital content, specific curricula, etc.)?
2. What, if any, significant changes in teacher behavior have occurred over the period of
the grant?
163

Can these changes in teacher behavior be explained by one or more of the
interventions associated with our Race to the Top plan (as opposed to existing
reforms, such as the introduction of a new teacher evaluation framework)?

Are there particular personal traits or environmental conditions that are common to
the teachers whose behavior changed most significantly?
3. What enabling conditions are required for personalized learning interventions to
impact student learning and teacher practice?

For example, are there measurable differences between schools that have been more
successful and less successful in accelerating student outcomes?

Are these differences correlated equally with student learning and teacher practice?
4. Which individual characteristics are most important in determining student success?

Are specific academic or social-emotional skills and traits particularly predictive of
students’ persistence in high school, persistence in college, or success in later life?

This particular question would require a longitudinal design and a research period of
many years. As such, we will need to assess the feasibility of exploring this question
with the research partner selected.
A single measure would be insufficient to capture the complexity of both academic and socialemotional student outcomes. Thus, our evaluation efforts will be designed to employ multiple,
diverse measures of student progress to offer a more nuanced understanding of the plan’s impact
and to ensure reliability and validity of the evaluation. Furthermore, all measures selected will
adhere to scientifically acceptable criteria for technical adequacy. Based on the sample questions
outlined above, our research partners will likely utilize both quantitative and qualitative data
obtained through multiple channels, such student performance outcomes (as described in section
E(3)), student and teacher surveys, deep-dive observations in select classrooms, and interviews
with multiple stakeholders groups.
164
165
F. Budget and Sustainability
The extent to which—
(F)(1) Budget for the project (10 points)
The applicant’s budget, including the budget narrative and tables—
(a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race to the Top – District
grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds);
(b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and implementation of the
applicant’s proposal; and
(c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and priorities, including-(i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top – District grant;
external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) that the
applicant will use to support the implementation of the proposal, including total
revenue from these sources; and
(ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time investments versus
those that will be used for ongoing operational costs that will be incurred during
and after the grant period, as described in the proposed budget and budget
narrative, with a focus on strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability
of the personalized learning environments; and
(F)(2) Sustainability of project goals (10 points)
The applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for sustainability of the
project’s goals after the term of the grant. The plan should include support from State and
local government leaders, financial support, and a description of how the applicant will
evaluate the effectiveness of past investments and use this data to inform future investments.
Such a plan may address how the applicant will evaluate improvements in productivity and
outcomes to inform a post-grant budget, and include an estimated budget for the three years
after the term of the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential sources, and uses of
funds.
166
F(1) Budget for the project
Budget Table 1-1: Overall Budget Summary Table
Budget
Categories
Project
Year 1 (a)
Project
Year 2 (b)
Project
Year 3 (c)
Project
Year 4 (d)
Total (e)
1. Personnel
$1,441,931
$1,092,809
$1,174,599
$1,350,244
$5,059,583
2. Fringe Benefits
$283,041
$256,065
$261,186
$266,410
$1,066,701
3. Travel
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4. Equipment
$389,365
$327,496
$363,736
$277,820
$1,358,417
5. Supplies
$2,341,063
$1,099,923
$1,485,533
$455,780
$5,382,300
6. Contractual
$4,730,387
$3,447,624
$3,892,815
$4,450,826
$16,521,652
7. Training Stipends
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8. Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9. Total Direct
Costs
(lines 1-8)
$9,185,787
$6,223,916
$7,177,869
$6,801,080
$29,388,653
10. Indirect Costs
$209,904
$133,893
$149,052
$110,329
$603,178
$9,395,691
$6,357,810
$7,326,921
$6,911,410
$29,991,832
$2,095,542
$2,095,542
$2,095,542
$2,095,542
$8,382,166
$11,491,233
$8,453,351
$9,422,463
$9,006,951
$38,373,998
11. Total Grant
Funds Requested
(lines 9-10)
12. Funds from
other sources used to
support the project
13. Total Budget
(lines 11-12)
167
Overall Budget Summary Narrative:
Based on the budget below, Newark Public School is requesting $29,991,832 from the Race to
the Top District Fund. We have constructed this budget to align with the three strands of work
summarized in section A(1) of the application. Each of these strands corresponds to a single
“project” in the budget tables below, and a fourth project accounts for the cost of managing and
supporting the overall plan.
As illustrated in Budget Table 2-1 below, the largest portion of total funds will support the strand
of work that focuses on Piloting Blended Learning Models to Accelerate Student
Achievement (Project 3 below), which requires $18.2M or 61% of the overall grant request for
the plan. The strand of work focused on Investing in Teacher Capacity to Use Data (Project
1) will require $5.3M or 18% of the grant request, while Integrating Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning with Academics (Project 2), will cost $4.6M and account for 15% of
the total grant request. Finally, the estimated cost of managing and supporting this plan more
broadly is $1.8M, or 6% of the total funds requested.
Below, we summarize each project at a high level. (Please refer back to Section A(1), C(1) and
C(2) for additional detail on the first, second, and third strands of work, which correspond to
Projects 1, 2, and 3, respectively.) The tables that follow describe the cost of each line item,
provide a rationale for each cost, and detail the assumptions that drive these costs.
High-Level Summary of Three Projects
1. Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data
Improving teacher habits around the use of data to drive instruction is the foundational reform of
our proposed plan, and the gateway for schools to participate in the other strands of work. Over
the past year, Newark has expanded its use of Common Core-aligned interim assessments from
17 schools to all K-8 schools and grades 9 and 10 of most high schools. To build on this
momentum, Newark plans to use Race to the Top funds to provide additional coaching supports
related to data driven instruction to build staff member capacity and embed data-driven
instructional practices in each school. To complement this work, the district will also pilot
innovative forms of teacher feedback in a few schools to get more rapid-response, formative
168
support for teachers. Additionally, NPS will invest in expanding its existing teacher video library
to include more videos that demonstrate best practices in the use of blended learning, as well as
teaching exemplars from NPS schools.
Much of the funds for this project will support a contract to provide hands-on training for
teachers on how to use data to improve instruction, as well piloting innovative forms of teacher
feedback. We believe this investment will bolster our educators’ capacity to better manage and
use data, and to sustain our model of data-driven instruction in the years after the grant.
2. Integrating Social -Emotional Learning with Academics:
In order to help students build the social-emotional skills they need to succeed in college and
beyond, NPS plans to develop individualized learning plans (ILPs) for students; develop
standards, assessments, and curriculum for teaching social-emotional skills; and provide a multitiered structure of behavioral and mental health supports in schools. This project includes
significant investment in a research and development effort to create standards, assessments and
curriculum that support educators in teaching social-emotional skills with rigor. Major cost
categories will include contracting with expert advisors in the field to ensure that our plan
reflects the best practices in social-emotional learning and expanding our partnerships with
student support organizations to provide and coordinate behavioral and mental health supports
for students. Additional costs include the development and facilitation of a student engagement
and school climate survey, the creation of an integrated data platform to manage student ILPs,
and the development of instructional materials to support the roll-out of ILPs across the district.
3. Pilot Blended Learning Models to Accelerate Student Achievement:
Blended learning, when implemented well, offers the potential to “super charge” personalization
by utilizing technology and classroom rotation models to individualize instruction beyond what
any one teacher can do alone. Newark has chosen to target our implementation of blended
learning to grades 3-9, starting with a small number of pilot schools and scaling at a moderate
pace through year 4 of the grant. NPS ensures that this project includes significant
implementation and training supports for all teachers, leaders, and other participating school
staff. This cost is reflected through the resources set aside for an implementation partner who
will provide these professional development and technical assistance supports, while also
169
working on data integration and the selection of digital content. The other cost of this project
begins with the purchase of hardware, including personalized learning devices such as laptops
and tablets. There are also significant personnel and equipment costs associated with sustaining
this hardware, including additional tech support employees and technology infrastructure
upgrades.
4. Management, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement:
The management of our project will begin in January 2014 with the hiring of a full-time project
manager to oversee the implementation and continuous improvement of the plan district-wide.
Besides the personnel cost of this project manager, other major costs in Project 4 below include a
rigorous evaluation of the work we propose throughout this plan in order to (1) inform NPS’
long-term resource allocation, and (2) contribute to the broader national dialogue on strategies
for accelerating student achievement. Finally, we have set aside a small amount of funding to
publish reports on the progress of implementation to date and the findings of our ongoing
evaluation.
Budget Table 2-1: Overall Budget Summary Project List
Project Name
Primary
Associated
Criterion
and location
in application
Additional
Associated
Criteria
and location
in application
Total Grant
Funds
Requested
Total Budget
Invest in Teacher Capacity (C)(1) and
to Use Data
(C)(2)
N/A
$5,337,472
$12,537,472
Integrate Social-Emotional
Teaching and Learning
with Academics
C(1), C(2), and
(X)
N/A
$4,614,642
$5,205,726
Pilot Blended Learning
Models to Accelerate
Student Achievement
(C)(1) and
(C)(2)
N/A
$18,190,975
$18,782,058
Management, Evaluation,
and Continuous
Improvement
(A)(3), (D)(1),
(E)(2), and
(E)(4)
N/A
$1,848,742
$1,848,742
$29,991,832
$38,373,998
TOTALS
170
Throughout the application and budget, we have defined our grant years as follows:
Year 1
January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
Year 2
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016
Year 3
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017
Year 4
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
NOTE ON CRITERIA (F)(1)(c)(ii): Analysis of the level of one-time vs. ongoing operational
costs in our budget, and the plan to ensure financial sustainability, is combined into the narrative
for Section F(2), following the budget tables.
171
Project 1 Budget Summary
Table 3-1: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1)
Project Name: Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data
Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: (C)(1) and (C)(2)
Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A
Project
Project
Project
Project
Budget Categories
Year 1 (a)
Year 2 (b)
Year 3 (c)
Year 4 (d)
Total (e)
1. Personnel
$298,320
$176,964
$107,136
$109,279
$691,699
2. Fringe Benefits
$44,795
$30,460
$31,070
$31,691
$138,015
3. Travel
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4. Equipment
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5. Supplies
$1,520,354
$0
$0
$0
$1,520,354
6. Contractual
$999,850
$870,850
$497,250
$497,250
$2,865,200
7. Training Stipends
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8. Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9. Total Direct Costs
(lines 1-8)
$2,863,319
$1,078,274
$635,456
$638,220
$5,215,269
10. Indirect Costs
$92,283
$14,449
$7,671
$7,801
$122,203
11. Total Grant
Funds Requested
(lines 9-10)
$2,955,602
$1,092,723
$643,127
$646,021
$5,337,472
12. Funds from other
sources used to support
the project
$1,800,000
$1,800,000
$1,800,000
$1,800,000
$7,200,000
13. Total Budget
(lines 11-12)
$4,755,602
$2,892,723
$2,443,127
$2,446,021
$12,537,472
172
Project 1 Budget Narrative
The first strand of work described in Section A(1), Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data,
will focus on preparing students in grades 3-10 for Common Core assessments and encouraging
teachers to increase their use of data to personalize students’ learning experience. Over the past
year, NPS has increased the number of schools using Common-Core aligned interim assessments
from seventeen to fifty-nine, reaching nearly all students in grades 3-10. Additionally, coaching
supports have been implemented for teachers in grades 3-8 to help build the capacity of district
staff in using data. Building on this momentum, NPS seeks to further embed data-driven
instructional practices through this grant by expanding coaching to grades 9 and 10 at our
comprehensive and magnet high schools, piloting innovative forms of teacher feedback at a
portion of our K-8 schools, and expanding professional development resources related to datadriven instruction and blending learning. Coaching for teachers in grades 9-10 will be launched
in the first year of the grant, with innovative feedback pilots and professional development
resources being rolled out in years one and two. Based on this rollout plan, twenty-three schools
will be participating directly in the grades 9-10 coaching and innovative feedback pilots, with all
schools benefiting from the professional development resources in year two and beyond. This
will mean that, using 2012-2013 enrollment figures and district-wide average student to teacher
ratios, approximately 9,117 students and 702 teachers will be participating in work funded
directly by the grant, with 21,000 students and 1,100 teachers participating in this strand of work
overall.
The largest cost associated with this strand of work will be the contract with an outside partner to
provide coaching supports for teachers in grades 9 and 10 to interpret and use data from
Common-Core aligned assessments. This cost will include per school coaching fees, as well as a
small per student fee to cover costs other costs such as printing. The cost per school will decrease
for each school over time, based on the assumption that schools gradually build the internal
capacity to sustain this independently over time. In total, we expect this contractual expense to
amount to $1,989,000 over the four-year grant period. Additionally, in order to further propel the
shift toward data driven instruction Newark will purchase laptops for every faculty member in
grades 3-10 and for teachers participating in blended learning pilots at the high school level. The
cost of these laptop purchases is expected to be $1,520,354.
173
Although the provision of coaching supports will be included in the contract described above,
NPS will also need to compensate teachers for the extra time they spend in training outside of
normal school hours. Assuming that every teacher in grades 9 and 10 will participate and that the
number of training hours required per teacher will decrease either as teachers become more
accustomed to using data- driven instructional practices, or as schools build the training time into
existing professional development hours, the additional training cost will be $215,784 over four
years. Personnel cost included in this project will be for a project manager to lead the district in
building capacity for data-driven instruction over the long term. This Project Manager will cost
$613,931 (including benefits) over the four-year grant period.
To complement this work on data-driven instruction and the district’s related work on teacher
evaluation, we have built in funds for individual schools to pilot innovative forms of teacher
feedback. We expect ten schools to participate in this pilot, and we plan to allocate $676,200 to
these schools collectively over the first two years of the grant. NPS has already invested heavily
in designing a new teacher evaluation framework that emphasizes the importance of data-driven,
personalized instruction. To demonstrate our commitment to continuous instructional
improvement, NPS will begin funding the most promising forms of teacher feedback piloted
through regular operating dollars during year 3 of the grant.
Finally, NPS will invest in expanding its professional development resources by building out our
existing teaching video library. Over the past year, NPS has launched an intranet-accessible
library of professional development videos in conjunction with the development of a
performance management system through BloomBoard. The focus of this build-out will be on
including videos that demonstrate the effective use of data in instruction and show best practices
in the use of blended learning, to help build the foundation for the blended learning rollout in
Project 3. The effort will also aim to include high-performing NPS teachers as identified in
NPS’s Teacher Evaluation System as exemplars. The video library expansion is estimated to cost
$200,000, and will be spread across years one and two of the grant.
174
Please see below for a more detailed description of the specific assumptions contributing to the
total cost of $5,337,472 for this project.
175
Project-Level Itemized Costs: Invest in Teacher Capacity to Use Data
Cost Description and Assumption
Personnel
Full-Time Project Manager
 The district will hire a full-time employee to
manage Newark’s relationship with the provider of
teacher coaching, to oversee the collection and use
of formative assessment data, and to monitor the
district’s progress towards autonomy in data-driven
instruction
 This position is crucial to ensure that contracted
services are fully coordinated across all schools
using Common-Core aligned assessments and
coaching grades 3-10
 The starting annual salary for this full time
employee, $102,976, is in line with the salary for an
experienced supervisor at NPS. Consistent with
standard NPS procedures, we have built in an
assumed salary increase of 2% annually
 Because our “year 1” will run from January 1st
2014 to June 13th 2015, we have allocated a year
and half’s salary in the first year of the grant
 This salary will be grant-funded through the end of
the 2017-18 school year
 Because NPS will continue to work on building
schools’ capacity for data-driven instruction after
the conclusion of the grant period, the cost of this
employee will be ongoing
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$154,464
$105,036
$107,136
$109,279
$475,915
176
Cost Description and Assumption
Teacher Compensation for Supplemental Training
Time
 Newark will provide intensive coaching to
educators on using Common Core-aligned interim
assessments to inform instruction and on
embedding data-driven instructional practices
within schools
 The district plans to incorporate most of this time
into teachers’ current professional development
allocation; however NPS needs to compensate
teachers for any extra time spent outside the
classroom
 Newark anticipates the extra teacher training time
needed will follow the following schedule: eight
hours per teacher in their first year of participation,
four hours per teacher in their second or third year,
and no additional time outside normal classroom
hours during their fourth year
 Therefore the annual cost of this training time
ramps down to zero after the fifth year
 The district estimates that there are 486 educators
teaching grades 9-10 in each of the comprehensive
and magnet high schools
 Based on current NPS policy, the cost per teacher
for each hour of over-time that does not involve
student-interaction is $37
Cost
Project
Year 1
$143,856
Cost
Project
Year 2
$71,928
Cost
Project
Year 3
$0
Cost
Project
Year 4
$0
Total
$215,784
177
Cost Description and Assumption
Fringe Benefits
Full-Time Project Manager
 NPS estimates the cost of fringe benefits as 29% of
an individual’s salary
 Because NPS plans to sustain the Project Manager
position over time, this will be an ongoing cost
Supplies
Faculty Laptops
 In order to improve instruction on a district-wide
level and further propel the shift toward data driven
instruction, Newark will purchase laptops for every
teacher of record in grades 3-10
 NPS has already purchased laptops for teachers
grades 5-8 of the Renew Schools. We will need to
purchase laptops for all grade 3-10 teachers
currently using Common-Core aligned assessments
and coaching support, as well as teachers in grade
3-4 of the 8 Renew Schools.
 In total, we will need to purchase 1276 faculty
laptops.
 Each faculty laptop costs $1157.50
 This cost includes all potential add-ons, including
imaging, asset tagging, engraving, Computrace, and
three year accidental insurance. Faculty laptops also
have more robust functionality than student laptops.
 This will be primarily a one-time cost as blended
learning pilots are implemented, however the
district will assume the cost of replacing hardware
over time
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$44,795
$30,460
$31,070
$31,691
$138,015
$1,520,354
$0
$0
$0
$1,520,354
178
Cost Description and Assumption
Contractual
Coaching Supports
 Newark will contract with an outside service
partner to provide coaching for teachers and school
leaders to develop and sustain data-driven
instructional practices over time
 The costs described at right are based on NPS’
experience contracting for similar services in its
current operating budget
 The estimated cost of this contract would include a
per school fee and a per student fee
 The cost per school included in the contract will
decrease in every year of the grant, as schools build
their capacity to sustain this work independently
 Therefore the total cost of this contract will ramp
down in the two to three years after the grant period
 NPS will select a partner in advance of the 2013-14
school year to provide any necessary training and
implementation support before the start of the
academic year
 In selecting a partner, NPS will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Piloting Innovative Forms of Teacher Feedback
 As described in section C(2), our plan provides for
10 schools to conduct a two-year pilot of various
forms of low-stakes, rapid-response feedback for
teachers. After two years, participating teachers and
leaders will identify the most promising tools,
which can then be scaled up using district funds.
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$497,250
$497,250
$497,250
$497,250
$1,989,000
$402,600
$273,600
$0
$0
$676,200
179
Cost Description and Assumption
 We have modeled the costs for this pilot off of two
specific forms of innovative feedback: one for live
teacher coaching through the use of cameras and
real-time audio feedback through “earbuds,” and
the other for video-taped observations with timely
review and feedback from an expert observer.
However, these specific approaches were used for
benchmarking purposes only, as we intend for
principals to select from a wide range of innovative
forms of feedback to help teachers improve their
practice
 These pilots will be conducted in the first two years
of the grant. Beginning in year three, ongoing use
of the models piloted will be funded through the
district’s normal operating budget
 This cost will be a one-time expense for a two-year
pilot
 Newark anticipates that ten schools will pilot some
form of innovative feedback for teachers, with
approximately 25 teachers participating in each
school
 NPS will procure vendors for each type of teacher
feedback before the start of the 2013-14 school year
 In procuring vendors, NPS will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Increasing professional development video library
 Our plan is to expand NPS’s existing professional
development video library, focusing on producing
and purchasing videos related to data-driven
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$0
$200,000
180
Cost Description and Assumption
instruction and blended learning.
 NPS will contract with an external partner to
produce videos using NPS teachers as exemplars.
Additionally, NPS will procure video content from
external vendors to expand the depth and breadth of
the video PD catalog.
 NPS assumes that this project will cost $200,000,
which will be spread across years one and two of
the grant.
 In procuring vendors, NPS will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
 The indirect cost rate was applied to all personnel,
fringe benefit, and supply costs and to the first
$25,000 per year of each of the four contracts (one
for the provider of coaching for all four years, two
for the innovative teacher feedback pilots for the
first two years, and one for the video library
development).
 Indirect Cost Rate is 4.7% (see Appendix F(1) Item
1)
Total Funds Requested
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$2,863,319
$92,283
$1,078,274
$14,449
$635,456
$7,671
$638,220
$7,801
$5,215,269
$122,203
$2,955,602
$1,092,723
$643,127
$646,021
$5,337,472
181
Cost Description and Assumption
Over the past year, NPS has invested significantly in
this area by launching Common-Core aligned
assessments across nearly all schools, grades 3-10.
Additionally, the district provides coaching to teachers
in grades 3-8 on using data-driven instructional
practices. The contractual costs of this work, funded
through both local and federal funds, are:
 Common-Core aligned assessments grades 3-8,
with related teacher coaching: $1.3M per year
 Common-Core aligned assessments grades 9-10:
$500K per year
Additionally, please refer to the narrative portion of this
section for a description of NPS’ other previous and
ongoing investments of operating dollars to support this
work (e.g., establishing a new teacher evaluation
system)
Total Budget
Cost
Project
Year 1
$1,800,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$1,800,000
Cost
Project
Year 3
$1,800,000
Cost
Project
Year 4
$1,800,000
Total
$7,200,000
$4,755,602
$2,892,723
$2,443,127
$2,446,021
$12,537,472
182
Project 2 Budget Summary
Table 3-2: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1)
Project Name: Integrate Social-Emotional Teaching and Learning with Academics
Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: (C)(1),(C)(2) and (X)
Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A
Budget
Project
Project
Project
Project
Categories
Year 1 (a)
Year 2 (b)
Year 3 (c)
Year 4 (d)
Total (e)
1. Personnel
$22,200
$27,900
$62,810
$78,630
$191,540
2. Fringe Benefits
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3. Travel
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4. Equipment
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5. Supplies
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6. Contractual
$1,700,000
$1,450,000
$850,000
$400,000
$4,400,000
7. Training
Stipends
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8. Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9. Total Direct
Costs
(lines 1-8)
$1,722,200
$1,477,900
$912,810
$478,630
$4,591,540
10. Indirect Costs
$5,743
$6,011
$5,302
$6,046
$23,102
11. Total Grant
Funds Requested
(lines 9-10)
$1,727,943
$1,483,911
$918,112
$484,676
$4,614,642
12. Funds from
other sources used
to support the
project
$147,771
$147,771
$147,771
$147,771
$591,083
13. Total Budget
(lines 11-12)
$1,875,714
$1,631,682
$1,065,883
$632,446
$5,205,726
183
Project 2 Budget Narrative
The second strand of work described in Section A(1) aims to Integrate Social-Emotional
Learning with Academics. As part of this work, each student will create a personal “roadmap to
success” in the form of an Individualized Learning Plan (ILP) that incorporates academic, socialemotional and college & career goals with achievable milestones. At the same time, educators
will enable students to achieve their individual goals by teaching, and rigorously assessing,
social-emotional skills aligned to clear standards. These supports are targeted primarily at
students in grades 6-8, with additional training for educators in grade 9 to ensure that students’
ILPs facilitate a smooth transition to high school. By year four of the grant, we plan to have
scaled this strand of work to all schools with 6-8th grades as well as all comprehensive and
magnet high schools.
Because the tools and resources that undergird this strand of work need to be created or
assembled from existing best-in-class providers, we plan to focus on R&D and building a
sustainable infrastructure for managing ILP’s during the first 18 months of the grant. To start this
process, educators in our high schools began building the framework and materials for students
in grades 9-12 during the current, 2013-2014 school year. Leveraging findings from this work,
we will identify a set of approximately five K-8 schools to serve as partners in the development
of standards, assessments and curriculum for teaching social-emotional skills in the first year of
the grant. During year 2 of the grant, these same schools will pilot the standards, assessments,
and curriculum created. Concurrently, we will also develop and integrated data platform to
manage ILP’s for our students during years one and two. After the investments in infrastructure
and R&D, our goal is to scale these instructional materials and supports to 15-20 schools (grades
6-8) in year 3 and to all 6th-8th grade students by year 4. Through this scaling effort we plan to
serve 8,120 students in grades 6-8 and train 480 educators in grades 6-9 over the four year grant
period. Additionally, approximately 8,000 high-school students will participate in the broader
work of the strand through the ILP process.
The R&D cost of $991,540 for this work includes two years of contractual services with an
external partner (or group of partners) who has (have) deep expertise in social-emotional
learning to support the development of instructional materials and supports. This total also
184
includes over-time compensation for a Working Team of teachers to participate in the effort to
develop instructional materials and supports. Additional costs associated with this work include
professional development time to help teachers build their capacity to incorporate the
instructional tools designed during the R&D phase into their regular classroom practice. We have
assumed that participating teachers in 6th – 8th grade will need two full days of professional
development, and teachers in grade 9 will need one day. The cost to hire substitutes for these
professional development days amounts to $147,140 over the four year grant period.
Furthermore, the District will need a web-based management system in order to store, manage,
and provide access to students’ Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs). The cost to develop this
system is an estimated $600,000 over the first two years of the grant. Another large contract
included in this project will include a vendor to coordinate the distribution, collection, and
analysis of a student engagement and school climate survey for every NPS student, parent and
educator. The total cost of this annual survey over the four year grant period will be $1,000,000.
As we undertake these efforts, we also understand that effectively meeting the social-emotional
needs of students will require action beyond improved data and classroom practice. To intervene
effectively with the highest-need students in a school, we must establish a multi-tiered
architecture of flexible yet intensive supports. Over the past year, NPS has worked with several
partners to address students’ social-emotional needs in a variety of ways. Through this grant,
NPS plans to: 1) expand and deepen partnerships that have shown to be effective, including
Turnaround for Children (described in the Competitive Preference Priority section of the grant);
2) build partnerships in areas where NPS has identified gaps in the district’s social/emotionalrelated work over the past year; 3) integrate the activities of various partnerships to ensure that
schools have a suite of offerings to choose from while minimizing overlap and redundancies.
The estimated the cost of these efforts is $2,000,000 over the course of four years, with much of
the cost being incurred in years one through three. Pending the outcomes of these activities, NPS
will consider scaling these effort beyond what is proposed in the grant through the use of
operating dollars or other private resources.
185
To demonstrate our commitment to this work, NPS is using normal operating dollars to fund a
Deputy Executive Director, Office of College and Career Readiness for the district’s Leadership
Team (see Appendix F(1) Item 2 for a description of this position). As described in our theory of
change, we believe that social-emotional skills are a crucial part of college readiness, and having
another expert to advocate for and focus on this work at the highest level of district leadership
will help ensure that it remains a priority going forward.
Please see below for a more detailed description of the specific assumptions contributing to the
total cost of $4,614,642 for this project.
186
Project-Level Itemized Costs: Integrate Social-Emotional Teaching and Learning with Academics
Cost Description and Assumption
Personnel
Working Team for the Development of SocialEmotional Standards, Curriculum, and Assessments
 We will assemble a Working Team of teachers
from five schools to help develop standards,
curriculum and assessments build students’ socialemotional skills
 These teachers will help design instructional
materials and will be the first to pilot them in their
own classrooms
 This group will consist of 15 current NPS teachers
 The group will meet for a total of 40 hours
throughout the R&D year (i.e., the first year of the
grant). In year 2, the group will meet for a total of
20 hours, and in years 3 and 4, for 10 hours. This is
a one-time cost, confined to the four-year grant
period
 Based on current NPS policy, we will compensate
teachers for their efforts outside the school day at a
rate of $37 per hour
Teacher Compensation for Supplemental Training
Time
 To support teachers in their effort to integrate a new
curriculum related to social-emotional learning and
create Individualized Learning Plans for all students
in grades 6-8, we will provide supplemental
training for educators in these grades
 NPS will also provide training for 9th grade
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$22,200
$11,100
$5,550
$5,550
$44,400
$0
$16,800
$57,260
$73,080
$147,140
187








Cost Description and Assumption
teachers in comprehensive and magnet high schools
so that they are prepared to help students plan their
high school experience around the goals outlined in
their ILPs
We will only provide training on the new standards,
assessments, and curriculum for social-emotional
skills during a teacher’s first year of participation.
Beyond that point, further training can be
integrated into the regularly allotted professional
development time
On average, in the schools that are most likely to
participate, there are 8-12 teachers per grade
Training for educators in grades 6-8 will require
two full days, while training for 9th grade educators
will require one day
Training for 6th to 8th grade educators will occur in
years 2 through 4 of the grant, since year 1 will be
spent on research and development
Training for 9th grade educators begin in year 3 of
the grant, when 8th graders with ILPs will begin to
enter high school
Training will be staggered throughout the school
year and will require that a substitute teacher cover
for the teacher being trained
Based on current NPS policy, the cost per substitute
teacher per day is $140
This is a one-time cost incurred during the grant
period
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
188
Cost Description and Assumption
Contractual
Advisor to NPS on Social-Emotional Learning
 As part of the research and development effort, the
District will contract with an external individual or
organization who has deep expertise in socialemotional learning
 This contracted partner will help research what
exists in the space today, define Newark’s need,
create or tailor content and curriculum to those
needs, design the ILP interface, consult on a the
web-based portal for ILPs, help with training
teachers and school leaders, and contribute to
building sustainable capacity district-wide
 This contract will last for the duration of the
research and development effort (year 1) as well as
the initial pilot phase (year 2)
 Based on our experience with similar advisory
services, we estimate that the cost of this contract
will be $500,000 in the first year of the grant (1.5
calendar years) and $300,000 in the second year
 This is a one-time cost
 Due to the intensive R&D effort required in year 1,
NPS will select a partner as soon as possible
 In selecting a partner, Newark will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$500,000
$300,000
$0
$0
$800,000
189
Cost Description and Assumption
Integrated Data Platform Developer
 The District will need a web-based management
system in order to store, manage, and provide
access to students’ Individualized Learning Plans
(ILPs) NPS will hire an outside vendor to build a
proprietary system in order to minimize ongoing
costs associated with licensing an existing program
on an annual basis
 The data platform will need to be fully functional
by the time scaling begins on this project in year 3.
Therefore this contract will be a one-time cost in
years 1 and 2
 Based on prior experience with similar contracts,
we estimate the cost of this development effort to
be approximately $300,000 per year
 In selecting a partner, Newark will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Cost
Project
Year 1
$300,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$300,000
Cost
Project
Year 3
$0
Cost
Project
Year 4
$0
Total
$600,000
190
Cost Description and Assumption
Partnership to Provide and Coordinate School-Based
Student Support Services
 As described in the Competitive Preference
Priority, we plan to identify a single organization
who will serve as our key partner in NPS’s work on
addressing students’ social-emotional needs
 This partner will be responsible for providing
services to students, families, and staff across
multiple schools with a focus on schools
demonstrating the highest need. Additionally, the
partner while also support the coordination and
integration of other required external resources
(e.g., mental health service, social services)
 Based on conversations with our partner
organization, we anticipate the cost of this contract
to be approximately $600,000 per year during the
initial implementation and capacity-building phase
(years 1-2)
 Because the partner organization will focus on
building sustainable capacity within participating
schools, this will ramp down to zero during the four
years of the grant (pending NPS’ decision to scale
the work beyond the initial cohort of schools using
operating dollars or other private resources)
 In selecting a partner, Newark will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Cost
Project
Year 1
$650,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$600,000
Cost
Project
Year 3
$600,000
Cost
Project
Year 4
$150,000
Total
$2,000,000
191
Cost Description and Assumption
Student Engagement and School Climate Survey
 In order to monitor the effectiveness of this plan,
we hope to take a baseline measure of student
engagement and school climate, then track the
development of these measures over time through
an annual survey focused on indicators of student
engagement and educator satisfaction
 Based on estimates from similarly-sized districts,
we expect these surveys to cost approximately
$250,000 annually
 This cost will be ongoing, and after the four years
of the grant will be covered by Newark’s regular
operating budget
 In selecting a vendor, Newark will follow the
procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts
74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
 The indirect cost rate was applied to all personnel
costs and to the first $25,000 per year of each of the
four contracts in the first two years and the two
contracts in the final two years (the Advisor to NPS
on Social-Emotional Learning and Integrated Data
Platform Developer contracts will run only through
years one and two, and the student services
partnership and the Partnership to Provide and
Coordinate School-Based Student Support Services
and Student Engagement and School Climate
Survey will run through all four years)
• Indirect Cost Rate is 4.7% (see Appendix F(1)
Cost
Project
Year 1
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 3
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 4
$250,000
Total
$1,000,000
$1,722,200
$5,743
$1,477,900
$6,011
$912,810
$5,302
$478,630
$6,046
$4,591,540
$23,102
192
Cost Description and Assumption
Item 1)
Total Grant Funds Requested
Over the past year, NPS has invested developing a
system of social-emotional supports for its students.
While this work spans across many of the districts
activities, the Deputy Director of Student Supports
position was created to manage work currently being
performed in this strand as well as future activities that
arise from this grant. The cost of this position is
approximately $150K, including fringe benefits.
Additionally, please refer to the narrative portion of
this section for a description of NPS’ other previous
and ongoing investments of operating dollars to
support this work.
Total Budget
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$1,727,943
$147,771
$1,483,911
$147,771
$918,112
$147,771
$484,676
$147,771
$4,614,642
$591,083
$1,875,714
$1,631,682
$1,065,883
$632,446
$5,205,726
193
Project 3 Budget Summary
Table 3-3: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1)
Project Name: Pilot Blended Learning Models to Accelerate Student Achievement
Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: (C)(1) and (C)(2)
Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A
Budget
Project Year Project Year Project Year Project Year
Categories
1 (a)
2 (b)
3 (c)
4 (d)
Total (e)
1. Personnel
$944,873
$767,900
$882,206
$1,037,439
$3,632,418
2. Fringe Benefits
$187,050
$190,791
$194,607
$198,499
$770,947
3. Travel
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4. Equipment
$389,365
$327,496
$363,736
$277,820
$1,358,417
5. Supplies
$820,709
$1,099,923
$1,485,533
$455,780
$3,861,946
6. Contractual
$1,730,537
$826,774
$2,245,565
$3,353,576
$8,156,452
7. Training
Stipends
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8. Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9. Total Direct
Costs
(lines 1-8)
$4,072,535
$3,212,884
$5,171,647
$5,323,115
$17,780,180
10. Indirect Costs
$97,649
$102,630
$125,130
$85,386
$410,795
11. Total Grant
Funds Requested
(lines 9-10)
$4,170,183
$3,315,513
$5,296,777
$5,408,501
$18,190,975
12. Funds from
other sources used
to support the
project
$147,771
$147,771
$147,771
$147,771
$591,083
13. Total Budget
(lines 11-12)
$4,317,954
$3,463,284
$5,444,548
$5,556,272
$18,782,058
194
Project 3 Budget Narrative
The third strand of work described in Section A(1) aims to Pilot Blended Learning Models to
Accelerate Student Achievement. This is the most resource-intensive project and is the strand
of work in which technology infrastructure plays the largest role. As part of this work, NPS will
sponsor two blended learning pilots. The first of these is focused on literacy and math content as
part of the core instructional program. This pilot will begin with grades 3-5 and will scale up by
one grade each year until it covers grades 3-8. The second blended learning pilot will be at our
high schools and will be focused on a more narrow set of students and subjects, such as literacy
remediation for students who enter high school more than one grade level behind in reading.
In the first two years of the grant, we will focus on implementing these pilots in 8-10 K-8
schools (likely the 8 Renew Schools) and three comprehensive high schools. During year two,
NPS will evaluate and assess how the pilot has worked then refine the model in these same
schools. In year three, pending success in the first two years as determined by the continuous
improvement process, the District will add approximately four K-8 schools that have the
conditions for success (as described in Section A(1)) and the remaining four comprehensive high
schools. Finally, in year four, the district will add approximately eight more K-8 schools to reach
a total of 23-27 schools during the grant period.
To support these pilots, NPS will need to make significant investments in hardware. The district
will purchase personalized learning devices (such as laptops or tablets) for all participating
students in grades 3-10 at a ratio of three students per device. These learning devices will be
stored and charged in carts kept in the classroom. Additionally, we plan to pilot a 1:1 student to
device learning environment at four of our schools during years three and four. We will also
invest in additional resources for 3rd – 8th grade classrooms, such as a wireless printer for each
classroom.
We estimate that the rollout process described above will enable us to serve 7,492 students and
448 teachers in K-8 schools, and 2,135 students and 49 teachers in the comprehensive high
195
schools over the four-year grant period. The total estimated cost of hardware purchases is
$3,861,946.
NPS has invested heavily in infrastructure upgrades over the past year such that all schools will
have wireless internet access and significant increases to bandwidth by the end of this school
year. To ensure that schools are fully prepared to implement blended learning, we will make a
further upgrades (e.g., to security, firewalls, and storage capacity) with grant funds. The total
estimated cost of infrastructure purchases is $1,783,977.
Our implementation strategy assumes that all hardware is purchased and all infrastructure
upgrades are completed in the year prior to rollout, to ensure all technology is up and running
and school staff have a chance to be trained on the infrastructure before it is fully integrated into
instruction. Therefore in the first year of the grant, in addition to hardware purchases we will
purchase servers, and other related infrastructure supports (e.g., firewall and security upgrades)
for the set of schools that will participate in years one and two of the grant period.
We recognize that providing additional support and building capacity among schools, staff
members, and students will be critical to the ultimate success of this project. Indeed, our recent
experience in infusing technology into grades 5-8 of NPS’s 8 Renew Schools has clearly
demonstrated how important these supports are, as well as provided district leaders with valuable
experience and “lessons learned” on how to approach implementation in the correct way. As
such, we have developed a multi-tiered approach during implementation of this strand of work
that focuses on: a) providing intensive supports during initial implementation of these pilots to
quickly manage issues that arise and minimize interruptions for educators and students; and b)
building capacity of staff members at the school and district level to ensure the sustainability of
our blended learning efforts. Specific activities that will support implementation and build
capacity include:

Using local funds, we will hire a Special Assistant for Technology who reports to the
Director of Curriculum and Instruction (see Appendix F, Item 3 for a description of this
position). The Special Assistant will manage the blended learning pilots and share best
practices across schools, as well as serve as a bridge between the district’s instructional
196
experts and technology experts. The director will help ensure effective implementation,
as well as help set the district-wide vision for blended learning.

We will also hire additional IT support staff at the central office level to provide districtwide support and technical assistance on an ongoing basis. We will also contract with an
outside provider for assistance during periods of peak activity (largely years one and
three), as well as to train and build capacity among district staff members on instructional
technology. Currently, we work with a provider offering these services and would likely
expand the relationship to manage grant-related activities.

At the school-level, we will provide each school launching a blended learning pilot with a
contracted IT support resource to provide on-site support for technical issues during the
school’s initial year. In addition to providing on-site support, this individual will train and
transfer knowledge to the school’s School Operations Manager (SOM) who will be
responsible for managing the school’s instructional technology in the years after the pilot.

We will also seek to build capacity of our school-based staff in blended learning and to
reduce the need for outside technical assistance. We will provide stipends to each
school’s SOM involved in a blended learning pilot to obtain additional training and
certification related to blended learning. The stipends will be provided in both the first
and second year of the pilot.
The cost of these supports is estimated at $5,946,884.
Additionally, the district will invest heavily in an implementation partner to work with the
Special Assistant to guide the development and rollout of the pilot, train teachers, help select
content providers, manage the use of data emerging from digital learning platforms, and assist
with the continuous improvement of our blended learning strategy. This support, together with
the licensing of a blended learning management system, will cost approximately $2,537,350 over
four years. NPS will also pay a per student fee for licensing online content, which we expect to
be $3,066,600 over four years: $2,766,400 for the primary 3-8 program and $300,200 for the
high school program.
Our implementation partner will provide the majority of teacher training; however, based on
feedback from educators at the Renew Schools, NPS will also supplement this training with
197
“technology boot camp” to help teachers and principals master the basics of using their new
devices. Over four years, the cost of providing this supplemental training and compensating
teachers for their time will be $521,216. Lastly, in an effort to improve parents’ ability to use
technology to support their child’s learning, the District will provide open training sessions for
parents during after-school hours. The only cost for this program will be $62,208 for staff
compensation.
Please see below for a more detailed description of the specific assumptions contributing to the
total cost of $18,190,975 for this project.
198
Project-Level Itemized Costs: Pilot Blended Learning Models to Accelerate Student Achievement
Cost Description and Assumption
Personnel
Network Administrators
 In order for the NPS Information Technology
Department to continue to provide timely service to
the district with the large influx of new hardware
required by this project, we will need to hire three
additional Network Administrators
 Among other duties, Network Administrators
maintain computing environments by identifying
network requirements, installing upgrades, and
monitoring network performance
 The starting annual salary for each full time Network
Administrator, $95,000, is in line with the salaries
currently offered through NPS’ IT Department.
Consistent with standard NPS procedures, we have
built in an assumed salary increase of 2% annually
 NPS will hire 3 full-time Network Administrators on
a permanent basis
 This salary will be grant-funded through the end of
the 2016-17 school year
 This will be an ongoing cost, funded by NPS’ normal
operating budget in the years after the grant
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$285,000
$290,700
$296,514
$302,444
$1,174,658
199
Cost Description and Assumption
Field Technicians
 In order for the NPS IT Department to continue to
provide timely service to the district with the large
influx of new hardware, we will need to hire
additional Field Technicians
 Field technicians are dispatched district-wide to
repair hardware and address isolated network issues
 NPS standard practice is to staff two field technicians
for every one network administrator. Based on this
practice and the guiding ratio of one staff member per
2,000 devices, NPS will hire 4 additional full-time
Field Technicians on a permanent basis
 The starting annual salary for each full time Field
Technician, $60,000, is in line with the salaries
currently offered through NPS’ IT Department.
 Consistent with standard NPS procedures, we have
built in an assumed salary increase of 2% annually
 This salary will be grant-funded through the end of
the 2016-17 school year
 This will be an ongoing cost, funded by NPS’ normal
operating budget in the years after the grant
Cost
Project
Year 1
$360,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$367,200
Cost
Project
Year 3
$374,544
Cost
Project
Year 4
$382,035
Total
$1,483,779
200
Cost Description and Assumption
Teacher Compensation for Supplemental Training Time:
Blended Learning
 NPS’ blended learning implementation partner will
provide supplemental training for educators to
support them in transitioning to this new classroom
model
 The cost of providing that training is captured under
the “contractual” portion of the budget, but this
section accounts for the compensation teachers
require for out-of-school professional development
 Blended learning training will require approximately
two full professional development days and four
before- or after-school sessions of two hours each
 Based on current NPS policy, the cost per substitute
teacher per day is $140
 Based on current NPS policy, the cost per teacher for
each hour of over-time that does not involve studentinteraction is $37
 This training will only be for teachers in their first
year of the blended learning pilot and will therefore
not be an ongoing cost
Cost
Project
Year 1
$104,256
Cost
Project
Year 2
$0
Cost
Project
Year 3
$71,424
Cost
Project
Year 4
$110,592
Total
$286,272
201
Cost Description and Assumption
Teacher Compensation for Supplemental Training Time:
Technology Boot Camp
 Based on the feedback we have gotten from Renew
Schools, teachers need additional support to master
the basic skills of technology use before they begin
more in-depth training on blended learning.
 NPS will contract with a third-party provider to train
teachers on how to use their devices (e.g., basic setup,
log in, web search, email, and other technology
basics)
 The cost of providing that training is captured under
the “contractual” portion of the budget, but this
section accounts for the compensation teachers
require for working during after-school hours
 We have budgeted for each teacher in grades 3-9 to
receive three 3-hour sessions of before- or afterschool support
 Based on current NPS policy, the cost per teacher for
each hour of over-time that does not involve studentinteraction is $37
 This training will only be for teachers in their first
year of the blended learning pilot and will therefore
not be an ongoing cost
Compensation for Supplemental Time and Professional
Development: Training for Blended Learning School
Leads
 To build district capacity in blended learning, the
School Operations Manager at each school will be
provided with stipends to attend training and receive
certification on blended learning instruction.
Cost
Project
Year 1
$60,273
Cost
Project
Year 2
$0
Cost
Project
Year 3
$41,292
Cost
Project
Year 4
$63,936
Total
$165,501
$110,000
$110,000
$80,000
$160,000
$460,000
202
Cost Description and Assumption
 Each SOM will be provided with a $10K stipend in
each of the first two years of blended learning roll-out
for a cost of $20K per school.
Open Training Sessions for Parents
 In an effort to engage parents in their child’s learning
and improve technological literacy across the larger
community, K-8 schools participating in blended
learning will offer open training sessions for parents
and families during after-school hours
 These open training sessions will be held after school
in a variety of locations around the city. They will
take place in the schools that have sufficient
technology and personnel capacity (e.g., schools
with multi-subject blended learning models)
 These sessions will occur approximately once per
week for 2 hours each and will be supervised by one
teacher
 Based on current NPS policy, the cost per teacher for
each hour of over-time that does not involve studentinteraction is $37
 This is a one-time cost confined to the 4-year grand
period
Fringe Beneftis
Network Administrators
 NPS estimates the cost of fringe benefits as 29% of
an individual’s salary
 Because NPS plans to sustain the Network
Administrator positions over time, this will be an
ongoing cost
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$25,344
$0
$18,432
$18,432
$62,208
$82,650
$84,303
$85,989
$87,709
$340,651
203
Cost Description and Assumption
Field Technicians
 NPS estimates the cost of fringe benefits as 29% of
an individual’s salary
 Because NPS plans to sustain the Field Technician
positions over time, this will be an ongoing cost
Equipment
Server Upgrades (Filtering/ Proxy /SPAM)
 With the addition of new devices to the NPS network
the IT department will need to conduct server
upgrades to improve filtering, proxy, SPAM, and
other related functionality
 Each new server will cost $7,000
 We expect each server to support 500-550 devices,
such that the approximate cost per device would be
$13
 Including student devices and faculty laptops there
will be 5,305 devices purchased over the four year
grant
 This will be a onetime upgrade cost when new
devices are purchased
Storage Upgrade: Data Center
 To ensure that students and educators have adequate
offsite digital storage space, NPS’ will upgrade the
storage capacity of our existing data center
 The cost per unit of these upgrades is about $43,000
 We expect each unit to support 1500-2000 devices,
such that the approximate cost per device would be
$26
 Including student devices and faculty laptops there
Cost
Project
Year 1
$104,400
Cost
Project
Year 2
$106,488
Cost
Project
Year 3
$108,618
Cost
Project
Year 4
$110,790
Total
$430,296
$27,435
$13,798
$23,146
$7,176
$71,555
$52,257
$26,283
$44,087
$13,668
$136,295
204
Cost Description and Assumption
will be 5,305 devices purchased over the four year
grant
 This will be a onetime upgrade cost to support the
influx of new devices
Storage Upgrade: School Level
 In addition to storage hardware upgrades for the data
center, NPS will need to perform school-based
storage upgrades in order to ensure there students and
educators have adequate local storage capacity
 The cost to upgrade the storage capacity of each
school will be $3,000
 There will be a total of 27 schools involved in the
project over the four year period
 This will be a onetime upgrade cost to support the
influx of new devices
Firewall and Security Upgrade
 The new hardware will necessitate upgrades in
firewalls and security to ensure the integrity of NPS’
system
 The cost per firewall runs from $17,000 to $32,000
depending on the volume purchased
 We expect each firewall to support 1500-2000
devices, such that the approximate cost per device
would be $13
 Including student and faculty laptops there will be
5,305 devices purchased over the four year grant
 This will be a onetime upgrade cost to support the
influx of new devices
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$33,000
$24,000
$24,000
$0
$81,000
$26,673
$13,415
$22,503
$6,976
$69,567
205
Cost Description and Assumption
General Technology Infrastructure
 Because of the sheer volume of devices being
purchased by the District, it is highly likely that
various unexpected technology infrastructure
upgrades will need to be made in the first two years
of operation
 A recent network upgrade of 30 sites at NPS cost the
district $378,000
 With more sites being brought online and heavy
usage expected, we have set aside another $1,000,000
for unanticipated tech upgrades that may be required
during the life of the grant
 This will be a onetime upgrade cost
Supplies
Student Learning Devices
 As part of our blended learning strategy, NPS will
purchase personalized learning devices to provide
participating students with access to high-quality
digital content
 We will provide devices at a ratio of 3 students to 1
device. Additionally, for four schools (two in year
three and two in year four) we will move from a 3:1
ratio to a 1:1 ratio.
 Devices will be purchased for students in grades 3
and 4 at Renew Schools (which already have laptops
for students in grades 5-8), all grades participating in
blended learning at other K-8 schools, and the subset
of high schools students participating in blended
learning
 We will also purchase 15 devices per school to
Cost
Project
Year 1
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 2
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 3
$250,000
Cost
Project
Year 4
$250,000
Total
$1,000,000
$802,694
$1,034,722
$1,403,175
$455,780
$3,696,371
206
Cost Description and Assumption
quickly replace any hardware that breaks during the
year
 The estimated cost of each device is $857 and is
based on the cost of a laptop. Tablet devices will
likely be 30%-40% less expensive. This cost includes
all potential add-ons, including imaging, asset
tagging, engraving, Computrace, three year
accidental insurance, and one laptop cart to charge
and house every 24 laptops
 There will be 4,029 student laptops purchased over
the four year grant
 This will be primarily a one-time cost as blended
learning pilots are implemented, however the district
will assume the cost of replacing hardware over time
Wireless Printer
 Each classroom implementing blended learning will
need a wireless printer
 The investment will help us ensure that students do
not lose instructional time by printing to a location
outside the classroom
 NPS has already purchased printers for each
classroom in the Renew Schools, therefore only K-8
schools joining the blended learning pilot in years 3
and 4 and participating high schools will require new
printers.
 This amounts to 337 new printers.
 The cost per printer is $428.95
 This will be primarily a one-time cost as blended
learning pilots are implemented, however the district
will assume the cost of replacing hardware over time
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$18,016
$65,200
$82,358
$0
$165,575
207
Cost Description and Assumption
Contractual
Implementation and Data Integration Support
 In order to successfully implement blended learning
across a large number of classrooms, NPS will select
an implementation partner to assist us with model
design, content selection, educator training, data
management and use, and continuous improvement of
the project
 We anticipate this contract to include an upfront cost
for each school in its first year of participation to
cover project management, educator training, content
selection, and implementation support
 There will be a significantly smaller cost for ongoing
implementation support in a school’s second year of
participation
 Additionally, there will be a per student fee for use of
the data management system provided by the vendor
 The total cost of this contract increases with the
addition of new schools but decreases as participating
schools build capacity to support this work
independently
 In selecting an implementation partner, Newark will
follow the procedures for procurement under 34 CFR
Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$600,250
$273,120
$667,910
$996,070
$2,537,350
208
Cost Description and Assumption
Digital Learning Content
 In order for blended learning to be successful, NPS
must invest in appropriate and high quality digital
content for use in the classroom
 The District will contract with outside providers to
purchase content for middle grade literacy and math
as well as one high school subject
 Based on initial research into the digital content
provider market, we expect the cost of licensing this
content to be about $95 per student per subject area
per year
 This will be an ongoing cost and will need to be
absorbed by the NPS operating budget
 In selecting a vendor, NPS will follow the procedures
for procurement under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48
and Part 80.36
Teacher and Principal Technology “Boot Camp”:
 Based on the feedback we have received from
educators in the Renew Schools, we will offer
“Technology Boot Camp” training to all educators to
ensure that they are equipped with the skills they
need to maximize the use of technology in the
classroom
 NPS will contract with a third-party provider to help
educators master basic computing skills and
techniques before they begin more intensive training
on using technology in the classroom
 This provider will train teachers and principals in
groups of 20 or less for three, 3-hour sessions in the
fall of their first year in the blended learning project
Cost
Project
Year 1
$314,070
Cost
Project
Year 2
$391,590
Cost
Project
Year 3
$832,390
Cost
Project
Year 4
$1,528,550
Total
$3,066,600
$25,553
$0
$17,610
$26,280
$69,443
209
Cost Description and Assumption
 The cost of one session for 20 teachers or principals
is approximately $1200
 This will be a one-time cost
 Newark will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Tech Infrastructure Implementation Services
 NPS will contract with an external service provider
to ensure that necessary server upgrades, storage
hardware updates, and firewall and security upgrades
are installed and set up successfully
 We estimate that these services cost approximately $5
per new device
 The number of new devices will include student
laptops used for blended learning and faculty laptops
for all 3-10 faculty members
 Because we plan to purchase hardware and execute
any service upgrades for schools in the year before
they join the pilot, the cost of this line will be zero in
year 4
 Newark will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Personalized Learning Device Implementation Services
 NPS will contract with an IT support provider to help
meet the temporary increase in demand for technical
support during the early implementation and roll out
phase of the blended learning pilots
 The contracted vendor will provide setup,
troubleshooting, and short-term support to meet
demand during peak periods of need without creating
excess capacity for the long term
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$10,615
$5,339
$8,955
$2,776
$27,685
$152,550
$76,725
$128,700
$39,900
$397,875
210
Cost Description and Assumption
 The NPS IT department anticipates that this will be a
one-time cost in the first year of implementation
 The estimated cost of this support is $75 per device
 The number of new devices will include student
devices used for blended learning and faculty laptops
for all 3-10 faculty members
 Because we plan to purchase hardware and begin to
get it up and running in the year before schools
officially join the pilot, the cost of this line will be
zero in year 4
 NPS will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Support for first-year blended learning pilots
 For each school participating in a blended learning
pilot, the district will provide dedicated on-site
support and training for School Operations Managers
in the pilot’s first year
 Support will be provided by an external provider who
will be selected by the Assistant for Instructional
Technology
 We assume that schools launching full-school pilots
will require 1 full-time equivalent at an approximate
cost of $85,000, while schools piloting in only one
grade will require .5 full-time equivalents at an
approximate cost of $42,500
 Additional contracted field technicians will be hired
at the central office during the first year of the grant
to help with peak IT support, to be phased out over
the length of the grant
 We assume that two additional contracted field
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$627,500
$80,000
$590,000
$760,000
$2,057,500
211
Cost Description and Assumption
technicians will be hired during the first year,
dropping to one in the second year, and being
completely phased out by the end of the grant.
 NPS will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
 The indirect cost rate was applied to all personnel,
fringe benefit costs, supply costs, and to the first
$25,000 per year to these contracts:
o Implementation and data integration support (4
years)
o Online content (4 years)
o Laptop implementation services (years 1-3)
o Teacher and Principal Technology “Boot Camp”
(years 1, 3, 4)
o Tech Infrastructure Implementation Services (1,
2, and 4)
 Indirect Cost Rate is 4.7% (see Appendix F(1) Item
1)
Total Grant Funds Requested
 The Special Assistant for Technology position was
created to manage work currently being performed in
this strand as well as future activities that arise from
this grant. The cost of this position is approximately
$150K, including fringe benefits, and will be funded
out of the district's local operating budget.
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$4,072,535
$97,649
$3,212,884
$102,630
$5,171,647
$125,130
$5,323,115
$85,386
$17,780,180
$410,795
$4,170,183
$147,771
$3,315,513
$147,771
$5,296,777
$147,771
$5,408,501
$147,771
$18,190,975
$591,083
Additionally, please refer to the narrative portion of
this section for a description of NPS’ previous and
212
Cost Description and Assumption
ongoing investments to support this work (e.g.,
funding significant upgrades to wireless connectivity
and bandwidth for all schools)
Total Budget
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$4,317,954
$3,463,284
$5,444,548
$5,556,272
$18,782,058
213
Project 4 Budget Summary
Table 3-4: Project-Level Budget Summary Table: Evidence for (F)(1)
Project Name: Management, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement
Primary Associated Criterion and Location in Application: (D)(1), (E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4)
Additional Associated Criteria (if any) and Location in Application: N/A
Budget
Project
Project
Project
Project
Categories
Year 1 (a)
Year 2 (b)
Year 3 (c)
Year 4 (d)
Total (e)
Budget Categories
Project Year
1 (a)
Project Year
2 (b)
Project Year
3 (c)
Project Year
4 (d)
Total (e)
1. Personnel
$176,538
$120,046
$122,447
$124,896
$543,926
2. Fringe Benefits
$51,196
$34,813
$35,510
$36,220
$157,738
3. Travel
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4. Equipment
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5. Supplies
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6. Contractual
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$200,000
$1,100,000
7. Training Stipends
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8. Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9. Total Direct
Costs
(lines 1-8)
$527,734
$454,859
$457,956
$361,115
$1,801,664
10. Indirect Costs
$14,228
$10,803
$10,949
$11,097
$47,078
11. Total Grant
Funds Requested
(lines 9-10)
$541,962
$465,662
$468,905
$372,213
$1,848,742
12. Funds from
other sources used to
support the project
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
214
Project 4 Budget Narrative
Our fourth project accounts for the cost of managing, evaluating, and continuously improving the
three projects described above. This project includes a full-time employee to manage the
implementation of NPS’ plan to create more personalized learning environments for students.
The salary and fringe benefits for this individual over four years amount to $701,664.
To conduct a rigorous evaluation of the projects funded by Race to the Top grant, we will
contract with an independent research organization that has deep expertise in the education
sector (See section E(4) for further details). The estimated cost of this contract is $800,000 over
four years.
As part of our continuous improvement process, NPS will host regular public meetings to
communicate our progress to date and solicit feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. We
will also share our lessons learned by publicizing the finding of our ongoing evaluation and
continuous improvement efforts, with the dual goals of keeping community members informed
and contributing to the broader dialogue on strategies to accelerate achievement for all students
nationwide. We plan to set aside $75,000 per year to support these activities.
To demonstrate our commitment to this plan, NPS has established a Chief Strategy and
Innovation Officer position, funded with normal operating dollars, who will be responsible for
achieving the goals described in Section E(3), overseeing the implementation of all three major
strands of work, and regularly assessing the effectiveness of specific investments made under the
plan. The Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer will elevate the work proposed herein to the
highest levels of district leadership and will ensure that the strategies implemented under Race to
the Top are sustained beyond the four-year grant period.
Please see below for a more detailed description of the specific assumptions contributing to the
total cost of $1,848,742 for this project.
215
Project-Level Itemized Costs: Management, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement
Cost Description and Assumption
Personnel
Race to the Top Project Manager
 Newark will hire a Race to the Top Project Manager
who will be in charge of implementation and
continuous improvement for all projects funded by
Race to the Top grant dollars
 This person will report directly to the Chief Strategy
and Innovation Officer and will work with other staff
members in the central office on each of the three
strands of work
 S/he will earn a slightly higher starting salary than the
project managers described in the work strands above
because s/he will be charged with overseeing the total
grant
 The starting annual salary for a full-time Project
Manager, $117,962, is consistent with NPS’s salary for
an experienced director. Consistent with standard NPS
procedures, we have built in an assumed salary increase
of 2%
 Because our “year 1” will run from January 1st 2014 to
June 13th 2015, we have allocated a year and half’s
salary in the first year of the grant
 This salary will be grant-funded through the end of the
2017-18 school year
 This will be a one-time cost, confined to the four-year
grant period
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$176,538
$120,046
$122,447
$124,896
$543,926
216
Cost Description and Assumption
Fringe Benefits
Race to the Top Project Manager
 NPS estimates the cost of fringe benefits as 29% of an
individual’s salary
 Because we not expect to sustain this position over
time, this will be a one-time cost, confined to the fouryear grant period
Contractual
Continuous Improvement
 In order to continuously improve the projects described
throughout this proposal and share the knowledge that
the District has gained during implementation, NPS
will need to contract with outside service providers to
create public progress reports and conduct surveys
gathering feedback on implementation from a broad
range of stakeholders and create public progress reports
 We estimate this cost to be about $75,000 a year
 We will only incur this cost during the four years of the
grant
 Newark will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36
Outside evaluation
 We will rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of the
work funded by a Race to the Top grant and publicly
share our findings in order to (1) inform NPS’ future
resource allocation and (2) contribute to the broader
national dialogue on strategies that can accelerate
student achievement.
 NPS will contract with an independent research
organization to conduct an objective and thorough
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$51,196
$34,813
$35,510
$36,220
$157,738
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$300,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$125,000
$800,000
217
Cost Description and Assumption
review of all aspects of the plan
 Based on similarly rigorous evaluations in other
districts, we anticipate that the cost of an evaluation
contract will be $225,000 in the first three years of the
grant and $125,000 in the fourth year
 This is a one-time cost confined to the 4-year grant
period
 Newark will follow the procedures for procurement
under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 – 74.48 and Part 80.36
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
 The indirect cost rate was applied to all personnel,
fringe benefit costs, supply costs and to the first
$25,000 per year to three contracts: Charter/NPS
Special Events, Continuous Improvement, and
Independent Evaluation
 Indirect Cost Rate is 4.7% (see Appendix F(1) Item 1)
Total Grant Funds Requested
Please refer to the narrative portion of this section for a
description of NPS’ previous and ongoing investments to
support this work (e.g., using district hiring a Chief
Strategy and Innovation Officer to oversee the
implementation of the Race to the Top Plan and to ensure
the sustainability of the plan over time)
Total Budget
Cost
Project
Year 1
Cost
Project
Year 2
Cost
Project
Year 3
Cost
Project
Year 4
Total
$527,734
$14,228
$454,859
$10,803
$457,956
$10,949
$361,115
$11,097
$1,801,664
$47,078
$541,962
$0
$465,662
$0
$468,905
$0
$372,213
$0
$1,848,742
$0
$541,962
$465,662
$468,905
$372,213
$1,848,742
218
Budget: Indirect Cost Information
To request reimbursement for indirect costs, please answer the following questions:
1. Does the applicant have an Indirect Cost Rate approved by its State Educational
Agency?
YES
X
NO
☐
If yes to question 1, please provide the following information:
Period Covered by the approved Indirect Cost Rate:
From: 07/1/2013
To: 06/20/2014
Current approved Indirect Cost Rate: 4.70%
Approving State agency: New Jersey Department of Education
Please see Appendix F(1) Item 1 for a copy of the Indirect Cost Rate agreement.
219
F(2) Sustainability of project goals
In order to ensure the sustainability of key strands of work, NPS has structured its plan to build
district capacity, leverage existing resources, and minimize the incremental ongoing costs after
the grant period. Where the grant has implications for ongoing costs, we believe that these are
prudent and manageable levels, and have identified several strategies and funding streams to
defray some of the largest cost items.
Estimate of Ongoing Cost Implications
Of the $30M total budget request for RTT-D, we estimate that the ongoing annual budgetary
impact of our plan is $3.2M, which equates to less than 0.4% of NPS’ yearly budget. The cost
categories that drive this estimate include:
Cost Category
Personnel
Digital Content
Technology
Infrastructure
Student Survey
Description
Manager of assessment and tech support (network
admins and technicians)
Ongoing instructional materials cost
Subtotal
Annual replacement to maintain infrastructure
Cost of administration and data collection
$1,023,948
$1,528,550
$400,000
$250,000
In addition to these items, which have the potential to become recurring expenditures,
participating schools may need residual implementation and coaching supports in the first year
after the grant period in order to ensure that the RTT-D strands of work are fully entrenched in
school operations, before these costs fully transition to zero. This potential residual expense is
linked to coaching supports for data-driven instruction, and implementation of blended learning
models. We estimate that this is a potential one-time cost of $1.3M at most.
Plan for Financial Sustainability
First and foremost, the total magnitude of potential recurring cost – not estimated to exceed 0.5%
of the NPS operating budget in any year – is a manageable cost for NPS to absorb within the
context of normal operations, especially given the four years of planning visibility that the grant
period provides.
220
Yet NPS has already identified five key strategies for managing these costs to support the
ongoing sustainability of the grant:

Textbook spending: As displayed in the table above, approximately half of the recurring
expenditures associated with the grant are attributable to licensing costs for digital
content within blended learning models ($1.5M total). However, in reality these costs are
not likely to be incremental to district operations, as they can largely replace spending on
textbooks and other printed instructional materials over the long run. Although some
states have policies that require funding for instructional materials to be spent only on
textbooks or other traditional materials, NJ state regulations allow districts to use
dedicated funding streams for the purchase of digital content.

E-Rate and capital funding: As NPS builds up technology infrastructure over the course
of the grant period, there is a predictable stream of maintenance spending required to
keep the infrastructure from becoming obsolete. These costs are estimated at ~$400K
annually, 12% of recurring costs from the grant. This funding level is well within the
federal E-rate budget that NPS regularly allocates to technology acquisition, and any
remaining costs could be paid for out of capital dollars – making this cost category likely
a negligible impact on NPS’ operating budget.

Online survey administration: The $250K assumed ongoing expense for student survey
administration assumes that surveys continue to be administered by pencil-and-paper,
requiring significant costs in printing, distribution, and data collection. This is a highly
conservative assumption, considering that many districts that have long-running,
established student survey programs are moving them online. As Newark moves
gradually toward more online administration, the potential cost of this program could be
reduced by at least 80-90%.

Professional development spending: Newark, like many districts around the nation,
spends tens of millions of dollars each year on professional development, with little
evidence of the impact of this spending, while significant bodies of research call into
question the value of traditional professional development approaches. As Newark has
moved toward a student-based budgeting model that provides Principals with greater
autonomy to use funds on the items they feel drive the greatest impact for students, we
221
expect that reallocation of professional development dollars is one of the key areas of
leverage they will exploit. Directing professional development funding toward – for
example – residual coaching support or interim assessments would likely represent a
much higher-impact use of funds vs. current practice, and NPS will encourage principals
to weigh and make these tradeoffs where appropriate.

Philanthropic support: NPS enjoys the benefit of an active local funding community, and
has forged strong relationships with these funders through the current administration – as
evidenced by the letters of support submitted by philanthropic partners that were outlined
in Section B(4). To the extent that NPS can deliver strong results through the
performance measures described in this application, there will be funding support to scale
and sustain that work beyond the grant period.
This last point is perhaps the most important one to emphasize. While we have amply
demonstrated above that the specific cost implications of our RTT-D plan are manageable on a
sustained basis, in reality we hope to use the work of the next four years as a platform for even
more ambitious change in the years following. Our goals for student achievement are ambitious,
yet achievable – and if we can indeed achieve our targets, then we will have established a
compelling rationale for financial resources from both public and private sources to expand on
and further scale this work in ways that go beyond the limits of the plan presented in this
application.
Evaluation of Effectiveness of Investments
As described in Project 4, NPS will contract with an outside partner to conduct evaluations of its
RTT-D activities to help ensure continuous improvement. As part of this effort, the evaluator
will provide an objective evaluation of NPS’s investments in order to provide timely information
to district leaders and the public. This information will be used by the RTT-D Project Manager
and other key district leaders to help inform and guide future investments. Insight from these
evaluations will be critical for both guiding implementation of the RTT-D grant, as well as for
informing district budget development in the years following the grant.
222
X.
COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY
Competitive Preference Priority (10 total points)
Competitive Preference Priority: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated Services. To
meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the extent to which the applicant proposes to
integrate public or private resources in a partnership designed to augment the schools’
resources by providing additional student and family supports to schools that address the
social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating students (as defined in this notice),
giving highest priority to students in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with highneed students (as defined in this notice). To meet this priority, an applicant’s proposal does
not need to be comprehensive and may provide student and family supports that focus on a
subset of these needs.
To meet this priority, an applicant must—
(1) Provide a description of the coherent and sustainable partnership to support the plan
described in Absolute Priority 1 that it has formed with public or private organizations, such as
public health, before-school, after-school, and social service providers; integrated student
service providers; businesses, philanthropies, civic groups, and other community-based
organizations; early learning programs; and postsecondary institutions;
(2) Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results for students in the LEA or
consortium of LEAs that align with and support the applicant’s broader Race to the Top –
District proposal. These results must include both (a) educational results or other education
outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in school, children exit third
grade reading at grade level, and students graduate from high school college- and career-ready)
and (b) family and community supports (as defined in this notice) results;
(3) Describe how the partnership would –
(a) Track the selected indicators that measure each result at the aggregate level for all
children within the LEA or consortium and at the student level for the participating
students (as defined in this notice);
(b) Use the data to target its resources in order to improve results for participating
students (as defined in this notice), with special emphasis on students facing significant
challenges, such as students with disabilities, English learners, and students affected by
poverty (including highly mobile students), family instability, or other child welfare
issues;
(c) Develop a strategy to scale the model beyond the participating students (as defined
in this notice) to at least other high-need students (as defined in this notice) and
communities in the LEA or consortium over time; and
(d) Improve results over time;
(4) Describe how the partnership would, within participating schools (as defined in this
notice), integrate education and other services (e.g., services that address social-emotional, and
behavioral needs, acculturation for immigrants and refugees) for participating students (as
223
defined in this notice);
(5) Describe how the partnership and LEA or consortium would build the capacity of staff in
participating schools (as defined in this notice) by providing them with tools and supports to –
(a) Assess the needs and assets of participating students (as defined in this notice) that
are aligned with the partnership’s goals for improving the education and family and
community supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the partnership;
(b) Identify and inventory the needs and assets of the school and community that are
aligned with those goals for improving the education and family and community
supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the applicant;
(c) Create a decision-making process and infrastructure to select, implement, and
evaluate supports that address the individual needs of participating students (as defined
in this notice) and support improved results;
(d) Engage parents and families of participating students (as defined in this notice) in
both decision-making about solutions to improve results over time and in addressing
student, family, and school needs; and
(e) Routinely assess the applicant’s progress in implementing its plan to maximize
impact and resolve challenges and problems; and
(6) Identify its annual ambitious yet achievable performance measures for the proposed
population-level and describe desired results for students.
X. Competitive Preference Priority
One of the pillars of Newark’s Race to the Top plan is to build capacity within schools to fully
integrate social and emotional learning and the academic curriculum. To do so, we must begin
by addressing students’ social and emotional needs with the same level of rigor and focus that we
afford to their academic needs. Even as we undertake these efforts, we understand that
effectively engaging and meeting the social and emotional needs of students will require action
beyond improved data and classroom practice. Many students in Newark face significant
challenges correlated with poverty that can exceed the capacity of skilled teachers to address on
their own. Even when a school has a culture that promotes positive behavior, and teachers are
delivering engaging, personalized instruction in an environment that emphasizes positive youth
development, the social-emotional needs of all students may still not be met.
To meet the social and emotional needs of all of our students – and to intervene more effectively
with our students in greatest need -- we must support our schools to create positive climates and
classroom practices that grow students academically and support them socially and emotionally.
224
This can decrease the number of students in need of additional support, but will not eliminate the
challenge entirely. Therefore, we must also establish an effective decision-making process to
identify the students who need additional support, determine the most appropriate intervention,
and connect these students with the relevant resources. Schools often fail to serve the highestneed students effectively because (1) their school-wide and/or classroom practices are not
meeting students’ social and emotional needs (which thus increases the apparent number of
students requiring additional supports), (2) they lack the skills and resources to connect students
truly in need of additional supports and resources to those services, and/or (3) they are illequipped to respond crisis, trauma, and extreme situations that occur on a regular basis in lowincome schools and communities in ways that help individual students and the school
community heal and grow.
To begin to address the diverse needs of our students and the existing capacity gap at our
schools, NPS has established partnerships with several organizations. Some of these
organizations bring experience from around the country which they then tailor to our local
context, while others have developed out of our own community, in response to needs in
Newark. By partnering with several organizations, each with different strengths and
competencies, we aim to adopt best practices from each to ensure that our students garner the
greatest possible benefit. Two of our most promising new partnerships are with Turnaround for
Children (Turnaround) and the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP).
Turnaround is a nationally recognized organization that promotes school transformation through
a research-based, youth development-oriented approach targeting the barriers to student growth
that arise from the circumstances of poverty. IIRP provides teachers with tools, and
administrators with training on using those tools, to take a youth development, strengths-based,
community-wide approach to school discipline.
Describing the Partnership, and its Intended Purpose
(This section in response to scoring criteria (1))
Studies show that adverse childhood experiences and stresses stemming from poverty result in a
small but significant number of students—typically 15% of the population—who are disruptive
and often charismatic such that they absorb the lion’s share of staff time and derail the learning
environment for everyone. If schools do not get real help to this group—a group that
225
systematically eludes help due to behavior, absenteeism, and lack of family engagement—
schools and classrooms become so chaotic that teaching and learning are all but impossible. An
additional 40-50% of students require more than what a regular classroom provides them to be
successful. These students often come to school with concerns and needs that can easily escalate
into more serious problems if continually exposed to an adverse classroom or school
environment.
Given the experience of Newark students, and the broader context in which NPS operates, the
above figures may actually underrepresent the challenges our students, educators and schools
face. For this reason, we have partnered this year with Turnaround to establish pilots in 3 of our
K8 schools, and with IIRP to build capacity across our high schools. Each organization was
selected for their perspective on schools as more than an instructional environment; they each
recognize that classrooms are an important and ongoing source of reinforcing experiences that
have the potential to enhance each child’s development and performance. Children growing up in
poverty must have a very different kind of classroom—a fortified environment that reduces
stress, fosters positive connections with adults and peers, and promotes non-cognitive attributes,
such as academic mindsets, motivation, self-regulation, and social efficacy (Farrington et al.,
2012). At the same time, much can also be achieved through the re-orientation of the broader
school culture and climate. For example, shifting the dialogue around disciplinary issues from
punitive to restorative creates opportunities for students to practice social efficacy, take
responsibility for their actions, repair harm done and move forward with their learning.
Turnaround, IIRP and NPS share the belief that fortified classrooms and re-envisioned schools
can truly change the course of children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, laying
the foundation for rigorous, productive, and successful learning. Ultimately, the shared vision is
one of a district in which lasting student academic growth occurs across all grades and all
schools.
In each school, our partners are focused on four key activities. Below we outline these activities,
and provide relevant examples of each:
1. Develop the proficiency of teachers to support student’s social and emotional
growth and well-being alongside academics: NPS is working closely with both partners
226
to ensure that their trainings are locally relevant by aligning them to Newark’s curricular
options and evaluation frameworks, and by involving non-school based stakeholders.

At each K8 school, Turnaround coaches work directly with all teachers to deliver
training and differentiated coaching, and with school leaders to ensure they are
equipped to provide ongoing support and professional development for teachers in
their building. The four key areas of Turnaround’s teacher training are
developing and using classroom rules and procedures; defusing disruptive
behavior; cooperative learning structures; and, student-centered learning and
assessment strategies.

Each HS formed an IIRP “implementation team” that included teachers. Training
included topics such building effective relationships with adolescents; creating a
peer culture of accountability; conducting “restorative conferences” in response to
incidents; and diffusing conflicts.
2. Build capacity of all adults (school- and non-school based) who interact frequently
with students to support students social and emotional growth and well-being:

Turnaround is providing cohort-based coaching for social workers in the K8 pilot
schools. Monthly case conferences will provide social workers with real-world
examples, ongoing training and the chance to further develop professional
relationships with peers in other schools

IIRP recently convened high school educators, the local police department,
students and other community members for a 4-day training session to introduce
the concept of restorative practices through two tools – “circles” for decisionmaking and classroom management, and “restorative conferences” to help
students repair harm made to individuals and the community by their actions.
3. Develop school-wide supports and teams to address student’s social and emotional
growth and well-being: Both Turnaround and IIRP focus on creating opportunities and
systems for gathering adults to discuss and support the creation of more positive and
supportive school cultures.

Both partners are coordinating with schools’ newly-formed Student Support
Teams (SST) to ensure that there are plans and services both in place and
227
effectively tracked to meet the needs of all students, with a particular focus on our
highest need students.

Turnaround will facilitate further training for all school staff on the full
complement of student support systems, protocols and services now available

IIRP will continue to engage with high schools to support the “implementation
teams” and to build capacity at the school level beyond the implementation teams.
4. Establish relationships with organizations in the broader community to help
support student’s social and emotional growth and well-being: Both partners are
aligned to Newark’s critical mission to create a support system and positive environment
for students that extends outside the physical walls of their schools.

In each pilot school, Turnaround is supporting the development of a schoolspecific relationship with a local mental healthcare provider in Newark for
students in need of greater support than the school can provide. This agency will
provide affordable and accessible care to students identified through the SST as
in-need of greater support, by engaging the student and their family with the aim
of providing appropriate supports that allow them to regain focus on their
academic career.

IIRP initiated the interaction of the Newark police department and NPS high
schools through this summer’s training. This is the first of many more
collaborative and positive future engagements, including training community
advocates and other local change agents to promote a “shared language” and
approach.
Performance Measures, Tracking and Targets
(This section in response to scoring criteria (2), (3a), (3b) and (6))
As described in Section A, we have focused a significant portion of our plan on addressing the
social-emotional barriers to student success because we know that these factors are so deeply
intertwined with students’ academic success. By meeting students’ individual behavioral and
social-emotional needs, we empower them to engage more fully in their academic work.
Furthermore, the benefits of these services extend beyond the students they directly serve: by
more effectively meeting the needs of the highest-need students, these partnerships aim to fortify
228
the overall classroom environment and promote improved learning outcomes for all students.
Because of this inextricable link between mental health, social-emotional well-being, and
academic performance, the long-term measures which we will use to evaluate the ultimate
success of these partnerships overlap with those described in Section E(3):

Family/Community Support indicators:
o Percent of students displaying chronic absenteeism (absent more than 10% of
days in a given school year)
o Percent of students with 1 or more suspensions during the school year

Academic growth and leading indicators of successful implementation:
o Student growth percentiles in LAL and Math summative assessments
o Percent of students finishing grade 9 at an age-appropriate level with the expected
number of credits
NPS will track these measures across all students, as well as for the sub-population of highestneed students within participating schools. As mentioned above, meeting the needs of our
highest-need students can benefit all students within a school. However, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that the level of need among all students in Newark is relatively high. Therefore, we
have selected measures to track which are based on research that examines the attributes most
critical for all students to demonstrate in order to succeed academically. If our students overall
can achieve significant gains, and we can accelerate the progress of our highest need students,
our students will be well-positioned for future success.
As the majority of the measures identified above are long-term outcomes, we will identify
additional interim indicators to act as guideposts along the path to achieving our future goals.
We are working closely with Turnaround and IIRP to identify these additional indicators,
leveraging their extensive experience in creating and aligning metrics to track the performance of
their partnerships. The majority of these indicators will likely be based on teacher and student
surveys administered to capture changes in attributes and behaviors. These may include:

Student motivation and persistence levels

Social efficacy (self-awareness, communication, cooperation)
229

Self-regulated learning (ability to set meaningful study goals, monitor for understanding,
maintain focus, etc.)

Teacher self-reported comfort with skills related to Competency 3 (Culture of
Achievement) on the evaluation framework
The tables at the end of this section provide further detail on these performance measures, with
qualitative description of desired results (and rationale), along with preliminary targets. For the
survey-based measures, NPS anticipates a need to reassess the baseline and trajectory for
improvement based on the ultimate design of the instrument.
NPS will monitor these measures regularly to assess the effectiveness of interventions and
continuously improve results over time. We will also share the results publicly as a part of the
public reporting process described in Section E.
Population Group
Type of Result
Desired Results
Long-Term Academic and Family/Community Support Outcomes
1. Percent of students
By improving the overall classroom and school
absent less than 10% of
environment, we expect to improve student
days
Family/Community Support
engagement throughout the school, and thus decrease
the percentage of students showing chronic
absenteeism
2. Percent of students
Through school-wide supports and by building the
with 1 or more
capacity of our social work staff, we expect to
suspensions during the
Family/Community Support
improve the overall school climate , which we
school year
anticipate will result in fewer suspensions or
expulsions during the school year
3. Average student
By improving the overall classroom environment and
growth percentile on
giving teachers access to tiered interventions that
NJASK
Academic
help address the highest-need students, we expect to
accelerate academic growth, and thus increase the
student growth percentile score
4. Percent of students
By improving the overall classroom environment and
finishing grade 9 at an
giving teachers access to tiered interventions that
age-appropriate level
help address the highest-need students, we expect to
Academic
with the expected
accelerate academic growth, and thus increase the
number of credits
rate at which students are showing mastery of
Common Core standards
Short-Term Objectives to Measure Partnership Effectiveness
5. Percent of students
showing strong
motivation and
persistence levels
Engagement and Community
By building the capacity of schools to identify and
provide effective intervention to high-need students,
we expect that targeted students will report higher
level of motivation and persistence in school and out
230
Population Group
6. Percent of students
showing strong social
efficacy
7. Percent of students
showing strong selfregulated learning
8. Percent of teachers
reporting comfort with
skills related to
Competency 3 of the
teacher evaluation
framework: “Culture of
Achievement”
Type of Result
Engagement and Community
Engagement and Academic
Engagement and Academic
Desired Results
of school
By building the capacity of schools to identify and
provide effective intervention to high-need students,
we expect that targeted students will display stronger
skills in communication and cooperation, and report
higher levels of self-awareness
By building the capacity of schools to identify and
provide effective intervention to high-need students,
we expect that students will demonstrate and report
improved ability to set goals, maintain focus, etc.
Creating a healthy classroom environment and a
culture of achievement among students is critical for
boosting long-term student performance. Ultimately
this rests on the ability of teachers to deliver these
skills in their classroom work, and we want to ensure
they feel comfortable and satisfied with the supports
provided in this regard.
See tables at the end of this section for the performance goals associated with this partnership.
Strategy for Scale
(This section in response to scoring criteria (3c) and (3d))
Turnaround for Children is currently working in 3 NPS schools, with the possibility of
expanding their reach to more schools depending on the success of the pilots. However, the
expansion of their strategies and training does not require that Turnaround itself expand into
more schools. Indeed, because their model focuses on capacity building, the many educators,
school leaders and staff that receive training are well-prepared to serve as conduits of the
Turnaround approach. Further, we anticipate that the three pilot sites will serve as “proof points”
within the district to drive the adoption of Turnaround’s practices district-wide. We envision this
expansion occurring across the district either organically through peer-to-peer relationships or
professional learning communities that already exist among Newark educators today, or through
additional Turnaround training sessions. In the meantime, several areas of focus within the
current pilots impact the broader local community, including:
231

The development of a partnership with a local mental health agency will serve to
benefit families and parents in multiple ways. Indirectly, the services that will be
made available to their children may in turn result in improved behavior and
strengthened relationships at home as children receive new forms of support and learn
to manage their emotions and themselves. More directly, these healthcare providers
are carefully selected to ensure their accessibility and willingness to engage with
families to ensure that the home environment is one that is safe, nurturing and healthy.

Aiding in the development of a positive culture of support in all schools, and in the
development of a variety of forms of student supports undoubtedly requires the
involvement of more than just school staff. And indeed, the new multi-disciplinary
Student Support Teams at each school are comprised of the school’s principal,
guidance counselor, nurse, teachers and parent liaisons among others. Turnaround
aims to ensure that the work of these teams is as broad-reaching and accessible as
possible within each school, and that it is undertaken in a receptive environment. To
that end, there has been increasing communication to parents and other stakeholders
about the value and importance of the type of work that Turnaround performs, thus
increasing the acceptance of and interest in such efforts in the broader community.
IIRP is working closely with two of Newark’s most challenged high schools to bring about
whole-school change through their SaferSanerSchools program (see Appendix X Item 2 for more
details). However, educators from all high schools have been introduced to restorative practices
through their involvement this summer’s intensive training program. Therefore, we aim to
ensure that this partnership demonstrates continued and increasing impact by scaling in two
primary ways: (1) by supporting the development of new policies and procedural guidance for
schools to codify the use of restorative practices across district schools, and (2) by creatively
leveraging public and private funding to increase the number of schools with whom IIRP is
closely partnered. Local private funders have already contributed millions in support of the
district’s strategic initiatives. A special request was approved to provide seed capital to codify
the learnings from the training and support an ongoing implementation plan, which includes
quarterly professional development sessions for staff who attended the summer training.
232
Integration of Education and Other Services
(This section in response to scoring criteria (4))
In their partner schools, both Turnaround and IIRP focus on supporting the establishment of a
fortified environment which enables school leaders, educators and students accelerate growth,
personalize learning, and form positive bonds and meaningful relationships. This vision aligns
well with the district’s priority of establishing the conditions and vision for success prior to
executing on a new strategy or piloting a new initiative. Such environments serve as the basis
for not only academic success, but also social and emotional health. NPS leadership has
determined that social and emotional learning is an integral component of school-wide change.
The district has therefore selected two partners who can provide comprehensive support for
social and emotional learning and teaching:
The relationship between Turnaround and the district is reciprocal: Turnaround has extensive
expertise on social and emotional learning and teaching, while the district is the source of
academic content for students, but also of expectations and teaching standards for educators.
This has driven extensive exchange between Turnaround and NPS, as Turnaround works to align
their training and coaching to the Newark’s teaching framework, and Newark teachers strive to
re-envision their instructional styles and re-design their curriculum to incorporate new content
and approaches to teaching. For example, Turnaround provides teacher training workshops to
introduce Cooperative Learning Structures (CLS), which are content-free instructional strategies
designed to increase student interaction, engagement and motivation through collaborative
learning. If incorporated correctly, these strategies have been shown to improve student selfesteem and motivation, promote the development of language skills and aid in the development
of essential social skills, regardless of the subject matter being taught.
Meanwhile, IIRP provides a comprehensive model for social and emotional learning: school
staffs support students in acquiring skills to recognize and manage emotions, develop caring and
concern for others, establish positive relationships, make responsible decisions, and handle
challenging situations constructively and ethically. When students acquire these skills, time spent
in the classroom can be more focused on academic learning. IIRP’s empirical evidence
demonstrates the positive effect its program strategies have had on academic performance. The
233
student outcomes goals of the on-site professional development and SaferSanerSchools program
are directly aligned with Common Core Standards and help schools create a participatory
instructional climate. Restorative practices theory and practice teach skills to staff and students
that not only assist with classroom behavior management and discipline, but also support the
implementation of highly engaging and participatory curricular practices. For example,
restorative practices skills provide daily practice in active listening and speaking in response to
text-dependent questions.
Building the Capacity of School Staff
(This section in response to scoring criteria (5a-e))
Our ultimate goal is to develop sufficient capacity through partner-led training and knowledge
transfer to develop manage our social-emotional curriculum and develop new initiatives in
house. To that end, during our contract with each of these partners, their staffs are deeply
embedded in our schools. For example, each Turnaround school is supported by two senior
educators and a social worker, who work intensively with our school staff. Below, we provide a
series of examples which highlight how our partners’ efforts support key criteria for success in
our schools:

Improving the ability of school staff to assess student need: Our partners provide
teachers with training on how restructure classroom instruction to promote student
engagement, self-management and the development of key social skills. IIRP training
sessions also focus on preparing teachers and students to resolve conflicts proactively,
and to avoid punitive measures if a more serious issue arises. For example, Newark
educators recently received training on the use and conduct of “restorative conferences,”
a technique which may be employed in response to a serious incident in place of a
traditional disciplinary measure. Restorative conferences are consistent with the belief
that deterrence must be linked to relationships, personal accountability and repairing
harm (rather than punishment/blame).

Improving the ability of school staff to identify needs and assets in the school and
broader community: Other adults in the school building and broader community may
provide support for students which is as critical as that provided by classroom teachers.
234
For example, social workers provide intervention services for high-need students, and
coordination with families and school staff to ensure that each student’s support system
or services are comprehensive. Turnaround focuses on helping social workers cast an
even wider net by developing relationships with outside providers and local community
organizations which have the capacity or resources to support students. These
relationships may be established with a range of partners, from the YMCA or another
local religiously-affiliated group, to more structured support services such as the mental
health partnerships mentioned earlier.

Creating a decision-making process to match appropriately students and services to
support improved outcomes: Newark’s own Student Support Teams are focused on
mapping students and their individual needs to appropriate interventions which cause as
little disruption as possible in the student’s school career. When a student is identified
for action, their case is discussed by their school’s Student Support Team, and a pupil
action plan developed with the student in question. Typically, this involves a triage
process which is used to determine (1) how severe a student’s need is, (2) whether it can
be served by the school, and (3) if not, what sort of services or provider can best meet the
student’s needs. The efforts of both Turnaround and IIRP aim to better equip school
leaders, educators and school staff to determine how to meet the needs of each student,
and then to actually meet those needs.

Engaging families in decision-making process to ensure that a sustainable solution is
reached and the needs of all constituents are met: When students are identified for
intervention or cited for disciplinary action, their parents are typically notified by the
school, and a meeting is arranged in which a student’s options are discussed. Though the
SST may have recommended a clear course of action, social workers are always careful
to assess home and family dynamics through an in-person interview before making any
final recommendations. This is to ensure that the student will receive additional positive
support from their family to benefit from the recommended course of action. In the case
of a disciplinary issue, school staffs now have additional options – IIRP-introduced
restorative practices, rather than the traditional punitive ones – for resolving such
challenges.
235
Our partnerships with Turnaround and IIRP are relatively early-stage today. However, the work
that they do touches every adult in the building in the schools where they are working. As a
result, we want to ensure that these individuals feel that the partnership is successful and
supports their school’s goals and that, similar to many of our other initiatives, there is a cycle and
process for continuous improvement. To that end, Newark’s evaluation of each partnership’s
success will be heavily influenced by the assessment of school-level staff, in addition to student
indicators and outcomes data.

Close collaboration between school staff and their Assistant Superintendent provides
ample opportunity for informal feedback throughout the year about the partnership in
general, while on-the-ground program coordinators can quickly remedy smaller concerns
raised by school leaders or educators, or share more significant issues with leadership at
either the partner organization and/or NPS for more significant course-correction.

Turnaround collects formal feedback from educators through surveys administered at the
end of each training session. These surveys ask participants to respond to not only the
content covered, but also its delivery and their perceived utility of the skills developed
during the session.

On an ongoing basis, IIRP does not offer a set curriculum or program, but instead designs
future programming and training based on ongoing evaluation results and perceived
needs at each school.
236
Performance Measure X1: Percent of students absent for less than 10% of days
Applicable Population: Grades 3-12
Subgroup
Baseline 2011-12
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
# of participating students absent
for 10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students
absent for 10% or fewer of
school days
OVERALL
20494
26753
77%
13062
16225
81%
13378
16225
82%
13694
16225
84%
14011
16225
86%
14327
16225
88%
Black
10968
14672
75%
6544
8287
79%
6718
8287
81%
6892
8287
83%
7067
8287
85%
7241
8287
87%
Hispanic
7547
9667
78%
5300
6485
82%
5418
6485
84%
5537
6485
85%
5655
6485
87%
5774
6485
89%
White/Asian
1811
2229
81%
1197
1419
84%
1219
1419
86%
1242
1419
87%
1264
1419
89%
1286
1419
91%
Special
Education
3165
4674
68%
1800
2462
73%
1866
2462
76%
1932
2462
78%
1998
2462
81%
2065
2462
84%
ELL
898
1109
81%
590
701
84%
601
701
86%
612
701
87%
623
701
89%
634
701
90%
17393
22648
77%
11652
14445
81%
11931
14445
83%
12211
14445
85%
12490
14445
86%
12769
14445
88%
Economically
Disadvantaged
Methodology: Determine how many students participating are missing more than 10% of school days. Targets are based on closing half the gap to 100% by 2017-2018
Source: NPS attendance and enrollment records from PowerSchool
237
Performance Measure X2: Percent of 6-10 grade students with 1 or more suspensions during the school year
Applicable Population: Grades 6-10
Total # of Participating Students
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
1311
13364
10%
894
13364
7%
685
1336
4
5%
476
13364
4%
267
13364
2%
267
13364
2%
Black
1063
7328
15%
696
7328
10%
513
7328
7%
330
7328
5%
147
7328
2%
147
7328
2%
Hispanic
223
4777
5%
172
4777
4%
147
4777
3%
121
4777
3%
96
4777
2%
96
4777
2%
White/Asian
25
1113
2%
24
1113
2%
23
1113
2%
23
1113
2%
22
1113
2%
22
1113
2%
Special
Education
357
2443
15%
234
2443
10%
172
2443
7%
110
2443
5%
49
2443
2%
49
2443
2%
ELL
27
493
5%
20
493
4%
17
493
3%
13
493
3%
10
493
2%
10
493
2%
1153
11196
10%
781
11196
7%
596
1119
6
5%
410
11196
4%
224
11196
2%
224
11196
2%
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
% of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
# of participating students with 1
or more suspensions during the
school year
OVERALL
Economically
Disadvantaged
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
Methodology: Reduce suspensions district-wide to two percent of student by 2016-2017
Source: NPS PowerSchool records
238
Performance Measure X3a: Average student growth percentile score on NJASK Math
Applicable Population: Grades 4-8
Total # of Participating
Students
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
OVERALL
N/A
13745
43
N/A
13745
49
N/A
13745
52
N/A
13745
55
N/A
13745
57
N/A
13745
60
Black
N/A
7133
41
N/A
7133
47
N/A
7133
50
N/A
7133
53
N/A
7133
57
N/A
7133
60
Hispanic
N/A
5410
44
N/A
5410
50
N/A
5410
53
N/A
5410
56
N/A
5410
57
N/A
5410
60
White/Asian
N/A
1172
49
N/A
1172
53
N/A
1172
55
N/A
1172
57
N/A
1172
57
N/A
1172
60
Special
Education
N/A
2354
38
N/A
2354
46
N/A
2354
50
N/A
2354
54
N/A
2354
57
N/A
2354
60
ELL
N/A
527
48
N/A
527
52
N/A
527
54
N/A
527
56
N/A
527
57
N/A
527
60
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
12163
43
N/A
12163
49
N/A
12163
52
N/A
12163
55
N/A
12163
57
N/A
12163
60
Methodology: Based on the estimation of student growth percentiles for each student with two consecutive years of test results on the NJASK
Source: NJ State Student Growth Percentile Data
239
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
N/A
SY 2016-17
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
SY 2015-16
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
Total # of Participating
Students
SY 2014-15
Mean SGP on NJASK
Math test
Baseline 2011-12
N/A
SY 2013-14
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
Subgroup
Performance Measure X3b: Average student growth percentile score on NJASK LAL
Applicable Population: Grades 4-8
Total # of Participating
Students
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
Total # of Participating
Students
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
Total # of Participating
Students
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
13745
43
N/A
13745
49
N/A
13745
52
N/A
13745
55
N/A
13745
57
N/A
13745
60
Black
N/A
7133
42
N/A
7133
48
N/A
7133
51
N/A
7133
54
N/A
7133
57
N/A
7133
60
Hispanic
N/A
5410
43
N/A
5410
49
N/A
5410
52
N/A
5410
55
N/A
5410
57
N/A
5410
60
White/Asian
N/A
1172
46
N/A
1172
52
N/A
1172
54
N/A
1172
56
N/A
1172
57
N/A
1172
60
Special
Education
N/A
2354
41
N/A
2354
47
N/A
2354
50
N/A
2354
53
N/A
2354
57
N/A
2354
60
ELL
N/A
527
39
N/A
527
47
N/A
527
51
N/A
527
55
N/A
527
57
N/A
527
60
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
12163
43
N/A
12163
49
N/A
12163
52
N/A
12163
55
N/A
12163
57
N/A
12163
60
N/A
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
SY 2016-17
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
SY 2015-16
N/A
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
SY 2014-15
N/A
Total # of Participating
Students
N/A
N/A
Mean SGP on NJASK
LAL test
OVERALL
N/A
Baseline 2011-12
Total # of Participating
Students
SY 2013-14
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
Subgroup
Methodology: Based on the estimation of student growth percentiles for each student with two consecutive years of test results on the NJASK
Source: NJ State Student Growth Percentile Data
240
Performance Measure X4: Percent of students finishing grade 9 at an age-appropriate level with the expected number of credits
Applicable Population: Grade 9
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
# of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students finishing
grade 9 at an age-appropriate level
with the expected number of credits
OVERALL
1722
2196
78%
1810
2196
82%
1858
2196
85%
1906
2196
87%
1954
2196
89%
2003
2196
91%
Black
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
974
1282
76%
1128
1282
88%
1128
1282
88%
Hispanic
557
707
79%
559
707
79%
559
707
79%
559
707
79%
633
707
90%
633
707
90%
White/Asian
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
182
196
93%
189
196
97%
189
196
97%
Special
Education
283
395
72%
284
395
72%
284
395
72%
284
395
72%
340
395
86%
340
395
86%
ELL
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
50
93
54%
72
93
77%
72
93
77%
1424
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1426
1782
80%
1604
1782
90%
1604
1782
90%
Economically
Disadvantaged
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
SY 2016-17
SY 2015-16
SY 2014-15
SY 2013-14
Baseline 2011-12
Subgroup
Methodology: Targets based on closing half the gap to 100%, consistent with the approach in the NJ ESEA waiver
Source: NPS PowerSchool records
241
Performance Measure X5: Percent of student showing strong motivation and persistence levels
Applicable Population: Grades 3-12
Subgroup
Baseline 2012-13
10035
White/Asian
N/A
2285
Special
Education
N/A
ELL
Economically
Disadvantaged
14532
N/A
10035
Baseline
N/A
2285
4677
Baseline
N/A
N/A
1836
Baseline
N/A
23545
Baseline
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
N/A
10035
Base
+5%
N/A
2285
Base
+10%
N/A
2285
4677
Base
+5%
N/A
4677
Base
+10%
N/A
N/A
1836
Base
+5%
N/A
1836
Base
+10%
N/A
23545
Base
+5%
N/A
23545
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+15%
N/A
27111
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
Base
+15%
N/A
2285
4677
Base
+15%
N/A
N/A
1836
Base
+15%
N/A
23545
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+20%
N/A
27111
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
Base
+20%
N/A
2285
Base
+25%
4677
Base
+20%
N/A
4677
Base
+25%
N/A
1836
Base
+20%
N/A
1836
Base
+25%
N/A
23545
Base
+20%
N/A
23545
Base
+25%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
N/A
27111
Total # of Participating Students
Hispanic
N/A
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
N/A
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
14532
Base
+10%
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
27111
Total # of Participating Students
14532
N/A
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
N/A
Base
+5%
SY 2016-17
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
27111
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
Baseline
SY 2015-16
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
Black
Total # of Participating Students
27111
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
SY 2014-15
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
Total # of Participating Students
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
# of participating students showing
strong motivation and persistence
levels
OVERALL
SY 2013-14
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Methodology: Measure growth using student surveys to be administered through RTT-D efforts. Targets are very preliminary given that the survey has not
been administered yet, and may be refined based on baseline data to be developed in first administration
Source: Student Engagement and School Climate Survey
242
Performance Measure X6: Percent of students showing strong social efficacy
Applicable Population: Grades 3-12
Subgroup
Baseline 2012-13
10035
White/Asian
N/A
2285
N/A
2285
Special
Education
N/A
4677
Baseline
N/A
4677
ELL
N/A
1836
Baseline
N/A
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
23545
Baseline
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
N/A
2285
Base
+5%
N/A
4677
Base
+10%
N/A
4677
1836
Base
+5%
N/A
1836
Base
+10%
N/A
23545
Base
+5%
N/A
23545
Base
+10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
N/A
27111
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
N/A
N/A
2711
1
1453
2
1003
5
Total # of Participating Students
10035
14532
N/A
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
N/A
N/A
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
14532
27111
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
N/A
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
SY 2016-17
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
Hispanic
27111
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
14532
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
N/A
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
SY 2015-16
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
27111
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
Black
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
SY 2014-15
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
Total # of Participating Students
27111
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
% of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
# of participating students showing
strong social efficacy
OVERALL
SY 2013-14
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
N/A
2285
Base
+15%
N/A
4677
Base
+20%
N/A
4677
Base
+25%
1836
Base
+15%
N/A
1836
Base
+20%
N/A
1836
Base
+25%
23545
Base
+15%
N/A
2354
5
Base
+20%
N/A
23545
Base
+25%
Methodology: Measure growth using student surveys to be administered through RTT-D efforts. Targets are very preliminary given that the survey has not
been administered yet, and may be refined based on baseline data to be developed in first administration
Source: Student Engagement and School Climate Survey
243
Performance Measure X7: Percent of students showing strong self-regulated learning
Applicable Population: Grades 3-12
Subgroup
Baseline 2012-13
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
Special
Education
N/A
4677
ELL
N/A
Economically
Disadvantaged
N/A
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
N/A
2285
Baseline
N/A
4677
Base
+5%
N/A
4677
1836
Baseline
N/A
1836
Base
+5%
N/A
23545
Baseline
N/A
23545
Base
+5%
N/A
27111
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
Base
+10%
N/A
4677
1836
Base
+10%
N/A
23545
Base
+10%
N/A
N/A
27111
N/A
14532
N/A
14532
N/A
10035
N/A
10035
N/A
2285
N/A
2285
Base
+15%
N/A
4677
Base
+20%
N/A
4677
Base
+25%
1836
Base
+15%
N/A
1836
Base
+20%
N/A
1836
Base
+25%
23545
Base
+15%
N/A
23545
Base
+20%
N/A
23545
Base
+25%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
Base
+20%
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
White/Asian
14532
Total # of Participating Students
10035
N/A
N/A
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
Base
+15%
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
N/A
27111
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
14532
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
N/A
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
Base
+10%
SY 2016-17
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
Hispanic
27111
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
14532
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
N/A
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
Base
+5%
SY 2015-16
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
27111
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
Black
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
SY 2014-15
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
Total # of Participating Students
27111
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
Total # of Participating Students
N/A
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
# of participating students showing
strong self-regulated learning
OVERALL
SY 2013-14
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Base
+25%
Methodology: Measure growth using student surveys to be administered through RTT-D efforts. Targets are very preliminary given that the survey has not
been administered yet, and may be refined based on baseline data to be developed in first administration
Source: Student Engagement and School Climate Survey
244
Performance Measure X8: Percent of teachers reporting comfort with skills related to Competency 3 of the teacher evaluation framework: “Culture of
Achievement”
Applicable Population: Grades 3-12
Subgroup
Baseline 2012-13
SY 2013-14
SY 2014-15
SY 2015-16
SY 2016-17
SY 2017-18
(Post-Grant)
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
# of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
Total # of Participating Students
% of participating students absent for
10% or fewer of school days
OVERALL
N/A
27111
20%
6507
27111
24%
7591
27111
28%
8676
27111
32%
9760
27111
36%
10844
27111
40%
Black
N/A
14532
N/A
3488
14532
24%
4069
14532
28%
4650
14532
32%
5232
14532
36%
5813
14532
40%
Hispanic
N/A
10035
N/A
2408
10035
24%
2810
10035
28%
3211
10035
32%
3613
10035
36%
4014
10035
40%
White/Asian
N/A
2285
N/A
548
2285
24%
640
2285
28%
731
2285
32%
823
2285
36%
914
2285
40%
Special
Education
N/A
4677
N/A
1122
4677
24%
1310
4677
28%
1497
4677
32%
1684
4677
36%
1871
4677
40%
ELL
N/A
1836
N/A
441
1836
24%
514
1836
28%
588
1836
32%
661
1836
36%
734
1836
40%
Economically
N/A
23545
N/A
5651
23545
24%
6593
23545
28%
7534
23545
32%
8476
23545
36%
9418
23545
40%
Disadvantaged
Methodology: The baseline is derived from NPS’s finding that 20% of teachers ranked highly effective on Competency 3 during SY 2012-2013. We anticipate
readjusting goals in the coming year based on findings from NPS School Climate Survey.
Source: NPS Teacher Evaluation System
245

event flyer - National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties

Graduation Ceremony

Flintshire Sorted Newsletter Spring 2014

Opmaak 1

HireVue Case Study

Welcome to BANNER Web for Faculty

Early Educators Leadership Brochure 2015

Fire Control Panels

2014 NYSUT Community Service Awards

School Improvement Plan 2015