Search

California is prioritizing equity in education post-COVID-19 by investing in community schools. Districts have an important leadership responsibility to develop the conditions, capacities, and resources for effective, sustainable community schools. Specifically, districts must strengthen system-level supports and infrastructure to ensure sustainable resources, shared governance, robust and usable data systems, and organizational learning and improvement. The district can also support community school coordinators, strengthen data access and sharing, identify and celebrate successful school-site practices, and scale innovations. By taking a cohesive, districtwide approach to community school implementation and sustainability, district leaders can help ensure the success of community school transformation in their districts. [This brief was created with Community Schools Learning Exchange.]

Across the United States, policymakers, educators, and community members increasingly support community schools as a method of supporting whole child outcomes. Oakland Unified School District (Oakland Unified) in California has made whole child education central to its community schools initiative. Oakland Unified's community schools provide a wide range of services for children and promote practices that enhance child development. This research brief presents the highlights of a study which finds that Oakland Unified intentionally created infrastructure to support its community schools, including: (1) coordination of partnerships between schools and county-level agencies; (2) management of partnerships between schools and service providers; (3) training for specialized personnel, such as community school managers and student support teams; (4) professional learning for school staff; and (5) resources for family engagement. The study illustrates how these district-level supports enabled whole child educational practices within three case study schools. [For the full report, see ED630211.]

Across the United States, policymakers, educators, and community members increasingly support community schools as a method of supporting whole child outcomes. Oakland Unified School District (Oakland Unified) in California has made whole child education central to its community schools initiative. Oakland Unified's community schools provide a wide range of services for children and promote practices that enhance child development. This study finds that Oakland Unified intentionally created infrastructure to support its community schools, including: (1) coordination of partnerships between schools and county-level agencies; (2) management of partnerships between schools and service providers; (3) training for specialized personnel, such as community school managers and student support teams; (4) professional learning for school staff; and (5) resources for family engagement. The study illustrates how these district-level supports enabled whole child educational practices within three case study schools. [For related research briefs, see ED630212 and ED630419.]

High-quality early learning experiences (i.e., developmentally appropriate, play-based instruction with clear learning goals) have positive long-term effects on student outcomes. As California rolls out Universal Transitional Kindergarten (UTK), district leaders focused on meeting state requirements for hiring qualified staff and finding appropriate facilities, and thus have been unable to focus on quality. The state can take the following actions to incentivize and support districts to broaden their focus for UTK: set a vision, establish goals, and measure progress in terms of enrollment, key implementation features, and student outcomes for preschool through third grade; align resources and support to advance high-quality implementation of UTK at scale; and publicly communicate key aspects of implementation and outcomes, enabling communities to monitor whether their districts are serving them well.

The stakes are incredibly high in California to provide access to a high-quality education in a safe environment for all students. As districts across the state resumed full-time instruction and began the task of pandemic recovery, members of the California Collaborative on District Reform convened three times in 2021-22 to continue and deepen their ongoing exploration of local strategies for meeting students' academic, social and emotional, and mental health needs. Of particular concern in these gatherings was the need to address systemic contributors to the persistent inequities in both educational opportunities and outcomes that the pandemic had accentuated. This brief summarizes key takeaways from discussions among meeting participants exploring ways in which school systems center equity in their work. Importantly, the districts sharing their work and strategies in these meetings vary significantly in the human capital and other resources available to them, and each is at a different place in its equity journey. Nevertheless, the core takeaway was clear: centering equity begins with an explicit and visible commitment on the part of district leaders. But words alone are not enough. Participants in these meetings stressed that this commitment must become systemic action and must be integrated into all aspects of a district's work. This was both the message and the goal of the district leaders participating in these Collaborative convenings. This report presents four recurring themes that emerged from these discussions: (1) System Leaders' Explicit and Visible Commitment to Equity Is Essential; (2) Efforts to Center Equity Must Focus on the Whole Child; (3) Efforts to Enhance Equity Must Reach the Instructional Core; and (4) Advancing Equity Districtwide Requires Systemic Coherence.

"AASA Learning 2025: Student-Centered, Equity-Focused, Future-Driven Education" is a movement that calls for a holistic redesign of the public school system by 2025. This initiative is grounded in the foundational work of the AASA Learning 2025 National Commission, comprised of thought leaders in education, business, community, and philanthropy. The work of AASA Learning 2025 is guided by the commission's report, "An American Imperative: A New Vision of Public Schools" (ED613412). To demonstrate the power and effectiveness of participating AASA Learning 2025 school districts, AASA is sharing with members of the educational community case studies showcasing exemplary school systems that are a part of this network. This case study discusses one of the highest performing school districts in California, San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Its systemic focus on deep learning and innovation as well as equity and the social-emotional well-being of students and staff is powerfully aligned with the vision, mission, and focus areas of the AASA Learning 2025 initiative. San Ramon emphasizes a strategic planning process that stresses deep learning (reinforcing the student as the co-author of their own learning) and innovation (transforming traditional programs and practices into a true preparation of learners for post-secondary education and the 21st century world of work). As part of this commitment, the district is committed to creating the best possible learning environments in which students can thrive and succeed because they are safe, accepted, and supported. These organizational values are reinforced by the integration of social and emotional learning as a consistent Pre-K-12 priority area.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment System consists of three components: (1) interim assessments designed to support teaching and learning throughout the year; (2) a suite of tools and resources in Tools for Teachers that support classroom-based formative assessment practices; and (3) end-of-year summative assessments designed for accountability purposes. This document describes the interim assessments, including their purpose, type, and use. For each grade and subject, this document provides a list of interim assessments available for the 2022-23 school year.

The Student Success Center Network (SSCN) Coaching Program expands institutional coaching as a capacity-building strategy for driving state- and institution-level college transformation efforts. Institutional coaches are trusted advisors who help facilitate change conversations, share resources and knowledge, and provide guidance to college administrators, faculty, and staff engaged in the daily work of implementing large-scale change initiatives. To better support new and experienced coaches, Jobs for the Future (JFF), Community College Research Initiatives (CCRI), and Achieving the Dream created a comprehensive set of tools and resources, the SSCN Coaching Toolbox. The tools are shared through SSCN Coaching Program trainings and professional development sessions and webinars, online through JFF and CCRI websites, and by peer sharing among coaches. In the current phase of the SSCN Coaching Program, supported by Ascendium Education Group, JFF and CCRI partnered with grantee Centers in California, Michigan, New York, and Oregon to further support their coaching programs and gather data on how coaching catalyzes institutional change. This brief shares results of a survey and subsequent interviews of grantee Center leaders and coaches. Findings revealed which tools resonated the most with Center leadership and coaches, how they were used, their benefits, and the importance of training to augment their impact.

A principal's job is complex, demanding, and multi-faceted. Effective principals shape a school's academic vision and foster a climate for learning. In addition, they develop leadership capacity in teachers and staff, promote sound instructional practices, and use resources and data to drive school improvement (Mendels, 2012). Given these significant responsibilities, it is unsurprising that abundant research indicates that the quality of school leadership is correlated with school effectiveness. Principals and school leaders can impact student achievement, graduation rates, and the attraction and retention of qualified teachers (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). School leaders clearly play an important role in school systems. As such, the way leaders are identified, prepared, hired, and supported is critical to high quality teaching and learning in schools. [The report was written with Soung Bae.]

The research featured in this paper is part of the CORE-PACE Research Partnership, which is focused on producing research that informs continuous improvement in the CORE districts as well as policy and practice in California and beyond. In this report, the authors used data from multiple interim assessments to examine how the rate of student learning from fall 2019 through winter 2020-21 differs from that of student learning before COVID-19. Specifically, the authors assessed the degree to which approximately 100,000 students across 19 local education agencies (LEAs) in California experienced slower academic growth compared to previous school years (i.e., a learning lag) by the time they completed winter 2021 interim assessments (NWEA MAP Growth, Renaissance Learning Star, and Curriculum Associates i-Ready) in Grades 4-8. To understand equity gaps in the degree to which students have experienced lost instructional opportunities, the authors disaggregated these results for students who were economically disadvantaged, students who were English learners, students with disabilities, students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds, students with low prior achievement, and students who were experiencing homelessness. The results show that by the time students completed winter interim assessments in the 2020-21 school year, they had experienced a learning lag of approximately 2.6 months in English language arts (ELA) and 2.5 months in math. It was further found that students who were economically disadvantaged, English learners, and Latinx experienced greater learning lag than students who were not in these groups. The authors position these findings in the context of other recent studies that have estimated COVID-19 impacts on student learning, discuss caveats of using interim assessments (including those administered remotely), and highlight the importance of examining differences in the effects for students in different groups. These findings can be useful for guiding decision-making and resource allocation at the state and local levels.

Restorative practices is an approach to build relationships within a community. Its purpose is to prevent conflict and wrongdoing and respond to wrongdoing after it occurs. This article provides an introduction to restorative practices, including implementation challenges, success stories, and tips on how to get started. By adopting positive and inclusive tools to resolve conflict and build community, schools can provide a safe environment in which all students thrive.

As California policymakers start to chart a path forward beyond COVID-19, it is important to first understand and reckon with the pandemic's impact on child care programs and individual educators. This research paper presents findings from a survey of 953 California ECE programs and providers in June-July 2020. The results provide an in-depth view of the past year's devastation and highlight the unseen costs of operating a child care program throughout the pandemic with little-to-no support. Survey responses paint a grim picture of early educators fearing for their own health and the health of their families, of providers taking on personal credit card debt to cover program expenses, and a constant scramble to both find and afford essential cleaning supplies in order to meet new health and safety regulations. The key findings from this study should inform the strategic, equitable, and urgent allocation of American Rescue Plan Act stabilization funds in California over the coming months.

The National Math + Science Initiative (NMSI) is a nonprofit organization committed to improving educational outcomes that traces its roots back to the early 1990s. NMSI's College Readiness Program (CRP) is a long-standing program with the goal of promoting STEM education in high schools to improve students' preparation for college. The three-year program provides teacher, student, and school supports to promote high school students' success in English, mathematics, and science Advanced Placement (AP) courses, with a focus on students who are traditionally underrepresented in the targeted AP courses. Through a scale-up grant awarded to NMSI by the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the CRP was implemented in 27 schools in the 2016-2017 school year (Treatment Schools) and in 21 schools in the 2017-2018 school year (Delayed Treatment Schools), collectively identified as Program Schools. CRESST conducted an independent evaluation of the impact of the CRP on students' AP outcomes using a randomized cluster trial with 48 CRP schools and 48 Comparison Schools in 10 states. The evaluation of the CRP consisted of three parts: (1) measuring the program's impact on selected student AP exam outcomes; (2) determining the impact of the program on school perspectives and culture; and (3) assessing of the fidelity of implementation of the CRP at the school level. AP exam data from 48 Treatment Schools, with a total of 8,778 exams in 2018 and 9,378 in 2019, and 48 matched control schools, with 7,505 exams in 2018 and 2019 in Year 3, were analyzed for this study. Program impact was evaluated using a 2-level hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) with students nested within schools. The analyses revealed that in 2018 the probability of a student taking an AP exam in the Program Schools was, on average, 7% higher than the paired Comparison Schools, and the difference was statistically significant. And in 2019 the effect was even greater with the probability of taking an AP exam being significantly higher in Program Schools (18%) than in Comparison Schools (3%). When looking at the probability of an exam yielding a qualifying score, in 2018, the HGLM analyses found no significant difference between the two groups. In 2019, however, exams taken at the Program Schools had a significantly higher overall probability (2%) of receiving a qualifying score than the Comparison Schools (0%). These analyses compared results to the total school population. In the next analyses, we looked only at those students who took AP exams. In 2018, overall, the fitted probability of achieving a qualifying score among the exams taken was 8% in the Program Schools, compared to 22% in the Comparison Schools. In 2019, however, the difference between the Program Schools (7%) and the Comparison Schools (9%) was not statistically significant. Fidelity of implementation was evaluated using a fidelity matrix approach (required as part of the evaluation of the i3 program), which showed that not all elements of the program were implemented with high fidelity. In 2018, results indicated that 43 out of 48 schools (90%) achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity, for an average fidelity score of 89%. Four schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2019, 88% of schools achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity. Ten schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2018 in more than 75% of schools, not all teachers fulfilled their requirements for attending the required teacher training sessions, and so this component was not implemented with fidelity. In 2019, this picture improved a little with 15 schools (31%) meeting the 80% threshold. Teacher stipends, administrator bonuses, and student qualifying score awards were paid as expected. Teacher survey data indicated that teachers found the training and professional development activities provided by the CRP to be the most beneficial program supports. Mentoring was chosen, across all years, as the least effective program component. When prompted for the second most effective CRP component, the same number of teachers selected the funding of classroom and lab supplies as did teacher training. [For "2016-2017 Implementation Evaluation of the National Math and Science Initiative's College Readiness Program," see ED615910.]

California districts were forced to shift to distance learning models in the spring of 2020 and the transition to distance learning for students in the early grades--transitional kindergarten through third grade (TK-3)--has proved difficult for students, parents, and teachers alike. As distance learning persists, administrators and teachers can continue to adapt their practices to meet the needs of students and families. This brief identifies challenges experienced during distance learning and suggests promising practices and potential policy changes that can positively affect the current experience of students, parents, and teachers involved in TK-3 distance learning.

Educator micro-credentials present a unique opportunity to link professional learning to practice. Through each competency-based credential, educators demonstrate application of their learning. School districts are seeing the value of embedding micro-credentials in existing professional learning pathways to promote educator agency, recognize educators developing their practice, and expand competency-based learning practices with students. Micro-credentials are particularly well-suited for introducing emerging technologies and content. Offering greater flexibility than one-time, stand-and-deliver professional learning, micro-credentials can serve as a vehicle for just-in-time, embedded learning in high-demand areas like computational thinking. While learning opportunities in computational thinking may have once been limited for educators without close proximity to a university with computer science education pathways, through micro-credentials, research-based resources are curated and made accessible to educators with an internet connection. This paper captures experiences and insights from educators and administrators as their districts integrated micro-credentials in support of professional learning. Learnings include suggestions for integrating micro-credentials effectively, ideas for deepening learning through micro-credentials, strategies for facilitating learning through micro-credentials, approaches to sustaining and expanding the role of micro-credentials for professional learning, and insights on evolving policies for micro-credential integration.

This brief summarizes key points from the report "Enabling Conditions and Capacities for Continuous Improvement: A Framework for Measuring and Supporting Progress Towards the Goals of the Statewide System of Support" and contextualizes the findings within the current challenge of supporting teaching and learning during a pandemic. The concept of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) provides a framework for the ways in which schools are operating amid the COVID-19 crisis. In an unprecedented VUCA context, rapid cycles of improvement are essential for identifying approaches to address student needs. Even in such conditions, the enabling organizational conditions for continuous improvement--shared purpose, mutual trust, structures and resources that foster collaborative work, and the preparation and mobilization of improvement capacities--are needed to facilitate improvement and organizational learning. [For "Enabling Conditions and Capacities for Continuous Improvement: A Framework for Measuring and Supporting Progress Towards the Goals of the Statewide System of Support," see ED609261.]

Seventy-seven California community colleges offer nursing programs with a total enrollment of 12,960 full-time equivalent students in 2017-18, a decrease of 7.4% from the previous fiscal year. Seventy-two colleges received grants to expand or maintain enrollment by 1,439 students. The colleges are using these funds to provide support for nursing program enrollment and equipment needs. The equipment purchased is only intended to be used for increasing the number of nursing students served. Colleges with nursing programs receive funding through general apportionment. This apportionment funding is based upon the number of full-time equivalent students in each program at each college. This report presents information on categorical funding beyond this apportionment funding awarded through an application process to the Chancellor's Office for nursing programs in fiscal year 2017-18. Also included in this report is a summary on Nursing Program Support provided in the Budget Act of 2017 to expand or maintain community college nursing enrollments and improve student retention [required by Provision (23) of Item 6870-101-0001 of the Budget Act of 2017. For the 2018 report, see ED596543.]

This document contains the following nine appendixes of the main report, "What Does It Cost to Educate California's Students? A Professional Judgment Approach. Technical Report. Getting Down to Facts II": (1) Professional Judgement Panel General Instructions; (2) Professional Judgement Panel. Task Instructions; (3) School Resource Profiles; (4) Suggested Reading for Professional Judgement Panelists; (5) Professional Judgement Panelist Information; (6) Program Design Documents; (7) Professional Judgement Panelist Cost Estimates; (8) Descriptive Statistics; and (9) Explanation of Update to Study Findings. [For the main report, see ED594739.]

Prior studies portray support for the Common Core in California (Finkelstein et al. 2018; Jochim and Lavery 2015) as well as support for other significant reforms, like the change in California's school finance system (Koppich and Humphrey 2018). Along with enthusiasm for California's policy changes over the past decade have come calls to "stay the course" to enable the current changes to make their way into practice. How are the frontlines of instructional practice experiencing the current terrain? Do the frontlines share this view that strides are being made? This report focuses on several key questions: (1) What are California teachers' perceptions of the core elements of instructional practice--standards, curriculum, instructional materials, professional learning opportunities--in the Common Core Era?; (2) What are the resources that California teachers use in instruction and the sources of such resources?; (3) What are teachers' perceptions and experience of managing various manifestations of educational disparities as they engage with the Common Core initiative?; and (4) What are opportunities to learn as California moves forward with state policy alignment? The authors focus primarily on teachers' perspectives to address these questions, but they also include insights from California superintendents and state and regional leaders. They also strive to focus on some of the key elements of instruction--standards, curriculum, frameworks, materials, and professional development.

For the past six years, California has been revising its preparation system for school and district administrators, including developing the California Administrator Performance Assessment (CalAPA), the first required performance assessment for preliminary administrator certification. In this study, researchers from the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd, the Principal Leadership Institute at the University of California at Berkeley, and the Regional Educational Laboratory West at WestEd sought to examine the initial impact of the CalAPA policy by identifying early changes (i.e., changes made through March 30, 2018) in administrator preparation programs' practices. [Additional support for this research was provided by the Principal Leadership Institute at the University of California at Berkeley.]

This Intersegmental Data Partnerships Resource Guide, and the accompanying PACE policy brief (see ED591080), are products of a year-long qualitative research project exploring promising practices in data sharing and data use among intersegmental partnerships throughout California. This Resource Guide provides institutions engaged in intersegmental partnerships with resources to support the development, planning, and monitoring of their data practices. It is intended to serve three purposes: (1) a framework to orient intersegmental leaders to the different aspects of effective strategies for data sharing and use; (2) a tool to facilitate reflection on current regional and institutional priority areas and data practices; and (3) a networking resource to identify and learn about data practices from other partnerships in the state. The guide presents the critical components of effective regional efforts around data sharing and use, with tools to dive deeper into specific factors within each of these components. A directory of the partnerships included in the study is provided at the end of the guide.

Across the nation, nearly all teachers can expect to have EL students in their classrooms. The challenges of teaching ELs students are particularly acute in the nation's secondary schools. There is evidence to suggest that the lack of preparation to teach ELs is generally weak, but even more so for secondary teachers. We analyze data from a survey distributed among secondary teachers in a large urban school district to examine how well prepared they feel to teach ELs. Without special preparation, even good teachers may find it difficult to meet the needs of ELs, and many secondary EL teachers note that the preparation and support they most want and need is the least available to them. The study also points out that the resources to assist these teachers may be in greater supply than is apparent.

Summer learning loss contributes significantly to the achievement gap between low income students and their more affluent peers. That makes high quality summer learning programs a smart investment for school districts concerned about success for all students. Such investments have become easier thanks to the flexibility built into the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The most promising programs are not traditional summer school. Instead, they look and feel like summer camp while incorporating learning goals aligned with district priorities. Summer learning programs: (1) Offer an innovative approach for engaging young people and inspiring a love of learning throughout the year; (2) Include camp experiences such as chants; and rituals, cabins and teams, games and sports, and experiments and experiences; and (3) Integrate intentional learning goals, lesson plans, and evaluations of learning into an engaging program environment.

In August 2010, the California State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Three years later, the president of the State Board, Dr. Michael Kirst, noted that CCSS "changes almost everything," including what teachers teach, how they teach, and what students are expected to learn (Kirst, 2013). Echoing his sentiments, Dr. Milbrey McLaughlin argued that "the practices and activities that faithful implementation of the CCSS would require are a long stretch for most California educators, and run contrary in many respects to deep-rooted features of teaching and learning in the United States" (McLaughlin, 2014). The adoption of ambitious new standards marked a dramatic change after many years of stability in state education policy. With over six million students, California is the nation's largest education system. The sheer number of districts (1,000) and schools (10,000) militates against one-size-fits-all policy implementation strategies. In addition, standards implementation is invariably influenced by a long list of community-, district-, and school-level contextual factors including geography, history, demographics, location, local politics, teacher capacity, human resources, and wealth. In California, moreover, implementation of the CCSS has been further complicated by the recent adoption of two other major policy initiatives--the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The simultaneous implementation of CCSS, LCFF, and LCAP continues to pose significant capacity challenges to local educational agencies (LEAs). These reforms demand major changes in districts, schools, and classrooms, while shifting the primary responsibility for decision-making and resource allocation to local actors. This is a radical change in a governance system that was previously highly centralized, and it is clear that not all LEAs are fully prepared to meet their new responsibilities. The successful implementation of CCSS needs to be anchored in mutually agreed norms as well as in common practices, purposes, methods, and language. Establishing this level of shared understanding and uniform practice within and across districts requires a complex and demanding skill set--one that neither County Offices of Education (COEs) nor school and district practitioners have had to possess prior to the implementation of these ambitious state initiatives. Not surprisingly, therefore, several studies of CCSS implementation have found a great deal of variation in access to the ongoing district, school, and classroom supports necessary to enable changes in instruction. In a 2016 WestEd survey, all groups of educators--teachers, administrators, and support personnel--complained of a lack of high-quality CCSS-aligned instructional materials, especially for English Language Arts (ELA). Teachers also confirmed a need for more consistent and coherent job-embedded professional development to assist them in their implementation efforts. In the absence of these supports, teachers often relied on their peers as a primary source of support for curriculum development (Makkonen & Sheffield, 2016). All California school districts face obstacles in their efforts to implement CCSS, and virtually all will need support if the new standards are to be implemented successfully. In general, however, suburban and urban districts are likely to have readier access to all kinds of supports, as compared to their counterparts in isolated and under-resourced parts of the state. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether small and rural districts in California face unique challenges in CCSS implementation because of their size and location. The authors seek to answer the following questions: (1) Do capacity limitations related to central office staffing, budget, and geography limit the ability of small and rural districts to provide comprehensive support for principals and teachers?; (2) Do rural districts have access to the same kinds of support services as other districts?; (3) Are rural districts limited by size and sparseness of services?; and (4) Are the implementation challenges of rural districts sufficiently different from those of suburban and urban districts to require special attention? The answers are based on the work with the nine districts in the Rural Professional Learning Network (RPLN), which brought the districts together to work on shared problems in CCSS implementation. Tools Reported by Districts for Primary Use Categories is appended.

This resource was prepared in response to a request for examples of developmental screening activities in Early Learning Challenge (ELC) States. This information will be helpful to States as they consider how to identify and address health, behavioral, and developmental needs of children with high needs. To address this request, ELC TA reviewed the "2015 Progress Update Report" for the 20 Phase 1, 2 and 3 ELC States and the "2016 Annual Performance Report" (APR) data from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 ELC States and the "2016 Final Performance Report" (FPR) data from the Phase 1 ELC States. These reports were submitted to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services for review in the spring of 2017. Of the 20 ELC States, eight States (California, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont) chose to address developmental screening as part of their overall State plan and reported on performance measure (C)(3)(d): "Leveraging Existing Resources (other than RTT-ELC funds") to Increase the Number of Children with High Needs who are Screened Using Developmental and Behavioral Screening Measures." Eight additional ELC States (Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) included information in their annual and final reports on their efforts to support developmental screening even though they did not specifically address performance measure (C)(3)(d) in their grant applications. This summary includes information about States' developmental screening activities in the following areas: professional development and staffing, legislation and licensing regulations, collaboration, data linkages electronic access to screenings and screening data, screening tools, referrals, marketing, and State Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) components.

This resource was prepared in response to a request for information about the innovations and lessons learned as the result of the investments States have made in transforming their workforce using their Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants. These strategies and accomplishments will be helpful to other States as they explore ways to provide all children with high-quality early education. To address this request, ELC TA reviewed the "2015 Annual Performance Report" (APR) data that the 20 RTT-ELC States submitted to the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services in the spring of 2016 detailing their grant work in 2015. These examples are intended to provide information about which States to contact to find out more information. This State Technical Assistance Resource is a companion piece to the October 2016 Webinar by the National Center for Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning about "Transforming the Workforce: Innovations and Lessons Learned from Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge States." A list of resources is provided.