Alabama Education Department Study & Analysis

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW
Operational Study and

Analysis of the Alabama
Department of Education
FINAL REPORT
March 13, 2020
Public Consulting Group, Inc.
0
Alabama Department of Education
Organizational Study and Analysis
Arlington Public Schools

Evaluation of Services for Students with Special Needs
August 2019
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
The PCG team thanks the many individuals who contributed to this review of the ALSDE’s operations,
programs, and services. PCG would specifically like to thank Chief Examiner Rachel Riddle of the
Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, who worked tirelessly to ensure a fair and comprehensive
review. PCG would also like to thank the ALSDE Deputy State Superintendent Andy Craig for his work on
this review. Mr. Craig organized all components of the data collection efforts, provided all the documents
and data we needed in order to do our work, answered our numerous questions, and organized all of the
logistics for our onsite data collection activities. PCG also thanks the many ALSDE staff stakeholders with
whom we met. It is not easy to open your doors to an outside reviewer, and this review would not have
been possible without the support of the ALSDE staff. Their commitment to their work in the Department
on behalf of Alabama’s students was evident through their comments and candid feedback regarding
opportunities to serve these students in the best possible manner.
Public Consulting Group, Inc.
Public Consulting Group, Inc. 1

Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
Alabama’s Current Context ................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Report .................................................................................................................... 8
II. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 9

Interviews and Focus Groups ............................................................................................................... 9
Documents and Data .......................................................................................................................... 10
III. Core Education Functions ......................................................................................................... 11

Core Functions .................................................................................................................................... 11
Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Student Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 12
Strategic Planning and Direction......................................................................................................... 12
School and District Accountability ....................................................................................................... 19
LEA Perception of Accountability and Assistance .............................................................................. 23
Educator Quality.................................................................................................................................. 26
Educational Standards ........................................................................................................................ 31
Stakeholder Communications ............................................................................................................. 33
IV. Comparative Analysis with Top NAEP States .......................................................................... 34

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Methodology........................................................................................................................................ 34
NAEP Sample State Characteristics ................................................................................................... 35
Findings from State Education Agency Interviews ............................................................................. 36
Comparison with NAEP Sample States .............................................................................................. 39
V. Inventory and Review of Programs ............................................................................................ 56

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 56
Program Definition .............................................................................................................................. 56
Program Inventory............................................................................................................................... 56
Section Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 60
Student Learning ................................................................................................................................. 61
Teaching and Leading ........................................................................................................................ 67
Career and Technical Education......................................................................................................... 69
Evaluation, Accountability, and Support ............................................................................................. 69
Professional Learning ......................................................................................................................... 73
LEA Auxiliary Support Services .......................................................................................................... 74
SDE Business and Support Services.................................................................................................. 75
Disability Determination Services ....................................................................................................... 79
VI. Staffing Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 80

Overall Staffing Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 80
Staff Training and Development ......................................................................................................... 88
Use of Clerical Staff and Other Administrative Support ...................................................................... 88
Staffing Analysis: Support of ALSDE Functions ................................................................................. 89
VII. Priority Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 97

1. Take the Lead. ................................................................................................................................ 97

2. Develop and Implement a Strategy to Action Plan. ........................................................................ 97

3. Focus First on the Priorities. ........................................................................................................... 97
4. Hold Schools and Districts Accountable. ........................................................................................ 98
5. Significantly Reorganize the ALSDE Internally. .............................................................................. 98
VIII. Additional Recommendations ................................................................................................. 99

Standards, Accountability, and Assistance ......................................................................................... 99
Governance....................................................................................................................................... 100
Internal Functions.............................................................................................................................. 100
Communications ............................................................................................................................... 102
Educator Workforce .......................................................................................................................... 103
Disability Determination Services ..................................................................................................... 103
Coordination with Other Agencies .................................................................................................... 104
Improved Instruction and Supports to Districts ................................................................................. 104
IX. Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 109

A. PCG Team .................................................................................................................................... 110
B. NAEP Comparison State Sample Selection ................................................................................. 113
C. NAEP Performance Comparison.................................................................................................. 114
D. NAEP Sample State Education Agency Organizational Charts ................................................... 123
E. Sample of ALSDE Organizational Charts ..................................................................................... 130
F. Total CSI Allocations and School Improvement Strategies, by School ........................................ 152
G. CSI Schools and Academic Target Attainment ............................................................................ 155
H. Department Merit-Based Pay Position Descriptions .................................................................... 159
I. List of Reviewed Documents ......................................................................................................... 164
Table of Figures
Exhibit 1. Interview and Focus Group Stakeholder Data .............................................................................. 9
Exhibit 2. Outcomes for Students by Subgroups ........................................................................................ 12
Exhibit 3. Student Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................. 12
Exhibit 4. Take 10 Education Survey Parent Responses ........................................................................... 13
Exhibit 5. Take 10 Education Survey Resident Responses........................................................................ 14
Exhibit 6. ALSDE Strategic Plans ............................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 7. Alabama’s ESSA Plan Highlights, 2017 and Addendums under Consideration ......................... 16
Exhibit 8. 2019 School District Education Report Card Scores (Total Counts and Distributions) .............. 20
Exhibit 9. Districts and Total CSI Allocations, 2019 .................................................................................... 21
Exhibit 10. Educator Age Distribution ......................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 11. Educator Years of Experience Distribution ............................................................................... 27
Exhibit 12. Number of MEGA Conference Sessions by Category .............................................................. 29
Exhibit 13. Length of MEGA Conference Sessions .................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 14. Course of Study List .................................................................................................................. 32
Exhibit 15. Alabama and Comparison States for Top Performing NAEP States Analysis (2018-2019) ..... 35
Exhibit 16. K-12 Governance Models, Alabama, and NAEP Sample States.............................................. 41
Exhibit 17. AL Per Pupil Expenditures Compared to Other States (2017) ................................................. 42
Exhibit 18. State Funding Sources in Alabama and Sample States ........................................................... 43
Exhibit 19. K-12 Funding: Alabama and Sample State Comparison .......................................................... 44
Exhibit 20. Early Childhood Education Oversight, Sample States Compared ............................................ 46
Exhibit 21. Research and Strategy Division, Sample States Compared .................................................... 47
Exhibit 22. Nutrition Programs and Administration in Alabama and Sample States................................... 49
Exhibit 23. Comparison of Accountability Indicators used in Alabama, Tennessee, and Massachusetts 50

Exhibit 24. Teacher Attractiveness Rating .................................................................................................. 53

Exhibit 25. Teacher Equity Rating ............................................................................................................... 53
Exhibit 26. Wage Competitiveness Rating .................................................................................................. 54
Exhibit 27. Percentage of Inexperienced Teachers .................................................................................... 54
Exhibit 28. Percentage of Uncertified Teachers ......................................................................................... 55
Exhibit 29. Percentage of Teachers Planning to Leave the Profession ...................................................... 55
Exhibit 30. ALSDE Program Inventory ........................................................................................................ 57
Exhibit 31. ALSDE Section Inventory.......................................................................................................... 60
Exhibit 32. ALSDE Current Procurement Process Map .............................................................................. 78
Exhibit 33. Number of Positions, 2017-20................................................................................................... 80
Exhibit 34. Percent of Full and Part Time Staff ........................................................................................... 80
Exhibit 35. Number of Employees by FTE .................................................................................................. 81
Exhibit 36. Number of Employees by Cost Center ..................................................................................... 81
Exhibit 37. Number of Positions by Fund .................................................................................................... 82
Exhibit 38. Percent of Positions Funded by State and Federal Funds ....................................................... 83
Exhibit 39. Number of Positions Funded by State Funds ........................................................................... 83
Exhibit 40. Number of Positions Funded by Federal Funds ....................................................................... 84
Exhibit 41. Number of Employees by Classification ................................................................................... 84
Exhibit 42. Percent of Staff by Classification, (Ed. Specialist, Ed. Administrator, Clerk/ASA vs. All Other
Positions)..................................................................................................................................................... 86
Exhibit 43. Education vs. Operational Staff Percentages ........................................................................... 87
Exhibit 44. Percentage of Vacant Positions Compared to Budgeted Positions .......................................... 87
Exhibit 45. ALSDE Organizational Chart, effective September 1, 2018 ..................................................... 90
Exhibit 46. Re-imagined ALSDE Senior Leadership Organizational Chart ................................................ 93
Exhibit 47. Re-imagined ALSDE Office of Student Learning Organizational Chart .................................... 94
Exhibit 48. Instructional Support Unit Programs and Duties ....................................................................... 95
Exhibit 49. District Supports Unit Programs and Duties ............................................................................. 95
Exhibit 50. Educational Options Programs and Duties ............................................................................... 96
Exhibit 51. Educator Improvement Programs and Duties ........................................................................... 96
Exhibit 52. Top 10% of NAEP States ........................................................................................................ 113
Exhibit 53. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019).................................. 114
Exhibit 54. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores (at or above proficient) Compared to Other States (2019)
.................................................................................................................................................................. 115
Exhibit 55. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019).................................. 115
.................................................................................................................................................................. 116
Exhibit 57. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019) .......................... 117
Exhibit 58. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores (at or above proficient) Compared to Other States (2019)
.................................................................................................................................................................. 117
Exhibit 59. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019) .......................... 118
.................................................................................................................................................................. 118
Exhibit 61. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019) ......................................... 119
Exhibit 62. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2011-2019)................................ 119
Exhibit 63. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019) .................................. 120
Exhibit 64. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019) .................................. 120
Exhibit 65. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019) ................... 121
Exhibit 66. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019) ......................................... 121
Exhibit 67. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019) ............ 121
Exhibit 68. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019) ............ 122

I. Introduction
Under the direction of the State of Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, Public Consulting
Group, Inc. (PCG) conducted an organizational review and analysis of the Alabama State Department of
Education (ALSDE). The following research questions guided our analysis:
1. What are the core functions of the ALSDE?

2. How does the current delivery model support the core educational functions of the ALSDE?
3. How can the ALSDE function more efficiently and effectively?
4. Does the ALSDE provide appropriate support to LEAs to improve student outcomes?
5. How does the ALSDE’s organizational structure and function compare to the educational systems
in top performing states?
PCG developed an understanding of the ALSDE’s current state through qualitative data collection through
interviews and document review, analyzed current staffing allocations and organizational structures, and
performed a comparative analysis with states whose educational systems are considered highly performing
on national measures to form the recommendations found in this report. All data collection and analysis
occurred between October 2019-March 2020. This report makes recommendations for improvement to the
ALSDE’s policies, function, programs, funding, and organizational structure. Given the breadth of this scope
and ambitious timeline for this work, PCG was not able to review all programs with the same level of
intensity. As such, our recommendations highlight specific program areas we believe warrant deeper
review.
This review seeks to document the organization and operation of the ALSDE at a moment in time. However,
data collection and analysis have occurred alongside daily operations in the Department and the changing
education landscape in the state. During our work, the ALSDE continued to make changes in administration
and supports provided to LEAs to increase student achievement. Our report endeavors to present the
clearest portrait of the Department given this dynamic situation.
Alabama’s Current Context

This organizational review of the ALSDE is timely given several converging factors.
1. Stable Leadership. The Department has had unusual turnover in leadership, particularly in the
State Superintendent position over the past decade. There have been over a dozen Organizational
Charts produced over that time, none of which reflect any real focus on priorities or strategic
direction. Leadership instability has contributed to stagnate progress. Dr. Eric Mackey was
appointed State Superintendent almost two years ago in April 2018. As the former Executive
Director of the School Superintendents of Alabama, Dr. Mackey deeply understands the state’s
educational context and is respected by school district leaders.
2. New Standards. The December 2019 vote by the State Board of Education to approve the new
Mathematics Course of Study developed by Alabama’s educators is an important action step.
These new standards follow the 2016 adoption of the state’s Reading Course of Study. New
statewide tests will be used to measure student growth to meeting these standards beginning
school year 2020-21. These new standards raise expectations for student learning and should be
used as a change lever to strengthen accountability.
3. Proposed Changes to Governance Structures. The proposed creation of the Alabama

Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education signals a significant desire to increase
oversight of Alabama’s educational system. Currently, Alabama is one of only six states with an
elected school board that appoints a superintendent. The proposed change would eliminate the
Alabama State School Board, replacing it with a Commission with members who are appointed by
the Governor to a six-year term. It is intended that the Commission’s appointed members would

reflect the geographical, gender, and racial make-up of Alabama’s public schools. Alabama voters
will vote on this state constitutional amendment in March 2020 prior to the release of this report.
Regardless of the outcome, this action represents a legislative desire for more planful and strategic
state level accountability.
4. Committed Legislature. The state legislature has demonstrated a strong interest in improving
Alabama’s educational system through funding, legislation, and other activities. The State
Legislature recently passed the largest appropriation in history for Alabama public education. The
Alabama Literacy Act of 2019 and proposed upcoming math and student wellness legislation further
demonstrate this commitment.
These conditions indicate a clear readiness and commitment to implement the recommendations found in
this report.
PCG supports change management through the careful analysis of functions and outcomes. PCG believes
this report, and the updates that will hopefully follow, offers the Department a tremendous opportunity to
move the state’s reform priorities forward, target supports, and align planning efforts to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of ALSDE programs. This, in turn, will align with the ultimate goal of improving
educational outcomes in districts and schools.
Key Recommendations
PCG saw ample evidence that the ALSDE has a foundation on which to build. As noted throughout this
report, the Department has many notable strengths including its willingness to participate in this review as
part of a continuous improvement cycle.
However, without a sense of urgency and an unrelenting commitment to implementing the

recommendations in this report with fidelity, the ALSDE will stagnate. Enacting change, the kind of change
that will fundamentally improve outcomes of all students, requires focus, a strong vision from the State
Superintendent enacted by senior leadership staff, an appropriate allocation of resources, mandated
professional learning, and clear, non-negotiable accountability measures. This type of reform requires the
involvement and commitment of every staff person and a willingness to establish high expectations for
districts, schools, and students.
The following are PCG’s key, non-negotiable recommendations. Without faithful implementation of these
five recommendations, all other organizational recommendations will have limited to no impact. A complete
list of PCG’s more detailed recommendations is in VIII. Additional Recommendations found later in this
report. There are 46 additional recommendations.
1. Take the lead.

The ALSDE must take full ownership and accountability for student progress across Alabama. The ALSDE
is responsible for both the academic and social/emotional success of students, with the end goal of ensuring
all graduates are prepared for life after high school. The ALSDE must establish its proper role as the state
educational authority in Alabama and perform accordingly.
The ALSDE leadership must be bold but also collaborative. There are times when the ALSDE must take
charge and bear full responsibility for aspects of reform, and other places where the ALSDE must set the
conditions for others to assume leadership. Like an expert conductor, the ALSDE may not have the
expertise to play all the instruments, but through a combination of the use of outside experts, significantly
involving the people in schools and districts that do the hardest work, and partnering with as many involved
groups as possible, the Department can and should be able to move the State of Alabama forward in
significant ways.
2. Develop and implement a strategy to action plan.

The ALSDE tends to be reactive primarily because it does not have a clear plan of action, leading to
inconsistent decision-making. Decisions are in response to external pressure and appear to be quick fixes
without regard to long term ramifications or connections to other initiatives within the Department or the
State.
The ALSDE must develop a comprehensive, detailed, and transparent Strategy to Action Plan with defined
steps and activities, financial implications, milestones, deadlines, and results. This Strategy to Action Plan
should guide the implementation of all recommendations in this report. As a first step, the ALSDE will need
to inventory and consolidate all existing plans to ensure all staff are working towards the same goals. To
ensure transparency and partnership, the ALSDE must institute routine and public progress updates. An
iterative Strategic Communications Plan should be developed and implemented to communicate the
Strategy to Action Plan. Regular progress updates should be provided to the Governor’s Office, the
Alabama State Legislature, the State Board of Education, Superintendents, and all of Alabama’s citizens.
3. Focus first on the priorities.

There is much to address, but beginning with a few clear, critical initiatives is the only way to galvanize the
State to move in the right direction. The Strategy to Action Plan must drive this prioritization.
STANDARDS: For the next year, the core focus must be on the adoption of the Reading and Math Course
of Study at the local level. If teachers understand these standards and align their instruction to them, student
achievement will improve. The ALSDE must implement a detailed Communications, Professional Learning,
and Technical Assistance Plan to support standards adoption. Equally, state testing should be used as an
improvement tool to ensure instruction is aligned to the standards. The ALSDE needs to begin immediately
to prepare to analyze the results of the new state tests and provide critical data to schools and districts.
The ALSDE must ensure local educators have detailed data to examine test results and to connect the test
items to the standards. The release of test items will also be an important tool for local educators. The
ALSDE should also look for ways to disseminate classroom teaching practices that are working across the
state to get results.
STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: The pending PowerSchool implementation has the potential to
substantially impact how schools and districts function. For the first time, all systems, schools and teachers
across Alabama will have access to the same learning management, student information, reporting and
analytics tools. The scale of this initiative is huge. A prioritized focus must be placed on this roll-out to
ensure implementation success.
4. Hold schools and districts accountable.

Student performance and compliance with state and federal requirements is the responsibility of local
schools and districts. The ALSDE must hold all schools and districts accountable for their performance in
an actionable way. Current accountability structures do not incite needed urgency at the local level. For
example, only 38% of all students and 20% of Black students statewide were considered proficient in
Science by Alabama measures in 2019, yet the state received a letter grade of B on the State Report Card.
Accountability and assistance must be closely linked to produce continuous and sustainable improvement.
Strengthen the ALSDE’s ability to provide targeted, coordinated and deep technical assistance for schools
and districts that have demonstrated the inability to do it on their own.
5. Significantly reorganize the ALSDE internally.

Substantial structural changes must occur at the ALSDE to implement the recommendations in this report.
The organizational structure should align with the Strategy to Action Plan and the core function of every
program must be to improve student outcomes. All staff employed by the ALSDE should have the core
skills and competencies needed to do their job well. There needs to be a significant focus on the
professionalization of staff, including a deep investment in staff training. The current hiring process also

needs to be revisited in collaboration with the State Personnel Office. Outdated internal systems and paper-
based practices are unnecessarily time-consuming and limit productivity. Streamlining procedures and
moving to electronic systems across the ALSDE have the potential to significantly improve outputs. More
detailed analysis that outlines reorganizational needs is found in Section VI. Staffing Analysis.
Organization of the Report

The report is divided into eight sections plus an Appendix.
I. Introduction
II. Methodology
III. Core Education Functions
IV. Comparative Analysis with Top NAEP States
V. Inventory and Review of Programs
VI. Staffing Analysis
VII. Priority Recommendations
VIII. Additional Recommendations
Relevant documents and visuals are included in the Appendix.

II. Methodology
PCG performed the following analyses per the requirements in the Request for Proposal for the
Department of Examiners of Public Accounts:
1. Compare and analyze the ALSDE’s functions, programs, policies, funding, and organizational
structure to states whose educational systems perform in the top 10% of the National Assessment
of Education Progress (NAEP).
2. Conduct an inventory and review the ALSDE’s programs.
3. Define the core educational functions of the ALSDE. Determine which programs efficiently and
effectively contribute to the stated mission of the ALSDE.
4. Determine if the ALSDE’s programs are adequately staffed based on stated functions.
5. Make recommendations for improvements to the ALSDE’s policies, function, programs, funding,
and organizational structure.
The goals and objectives of the study were accomplished in three phases:
• Phase 1: Project Launch. PCG met with project leadership from the Examiners Office and the
ALSDE for a work session to establish project expectations. PCG also conducted a kickoff meeting
with the ALSDE staff and spent two days onsite to begin interviews and focus groups.
• Phase 2: Data Collection. PCG spent an additional two weeks in Montgomery conducting
interviews and focus groups with ALSDE stakeholders, collecting documents and data pertaining
to the ALSDE’s programs, operations, and staffing. PCG also conducted phone interviews with
superintendents statewide and education leaders in NAEP states selected for comparison with the
ALSDE.
• Phase 3: Recommendations and Report. PCG prepared draft and final reports of findings that
include recommendations for improvements to the ALSDE’s policies, functions, programs,
organizational structure, funding, and other areas of note.
Data for the study were collected using a range of methods which are described in more detail below.
Interviews and Focus Groups

PCG interviewed a variety of stakeholders. These include ALSDE staff in all programs and across all levels,
as well as legislators, School Board members, a sample of district superintendents statewide, and
commissioners and key staff from eight states selected for closer study due to their success or growth on
NAEP. Overall, we spoke with 145 stakeholders. We spoke with many ALSDE staff on more than one
occasion to dig deeper into particular topics or programs or seek clarifications from our document review
and previous conversations.
Exhibit 1. Interview and Focus Group Stakeholder Data
Stakeholder Group Number of Participants
ALSDE Staff and Stakeholders 103
District Superintendents 16
NAEP State Education Leaders 11

and Staff
State Elected Officials and Staff 17

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants
Total Stakeholders 147
PCG asked a core set of questions among all the ALSDE’s stakeholders and then customized questions
by roles. In order to encourage candor, participants were guaranteed confidentiality and statements in the
report are not be attributed to specific individuals.
PCG took notes during each interview. Those notes were compiled and systematically analyzed to identify
themes within and across stakeholder groups and roles.
Sample Selection
Staff. ALSDE staff were selected to represent all the programs and functions within the Department. PCG
spoke with a wide range of staff of varying reporting levels within the Department. These include the State
Superintendent, leadership team members, directors, administrative assistants and other program staff.
PCG also interviewed staff within the state government who are in oversight of processes or interact with
ALSDE staff.
Superintendents. To ensure representation from the diversity of school districts throughout the state, PCG
used the following criteria to select the 16 superintendents who participated in focus groups: (1)
superintendents representing all regions throughout Alabama; (2) superintendents from urban, rural, and
suburban areas; (3) superintendents who were both elected and appointed; and (4) superintendents new
to their role as well as veteran leaders.
NAEP states and leaders. In collaboration with the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES), PCG
identified the five states that scored in the top 10% of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). PCG contacted state commissioners or their designees and conducted phone interviews with each
about progress in their state. We also interviewed key participants in each state that could provide a historic
perspective on the key reasons for each state’s significant increase in NAEP scores. These states were:
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. In addition, PCG added three
states to our comparative analysis that are geographically close to Alabama and have experienced
significant growth on the NAEP: Florida; Mississippi; and Tennessee.
Documents and Data

In order to develop a baseline understanding of the ALSDE, PCG requested a range of data and documents
including:
• ALSDE Strategic Plan, mission/vision statement, goals, and objectives

• Formal and informal relationships to other state agencies
• Annual Report from the previous year
• Recent audits, auditor’s management letters, and internal audit management reports
• Previous and current management studies and program evaluations
• Budgets over the past three years
• Staffing levels with organizational charts
• Operating procedures and policy manuals
• Personnel classification and pay plan, and performance evaluation program
A comprehensive list of all data and documents reviewed can be found in the Appendix. PCG’s synthesis
of this information is presented within the relevant sections in the body of the report and appendices.

III. Core Education Functions
Task: Define the core educational functions of the ALSDE. Determine which programs
efficiently and effectively contribute to stated mission of ALSDE.
Core Functions
The stated mission of the ALSDE is “Every child a graduate. Every child prepared.” Alabama’s public
schools are responsible for the both academic and social/emotional success of their students, with the end
goal of ensuring all graduates are prepared for life after high school. It is the responsibility of the state
education agency to set the conditions that enable success at the local level.
As such, there are three core educational functions of all state education agencies:
1. Learning Standards for Students

2. Educator Development
3. School and District Accountability
PCG reviewed how the ALSDE as an organization effectively and efficiently contributed to its stated mission
and core functions. Specifically, PCG sought to understand the following:
• Does the ALSDE have a well thought out plan that ties all the various programs and stakeholders
together? Is the plan measurable, timebound, and results-driven?
• Does the ALSDE set strong standards and work to assure districts have curriculum materials
aligned to those standards? Does the ALSDE assure state assessments properly measure content
attainment and hold students to reasonably high standards?
• Does the ALSDE ensure educators are well trained coming in and are provided meaningful
professional development opportunities that enhance their performance in the classroom and result
in student improvement?
• Does the district/school accountability system set reasonable but ambitious goals and outcomes?
Do report cards highlight the key results on assessments, equity, and improvement rates? Is there
structured and targeted support for districts based on accountability outcomes?
Key Findings
PCG identified the following findings related to how the ALSDE’s orientation toward the core functions
effectively and efficiently contribute to the stated mission of the ALSDE.
• While the ALSDE has many plans and planning documents, the Department lacks a single coherent
and actionable strategic plan with measurable outcomes.
• The ALSDE does not have long-term and consistent guiding principles that dictate the work around
which all programs coalesce.
• There has been significant effort to update and adopt new Courses of Study in core content areas.
Coordinated effort is less evident in the dissemination of these standards in a way that will shift
educator practice, including a comprehensive approach to professional learning that is tightly
managed by the ALSDE and the creation of supporting curricular materials.
• There is no Department-wide approach to professional learning. All professional learning is optional
and is most frequently delivered by external partners with limited quality control from the ALSDE.
• Accountability for non-compliance or poor student outcomes is weak and is often described as
having “no teeth.”

• There is not a tight relationship between accountability and assistance. Targeted support is only
currently offered to schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted Support and Improvement
(CSI/TSI) as required by ESSA.
• Given the level of change needed, the ALSDE is making many changes at a rapid pace. Based on
documents reviewed, PCG questions the intentionality and thoughtful planning behind some of
these changes. As one ALSDE staff member aptly stated, “We need to slow down to speed up.”
• There appears to be a focus on adding “inputs” instead of shifting practice.
Student Outcomes
The ALSDE has measures for both Academic Achievement and College and Career Readiness to track
outcomes. In 2019, 66% of students met academic achievement goals and 75% of students graduated with
at least one College and Career Readiness indicator. Students with Limited English Proficiency, Students
with Disabilities, and Students who are Economically Disadvantaged do not see the same rates of success
as their peers.
Exhibit 2. Outcomes for Students by Subgroups
Student Type Academic Achievement College and Career Readiness

All Students 66.15 75.05
Students with Limited English 44.60 26.69
Proficiency
Students with Disabilities 30.34 36.40
Economically Disadvantaged 53.02 62.96
There is an opportunity gap among Black and Hispanic/Latino students when compared to the academic
achievement of their peers. The state’s long-term goal is that 69.6% of students are proficient in reading
and 72% of students are proficient in math by 2030.
Exhibit 3. Student Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity
Black or African American

Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Two or more races
White
Asian
0 20 40 60 80 100
Academic Achievement College & Career Readiness
Based on Alabama indicators, there is continued work that needs to be done to ensure that “every child is
prepared.”
Strategic Planning and Direction

The ALSDE is responsible for setting the strategic plan and direction for all education programming and
improvement across the state. A clear plan of action will carefully define the roles of State Government, the

State Board of Education, the ALSDE, systems and schools, and key partners such as parents and
business groups. The key responsibility for implementation of that plan rests with the ALSDE.
The State Superintendent is currently leading efforts to publish a new strategic plan for the ALSDE. The
Strategic Plan is set to be released late winter 2020. An external consultant is facilitating these efforts. As
part of the strategic planning efforts, the ALSDE requested all stakeholders to take 10 minutes to participate
in the TAKE 10 FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION SURVEY from September 10, 2019 until October 10, 2019.
More than 20,000 respondents expressed their opinions about public education in the state. Respondents
included teachers, administrators, students, legislators, parents, and residents. PCG received response
data from both Parents and Residents. PCG analyzed the responses most relevant to this study below.
Exhibit 4. Take 10 Education Survey Parent Responses
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Student safety is a priority in my district. (n=5,808) 89% 9% 2%
The State Department of Education promotes safety

61% 29% 10%
in school districts. (n=5,766)
My school district prepares students to be successful
68% 21% 11%
after graduation. (n=5,799)
Public education in Alabama prepares students for
46% 43% 11%
success after graduation. (n=5,780)
My school district has the right number of students in
49% 38% 13%
a class to facilitate effective instruction. (n=6,252)
My school district adequately funds the programs that
50% 40% 10%
are important to me. (n=5,794)
The State of Alabama adequately funds public
24% 62% 14%
education. (n=5,774)
The people in our community support the local school
78% 17% 5%
district. (n=5,933)
Agree Disagree Don’t Know
• Parent respondents believe their school district did a better job preparing students to be successful
after graduation than the state as a whole (68% to 46% effectively).
• Only half of parents agreed their school district had the right number of students in a class to be
successful.
• Only a quarter of parent respondents agreed that the “State of Alabama adequately funds public
education.”

Exhibit 5. Take 10 Education Survey Resident Responses
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Student safety is a priority in my district. (n=1,462) 80% 12% 7%
The State Department of Education promotes safety

59% 29% 12%
in school districts. (n=1,443)
My school district prepares students to be successful

62% 32% 6%
after graduation. (n=1,461)
Public education in Alabama prepares students for

51% 38% 11%
success after graduation. (n=1,456)
My school district adequately funds the programs that

41% 48% 11%
are important to me. (n=1,449)
The State of Alabama adequately funds public

20% 74% 6%
education. (n=1,451)
The people in our community support the local school

71% 25% 4%
district. (n=1,462)
Agree Disagree Don’t Know
• Half of all resident respondents believed that “Alabama prepares students for success after
graduation.”
• Only 41% of resident respondents believe their school district funds programs that are important to
them.
• Only 20% of resident respondents agreed that the “State of Alabama adequately funds public
education.”
The ALSDE program staff expressed a desire to better understand Department priorities and direction and
are anxious to learn about the new strategic plan. As one ALSDE staff member stated, “Staff want to support
the administration, but we don’t know what they want. We are provided information piece by piece and staff
have to stitch it together.”
As part of this study, PCG received and reviewed a large number of strategic plans, task force reports, and
other plans for specific initiatives. Other strategic planning documents were found on either the ALSDE or
Regional In-Service Center (RIC) websites. Progress appeared to vary on plan implementation, with some
having strong implementation success and others with no or limited implementation. There was limited
alignment between these plans. A sample of these documents is included below.
Strategic Plans, Task Force Reports or Other Planning Documents:
• PLAN 2020 Strategic Plan (2012)

• Alabama Ascending Strategic Plan (2017)
• Alabama Strategic Mathematics Planning Committee (2017)
• Strategic Planning Committee for Science (2017)
• Strategic Planning for Reading (2017)
• ALSDE Organization Effectiveness Study (2017)
• ESSA State Plan (2018)

• AMSTI Strategic Plan (September 2019)

• Teacher Shortage Task Force Recommendations (September 2019)
• Alabama Teacher Shortage Taskforce Report/Recommendations (September 2019)
• ALSDE Educators Certification Process Assessment (November 2019)
• A Strategic Plan for STEM Education (November 2019)
• ARI Literacy Act Plan (November 2019)
• Math Coach Plan (December 2019)
• RMC Comprehensive Draft for Logic Models and Planning in Math, Early Literacy, and ELL
(December 2019)- Region 7 Comprehensive Centers
• Mental Health Plan (January 2020)
• State Strategic Plan (Spring 2020) – DRAFT
PCG reviewed the goals of both the 2012 and 2017 ALSDE Strategic Plans. In both instances, the goals
and identified strategic activities appear to align to the core functions of the Department. The ALSDE
website currently has interactive PLAN 2020 Dashboards on several indicators. These dashboards were
last updated with 2016 data. PCG did not find any evidence of progress or outcomes tracking for the 2017
Alabama Ascending Strategic Plan.
Exhibit 6. ALSDE Strategic Plans
Plan Name Strategic Goals
PLAN 2020 • Improve Student Growth and Achievement

• Close the Achievement Gap
(2012)
• Increase the Graduation Rate
• Increase the number of students that are college and career ready and prepared
to be successful in our global society
Alabama • A prepared graduate

Ascending • Multiple Pathways to higher education and careers
• Superior education preparation
(2017)
• Continuous improvement of world class educators
• Equitable and accountable systems
• Healthy and safe systems and schools
• Engaged families and communities
Alabama • In progress
Achieves
(2020)
Alabama State ESSA Plan
The purpose of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) is to provide all children
significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational
achievement gaps. ESSA went into effect for the 2017-2018 school year. Alabama submitted their
ESSA plan in 2017. Subsequent to the submission, the USDOE has requested changes focused on
teacher evaluations. The new teacher evaluation plan will be resubmitted by 2021. The most recent
Alabama ESSA State Plan was approved November 15, 2019.

The ALSDE website also notes the 2017 ESSA Plan was aligned to the goals and strategies in Alabama
Ascending. Based on conversations with the ALSDE and a review of the working draft, it does not appear
that Alabama Achieves will have close alignment to the state’s federal plan. Accountability outcomes are
tracked per federal requirements. While progress towards specific strategies might be tracked at the
program level, based on PCG’s interviews, it appears that overall or comprehensive tracking of
strategies/implementation is not occurring.
The chart below highlights the focus areas of Alabama’s plan. The right column is a high-level
overview of the focus areas of the ESSA plan. The ESSA plan has other components that the ALSDE
will be required to report progress to the USDOE on an annual basis. The left column includes
potential addendums currently under consideration by the ALSDE. These changes have not yet been
submitted to the USDOE. PCG agrees these proposed changes would strengthen the current ESSA
Plan.
Exhibit 7. Alabama’s ESSA Plan Highlights, 2017 and Addendums under Consideration
ESSA COMPONENTS PRESENT IN ALABAMA’S 2017 PLAN

with Considered Addendums by the ALSDE
Chronic absenteeism: Percent of

Accountability Measures within School students with 15 or more absences per
Quality/Success year.
College and Career Readiness: Six

indicators of college and career readiness
currently utilized include achieving a
benchmark score on the ACT, scoring a 3, 4,
or 5 on an Advanced Placement
exam/scoring a 4, 5, 6, or 7 on an
International Baccalaureate exam, scoring
silver level or above on ACT Work Keys,
earning a college credit while still in high
school, earning an Industry Credential, or
being accepted for enlistment into any
branch of the military.
School Report Cards: School grades will

be assigned to each school with a grade
from A-F. Report card grades are a
combination of many factors focused on
College and Career Readiness.
School Improvement Alabama created the Office of School

(Title I Part A Recommendations for Improvement and Turnaround (OSIT) in the
Changes to Plan) Division of Teaching and Learning. The
structure will allow for differentiated and tiered
1. Refocus/Refine professional learning support and intervention for every school
opportunities utilizing technology where receiving Title I, Part A funds within the state
possible while moving to more based on multiple performance levels
regional/local offerings that are aligned beginning 2018-2019.
to identified needs
Title 1 public schools with a graduation rate
2. Add/Strengthen language for: 10% below the state average will be identified
• All aspects of educating students as comprehensive support schools. The OSIT


with disabilities has identified a number of evidence-based
• All aspects of educating students in practices to increase graduation rate. Those
various at-risk categories and related to health and wellness include:
designations
• Focus on attendance data.
• The Arts • Create a culture in high schools
• The health and well-being of all where every adult embraces and
students shares a collective responsibility for
• Creating quality assessments the academic success of all
through input from a Stakeholder students, not just their individual
Advisory Group and Technical students.
Advisory Panel • Foster supportive relationships to
• Reducing remediation rates for ease the transition from middle
students graduating from high school grades to high school.
and attending college
• Assess and refine disciplinary
• Remove any barriers to learning practices.
facing students from military families
To address school culture, student behavior
and discipline infractions, Alabama will
address the following goals (selection):
• Design and implement

alternatives to in-school and out
of-school suspensions.
• Create restorative justice
practices.
• Project Creating Effective
School Climates and
Cultures (CESCC)- work
with LEAs, Parents, and
Information Centers to
provide professional
development to general and
special education teachers and
staff who work with
students with disabilities.
• Train LEAs on Positive Behavior
Supports philosophy (PBIS).
• Identify and promote activities to address

School Improvement (cont.) bullying and other negative behaviors.
Provide a safe and secure school.
• Improve attendance and reduce truancies:
• Participate in School
Attendance Awareness
Month, a national effort
conducted by
Attendance Works.
• Discover the latest research on
chronic absences.
• Glean strategies and tools to


address chronic absences.
• Identify opportunities to
implement what is learned.
• Reduce the number of students
ranking as chronically absent or
truant.
Professional Development The Alabama State Department of Education

(Recommended Revisions (ALSDE) will use Title II, Part A state-level
for Changes to Plan) activities funds to support the continuous
improvement of world class educators.
1. Added principals and other leaders Activities directed for usage with Title II
2. Provide online, face-to-face, job- funds will support building capacity and
embedded, and sustained professional sustainability to improve student achievement
learning opportunities, as well as pre- by providing resources that focus on delivering
service training, and professional high-quality professional learning to educators
learning. Additionally, focus on educator across the state.
preparation/program evaluations. State
Department of Education personnel and Alabama does not intend to use Title II,
education stakeholder groups will Part A state-level funds to improve equitable
identify needs for the above. access to effective teachers; however,
3. Discontinue the Annual MEGA Alabama promotes equitable access to
Conference and refocus resources to effective teachers, principals and leaders
move local and regional venues focused through the leveraging of other Federal,
on more locally and regionally identified State, and local funding.
needs
Well-Rounded Education The ALSDE will use Title IV, Part A, Subpart
1 state-level funds to support activities to
address behaviors identified through the
ALSDE’s data collection sources such as
Attendance Reports, School Safety Reports,
Student Health Reports and Students Incident
Reports (discipline). Examples of state
activities include (but are not limited to):
• Promoting parent and community

involvement.
• Providing school-based mental health
services and counseling.
• Promoting supportive school
climates to reduce the use of
exclusionary discipline and
promoting supportive school
discipline.
• Identifying and utilizing strategies to
address chronic absenteeism.
• Implementing programs that support
a healthy, active lifestyle (nutritional
and physical education).


• Implementing systems and practices to
prevent bullying and harassment.
• Developing relationship-building
skills to help improve safety
through the recognition and
prevention of coercion,
violence, or abuse.
• Establishing community partnerships.
The SEA reserves 5% for administration and

state-level activities. State-level activity funds
will be used for the Auburn University
Truman-Pierce Institute contract. The state-
level activity funds will also be used for salaries
and benefits for four Technical Advisors who
provide statewide technical assistance to
grantees.
School and District Accountability

The ALSDE is responsible for the educational and fiscal oversight of Alabama’s schools and districts. There
are currently multiple, but not necessarily aligned, accountability systems in place to hold schools and
districts accountable for student success. In addition, compliance monitoring occurs to track district
compliance of state and federal requirements. Current accountability systems under the ALSDE are
inconsistent and frequently described by ALSDE staff as “lacking teeth.”
The section reviews four primary accountability systems and actions employed by the ALSDE. These are:
1. The Education Report Card

2. The Alabama Accountability Act
3. Comprehensive Support and Improvement
4. Intervention
Schools with a D or F Report Card Grade and/or on the “Failing Schools” list do not receive targeted or
systemic support from the ALSDE.
Education Report Card

The Education Report Card uses data indicators to inform stakeholders of the quality of education students
receive in Alabama.
Alabama Act No. 2012-402 requires the State Superintendent of Education to develop a school grading
system reflective of school and district performance. This law requires the state to use state-authorized
assessments and other key performance indicators that give a total profile of the school or school district,
or both. A school’s grade, at a minimum shall be based on a combination of Academic Achievement,
Academic Growth, Graduation Rate, College and Career Readiness, and Chronic Absenteeism.
Federal requirements under ESSA require a similar accountability system. This Accountability System must
include indicators that measure Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, Graduation Rate, Progress in
English Language Proficiency, and a measure of school quality or student success. Alabama’s approved
ESSA plan merges the requirements of both state and federal law into one Accountability System that
differentiates among the schools and districts within Alabama.

Analysis of the 2019 Education Report Card identified the following grading trends:
• 64% of schools and districts received an A or B.

• 11% of schools and districts received a D or F, with only 2% receiving an F. All 23 Fs are schools,
distributed among elementary, middle and high schools.
• No school district received a grade of F. The school districts of Barbour County, Bessemer City and
Tarrant City all received Ds.
• While Barbour County received a district grade of D, all schools in the district received a grade of
F.
Exhibit 8. 2019 School District Education Report Card Scores (Total Counts and Distributions)
Grade Count Distribution
A 296 20%
B 636 44%
C 372 26%
D 124 9%
F 23 2%
Alabama received a grade of B on the State Report Card. The Alabama State Report Card gives the highest
weight to graduation rates at 30%. In our review, only 7 out of all 50 states weighted this indicator as 30%
or higher. The next two highest indicator weights are academic achievement (20%) and academic growth
(25%). Student outcomes by certain subgroups raised questions about how equity and the opportunity gap
is presented on the Report Card.
• Only 28% of Black and 28% of Hispanic students were considered proficient in Reading in 2019.
• Only 28% of Black and 37% of Hispanic students were considered proficient in Math in 2019.
• Only 20% of Black and 26% of Hispanic students were considered proficient in Science in 2019.
It is worth noting that on multiple occasions over the course of this project the Report Card link was broken
or inaccessible on the ALSDE website.
Alabama Accountabilty Act (AAA)

The Alabama Accountability Act (2015-434) identifies “Failing Schools.” “Failing Schools” are the bottom
6% of Alabama public schools annually based on the state’s standardized assessment in reading, English,
and math. There are 76 schools on this list each year. 92% of children who attend these schools are Black.
There is a school choice option for families who attend these schools. There is no alignment between
schools on this list and the Education Report Card.
There is also a provision for Innovation Schools under this law. The goals of Innovation Schools are to allow
school systems greater flexibility in meeting the educational needs of a diverse student population and
encourage innovation by providing greater control at the local level. Based on the ALSDE website and
interviews, it does not appear that any Innovation Plans/Flexibility waivers have been given since 2016.
Comprehensive Support and Improvement

Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (CSI) are identified every three years beginning in
2018-19, and are schools that meet any of these criteria:

• CSI schools: Title I schools in the bottom 6 percent statewide based on overall summative
accountability score (A through F letter grade) or Title I schools with a history of being among the
bottom 6 percent statewide, based on overall summative accountability score, for three years
• CSI high schools: Any school with a graduation rate more than 10 percentage points below the
state average, or with a graduation rate below 67 percent
• Additional CSI schools: Title I schools that do not exit additional CSI status after three years
• CSI-Returning (CSI-R): Schools that do not exit CSI status after four years
Schools with a D or F Report Card Grade and/or on the “Failing Schools” list do not receive targeted or
systemic support from the ALSDE.
The following chart is the total distribution of funds to all school districts that have a school or schools that
received CSI dollars in 2019. The Appendix includes a table that displays how CSI designated schools have
used those funds. The Appendix also includes a table that displays each CSI school’s academic target
attainment on multiple measures.
Exhibit 9. Districts and Total CSI Allocations, 2019
District Total Allocation

Barbour County $123,121.00
Eufaula City $260,041.00
Butler County $288,167.00
Daleville City $212,809.00
Dallas County $396,081.52
Gadsden City $189,989.00
Greene County $164,940.00
Dothan City $492,485.00
Bessemer City $312,049.00
Birmingham City $2,324,445.00
Jefferson County $617,729.00
Lawrence County $60,499.00
Macon County $159,739.00
Huntsville City $881,484.00
Mobile County $289,760.00
Montgomery County $3,848,601.00
Sumter County $175,129.00
Tuscaloosa County $351,851.00
The Office of School Improvement (OSI) provides on the ground support to CSI schools rather than only
taking a compliance role. There are six full-time staff on this team. While support to districts is prioritized
because of limited staff, no request is denied, but rather support is differentiated based on need and
individual requests. Moreover, the Office also monitors improvement based on the school/district plan.
Currently, there are 61 Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI) schools within the state. The OSI helps
schools draft their action plans that address indicators on the School Report Card including chronic
absence, student achievement, success of English Learner, graduation rate and career readiness. Training
and coaching may focus on: using data; scheduling; standards-based grading; evidence-based strategies;
formative assessments; teacher and leader professional learning; classroom observations; student

attendance; school climate; and RTI. In addition, OSI staff provide instructional reviews and facilitate the
Transformation Academy.
The Transformation Academy provides summer training to cohorts of CSI schools. In the 2019-2020 school
year, Cohort IV will begin training and support. The training consists of four sessions in which the schools
develop a 90-day short plan to be implemented over 13 weeks. The focus is to rapidly affect change in
targeted aspects of instruction. The long-term goal is to implement a continuous improvement cycle as well
as implement permanent structures and routines, leading to sustained growth. The four Academy Sessions
are focused on:
• Session 1: Establish Practice-Focused Collaboration

• Session 2: Map the Instructional System
• Session 3: See through the Students’ Eyes
• Session 4: Internalize and Innovate
Schools are eligible for a “deeper dive” after the initial training. The annual MEGA Conference hosted by
the ALSDE provides more opportunities for schools that attended the Transformation Academy to review
practices outlined during the four sessions.
The School Improvement Team noted there are trends surfacing for CSI schools. The CSI School trends
are: (1) higher teacher and leader turnover; (2) many uncertified staff and long-term substitutes employed
by the school; (3) a high level of rigor not present during instruction; (4) low levels of collective efficacy; (5)
high chronic absenteeism; (6) little evidence of RTI or MTSS structures; (7) district leaders assuming
multiple roles; (8) needed mental health supports; and (9) low parental involvement. To improve overall
outcomes, the Office of School Improvement will have to support schools to address the issues in low
performing schools.
When analyzing the school improvement strategies implemented at CSI Schools, it was clear that many
schools/districts used their allocation to purchase equipment or hire staff, including administrative staff, at
both the school and central office level. Many of the expenditures do not address the trends that are being
identified by the OSI team. Expecting low performing districts to adhere to evidence-based practices such
as implementing curriculum aligned with ALSDE standards and assessments; establishing strong
leadership; using data to set goals and drive instruction for all students; developing and retaining a high-
quality staff that can improve instruction; and implementing a plan to establish a positive school culture and
climate that embraces high academic expectations should be a priority. Too few of the strategies in school
plans are focused on evidence-based practices that will have a significant impact on improving student
outcomes.
Intervention
In February 2017, the Alabama State Board of Education voted unanimously to intervene into Montgomery
Public Schools (MPS). The State Superintendent has intervening authority that covers the entire district for
a five-year period. PCG found District and School qualitative reviews from 2017 on the ALSDE website.
These reviews were conducted by an external consultant, Class Measures. At that time, MPS was rated as
“inadequate” or “requires improvement” on all measures. There is no other indication of intervention activity
after 2017 on the ALSDE or Montgomery Public School’s websites for PCG’s reference. The Montgomery
Intervention did not emerge as a discussion topic in interviews or focus groups with ALSDE staff. An August
22, 2018 Montgomery Advertiser article provided PCG with a detailed description on all activity related to
the intervention through Summer 2018. PCG does understand that the ALSDE worked closely to identify
and support a Chief Financial Officer who addressed the significant financial concerns facing the district.
A recent February 7, 2020 article in the Montgomery Advertiser indicates the ALSDE may remove MPS
from intervention status in the coming months due to recent gains in academic performance, improved
finances and new leadership. The 2019 qualitative review from Cognia (formerly Class

Measures/AdvancedED) is anticipated to show improvement from the 2017 review. This release from
intervention would be two years early, at the three-year mark.
Alabama’s approach to intervention is less prescriptive than in some other states. In Massachusetts, for
example, if a district is chronically underperforming, the commissioner appoints a new leader, called a
receiver, who is granted the powers of the superintendent and school committee. The receiver reports
directly to the commissioner and is held accountable for improving the education in every school in the
district for the benefit of all students. The receiver is permitted to make changes in district policies and
practices through a required turnaround plan. Prior to a full intervention, Massachusetts uses a tiered
approach with varying levels of intervention intensity based on district need. About 15% of all schools in
state receive either focused or comprehensive support.
LEA Perception of Accountability and Assistance

PCG interviewed 16 current superintendents serving LEAs across the state. Interviews occurred over seven
focus groups. The goal of the interviews was to determine the ALSDE’s impact on school district operations
and outcomes, the level of satisfaction with ALSDE service among districts, and to identify areas where
superintendents believe change is needed to support improved student outcomes within their districts.
To ensure representation from the diversity in school districts throughout the state, PCG used the following
criteria to select superintendent focus group participants: (1) superintendents representing all regions
throughout Alabama; (2) superintendents from urban, rural, and suburban areas; (3) superintendents who
were both elected and appointed; and (4) superintendents new to their role as well as veteran leaders.
During each focus group, superintendents were asked to respond to the same series of questions.
Responses were analyzed and then placed into themes for each question. Themes from the data analysis
are outlined below.
Experience with the ALSDE

Perceived Strengths
• Experienced Leadership:
o 100% of superintendents in the focus groups stated that Dr. Mackey’s leadership at the
ALSDE has been positive for district superintendents. Dr. Mackey and his team’s
understanding of both urban and rural districts has provided supports in areas that have
been a struggle.
o Dr. Mackey’s Core Leadership Team (CLT) is experienced and understands district issues,
as they have all held the role of superintendent within Alabama.
• Communication with Core Leadership Team
o Dr. Mackey and his CLT are highly responsive to inquiries made by superintendents. 100%
of focus groups stated that they had direct access to the CLT members. This personal
access ensures questions are answered quickly and accurately.
• Hands on Support:
o Members of the CLT go directly into districts to help resolve issues that need immediate
attention. In addition, CLT members or their program leaders will personally address an
issue to ensure it is brought to the attention of the Department member who can provide
the supports to address the issue immediately.
• Relationship and Trust Building:
o Dr. Mackey has built trust with the district superintendents. He focuses on relationship
building, which has not always been the case with other state superintendents in the past.
o Superintendents’ comments included: “it is nice to have confidence in the state leadership,”
“they will work with you and help you with your district’s problems,” and that is “the kind of
relationship the Department should have with their districts.”

Opportunities for Improvement
• Communication at the ALSDE:

o While communication from the core leadership was deemed very helpful, 100% of focus
groups stated that communication within the rest of the ALSDE is a challenge.
o Superintendents noted that there does not appear to be an overall communications
strategy by the ALSDE. One focus group member stated, “When you run a State
Department of Education, communication should be a key thing.”
o Multiple weekly memos from the ALSDE are standard. Superintendents stated that there
are so many memos that it is difficult to keep up and read them all. The ALSDE many times
will “package the memos,” resulting in 20 memos in one package. Some of the memos
contain important information while others may be about “Bike Safety Week.” It appears
memos are not prioritized based on critical areas to know.
o There is a lack of consistency from various departments in the information they provide.
Different departments provide different answers to the same question. The mixed
messages cause confusion within districts.
• Expertise and Alignment
o The ALSDE is perceived to have a difficult time finding the expertise in the field to lead
departments. This lack of deep content knowledge inhibits the ALSDE’s credibility with
districts.
• PowerSchool Rollout
o While there are PowerSchool trainings scheduled, there is a fear that there will be glitches
when districts transition from Chalkable. More training and support for districts are needed
to ensure all LEAs are ready for the change.
Interaction with the ALSDE

Perceived Strengths
• Support on Compliance Issues

o Superintendents interact with the ALSDE on compliance issues more than anything else.
They believe their district receives the necessary supports to ensure they are being
compliant with state and federal laws.
• ALSDE Directory
o Superintendents expressed frustration regarding who they or members of their staff should
call at the Department to have their questions answered. Many directly call Dr. Mackey or
the Core Leadership Team (CLT) to point them in the right direction. Having a clear
directory that is updated regularly would be helpful. With staffing changes at the ALSDE,
many Superintendents do not know who is there and which department they lead.
• Regional Meeting Locations
o Alabama is a geographically large state and asking superintendents and their staff to drive
5-6 hours each way for a meeting in Montgomery is not always possible. Moving statewide
meetings to different regions throughout the school year would be more equitable for
districts located the furthest away.
Supports from the ALSDE

Perceived Strengths
• Task Force Convenings

o The ALSDE has placed a greater emphasis on getting more input from superintendents
throughout the state. There has been a strong direction from Dr. Mackey on convening

task forces to provide superintendent voices at the table. Recent Task Forces include:
Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Shortage, and Assessment. The Department has been
putting together groups to get the perspective from school systems. This is the first time
that has occurred, and their inclusion is much appreciated by superintendents.
• Regional In-Service Centers

o The quality of regional centers varies across the state. Many superintendents stated they
do not use their Regional In-Service Centers (RICs) for professional development because
the offerings do not align to their local needs.
o The creation of professional development from the RICs is not consistently aligned to
ALSDE or LEA priorities. In many instances, LEAs have experienced very limited
communication from the RICs regarding their districts’ professional learning needs.
Typically, they receive a menu of professional learning options that do not align to their
district goals. As a result, districts often provide training either internally or through an
outside vendor.
o Superintendents from smaller, more rural districts who do not have the resources to pay
outside vendors reported using the Regional In-Service Center resources more frequently
and found value in the RICs services.
Recognition
Perceived Strengths
• Multiple Opportunities
o The ALSDE provides multiple opportunities to recognize teachers and districts. Some of
the recognition opportunities came directly from the ALSDE while others came from other
professional organizations.
• Provide Better Communication

o There was a significant gap in superintendents’ knowledge of recognition and awards.
Some had extensive information while others had no idea what was available and how to
get involved. Providing more structured communication through the ALSDE and other
professional organizations will help districts that would like more involvement.
Change Recommendations from Superintendents

• Consistency
o The ALSDE needs to be more consistent in their messaging as well as in their approach
to district supports. Superintendents become frustrated when there are different answers
from various Department staff, when the ALSDE changes state assessments and LEAs
struggle to keep up, and when staff turnover affects the consistency of program
implementation.
• Preparedness
o Superintendents stated that the ALSDE frequently rolls out new initiatives before they are
fully conceptualized. Superintendents reported they often felt a lack of clarity on how to
communicate the purpose and messaging of new statewide initiatives to their district.
• Focus
o There needs to be more focused support targeted to the areas of literacy and numeracy. It
should be intentional and provide resources and support for all districts.

• Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and Alabama Math Science Technology Initiative (AMSTI)
o Both programs were heralded by superintendents as difference makers when they began
their implementation. However, due to the lack of funding and the inability to service
districts as they did before the budget cuts, superintendents are frustrated and would like
to see additional supports and resources coming from both groups. The poor NAEP math
scores and the Alabama Literacy Law are pressing on the districts to improve student
outcomes and they need changes in service delivery and supports to make that happen.
Additional Needs
The following areas were shared as critical district needs that would help improve educational services.
• Mental Health Services. There are challenges throughout districts addressing the mental health
issues of the youth attending school. Districts cannot fully support students the way they need to
without additional resources.
• Guidance Counselors, Social Workers and School Nurses. In order to support mental health
issues, there need to be school-based staff who focus on prevention and support. Including more
of these types of professionals within districts and schools will prevent some of the escalation of
student issues that are being addressed in schools throughout the state.
• Professional Development. Professional development is perceived as reactionary to new
legislation.
• English Learner (EL) Supports. The EL population is growing in many districts and there is a
need for more ALSDE guidance.
• Special Education Resources. Districts are struggling with the increasing numbers and
complexity of needs of students receiving special education services. Districts want more technical
assistance, additional resources and funding to better serve this population.
• Certified Teachers. Superintendents need help recruiting teachers. They reported struggling to fill
positions with high quality, certified staff.
• Pre-K Alignment. LEAs state a lack of alignment between Pre-K expectations from the Department
of Early Childhood Education and guidance from the ALSDE.
Educator Quality
Educator Recruitment and Retention
The Alabama Teacher Shortage Task Force convened in 2019 to develop a comprehensive approach to
ensuring every classroom has an excellent, highly qualified teacher. The group met seven times over a six-
month period. The Teacher Shortage Task Force Report was published in September 2019. Key findings
included:
• 30% of all classrooms are being taught by teachers teaching out of field, having neither a major
nor a minor in the field.
• Since 2010, there has been a 40% decrease in students entering teacher education programs.
• 8% of teachers leave the profession each year.
• Only 523 secondary first time teaching certificates were issued in Alabama during the 2017-18
school year.
The report includes 33 recommendations—23 for recruiting teachers and 10 for retaining them. As of
January 2020, the ALSDE was still working on a comprehensive plan for implementing these
recommendations.
There is a new MOU with Teachers of Tomorrow to explore alternative certification opportunities. As of
January 2020, no school districts have elected to form a partnership with them.

There was noted concern of an aging educator work force in Alabama. The following graph highlights this
concern. Statewide, the age of educators ranges between 19 and 87. Teachers between the ages of 35-49
accounted for 46.0% of the educator population. Teachers ages 50+ accounted for 27.3% of the educator
population.
Exhibit 10. Educator Age Distribution
2000
1800
1600
No. of Teachers
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Age
Years of educator experience ranged from 0 to 59. Teachers with ten or more years of certified public
experience accounted for 56.6% of the educator population. Teachers with zero to four years of certified
public experience accounted for 25.9% of the overall educator population. Teachers with five to nine years
of certified experience accounted for 17.5% of the educator population.
Exhibit 11. Educator Years of Experience Distribution
4,000
3,500
3,000
No. of Teachers
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Years of Experience
Educator Effectiveness
The ALSDE is currently in the process of redesigning the Educator Evaluation System to better align to
ESSA guidelines per USDOE request. The Teacher Effectiveness Task Force first convened on October
22, 2019 and again on January 22, 2020 to begin this work. The initial timeline assumed recommendations
in March 2020 to the SBOE for an August 2020 pilot. The ALSDE was granted an extension to pilot in
January 2021.

To support the Educator Evaluation taskforce process, Alabama Super Computer (contractor) is working
on a demo that may potentially be used with the new evaluation system once the taskforce and the ALSDE
have decided what system is deemed appropriate for the state. The mock demo will denote the data
collection process for evaluators, which will be representative of a full evaluation of educators that meet the
guidelines of ESSA.
Educator Evaluation Timeline:
Educator Learning
ALSDE MEGA Conference
The Alabama State Department of Education’s MEGA Conference is a week-long professional
development conference in which local, state, and nationally known presenters from all facets of education
provide learning experiences to teachers and administrators. 3,600 educators attended the conference in
2019. The conference goal is to increase student learning and achievement.
The MEGA Conference Committee represents each department in the ALSDE. The ALSDE Mega
Conference Committee is responsible for all components of planning including arranging hotel
accommodations, vendors, registration procedures, equipment, contracts, and transportation. The
Conference Committee also maintains the conference website, an app for participants to utilize, registration
procedures, and provides surveys for attendees to rate the various sessions at the close of the conference.
There is a significant level of effort to plan and execute a conference of this size. The conference is funded
through use of Title II and special education funds, vendor sponsorship, and nominal participant registration
fees.
In July 2019, there were total of 304 sessions offered. Session topics were diverse, highlighting many
aspects of education. Sessions included various content areas, and included technical assistance,
professional learning, and ALSDE updates. Session length was either 90 minutes, half day, or full day. For
the purpose of the analysis, sessions were grouped into 22 discrete categories, with the final category
entitled ‘Miscellaneous,’ which included sessions that did not fit within the parameters of the other
categories.
• Accountability had the lowest representation with 1% of the sessions while Special Education had
the highest percentage of sessions at 18%.
• Most session categories (17 out of 22) were represented 5% or less during the week-long
conference.

• Sessions offered least frequently included Math (3%), School Improvement (3%), and Assessment
(5%).
• Most sessions (74%) were 90 minutes in length. 8% of the sessions were full-day and 6 hours in
length.
Exhibit 12. Number of MEGA Conference Sessions by Category
Miscellaneous 18
Nursing 17
Certification and Prof Growth 11
Early Childhood 5
Tech 12
Other Curriculum (Science, STEM, Arts) 10
PowerSchool 6
Instructional Strategies- (Generic) 16
RTI/MTSS 6
ELL 6
School Improvement 9
Gifted 8
Special Ed 54
Federal and Compliance 15
Accountability 4
Assessment 14
Counseling-Guidance 7
Data 15
CTE 7
Prevention and Support 34
Math 9
Reading ELA 21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Exhibit 13. Length of MEGA Conference Sessions
Full Day
Sessions
6%
Half Day
Sessions
18%
90 minute
sessions
76%
Research shows that most professional development offered to educators does not have the desired
outcomes. Professional development is considered ineffective because it neither changes practice nor

improves student learning. However, research suggests that effective professional development is possible
by following these best practices:
• Ensure the duration of professional development is significant and ongoing, allowing time for
educators to learn a new strategy and work through any implementation problems;
• Provide on-going support during the implementation stage that addresses the specific challenges
of changing classroom practice;
• Create engaging activities during educators’ early exposure to a concept during initial professional
development. The professional learning should provide various opportunities for educators to
experience the new learning; and
• Use modeling whenever possible as it has been found to be a highly effective strategy to introduce
a new concept and help educators understand new practices. Modeling can be face to face or
through video exemplars.1
If the goal of the MEGA Conference is to increase student learning and achievement for all in attendance,
based on the research cited above, 90-minute sessions will not be an effective means for attaining those
outcomes.
When reviewing statewide professional development practices of other NAEP sample states, it does not
appear any employ a professional development model similar to the MEGA Conference. Most professional
learning is geared toward specific groups (i.e., special education, school improvement, federal programs)
to ensure the sessions are highly focused and align with the Department’s goals. Many of the convenings
are geared to school or district teams often in a multi-day format to ensure the learning is truly collaborative
and shared within LEAs.
The MEGA Conference’s model is similar to a national conference model where there are hundreds of
sessions and thousands of attendees. However, with that model in mind, well-regarded national
conferences have a theme, such as Innovate for Impact or Personalization of Education, in which sessions
and keynote speakers align their content. Therefore, there is more of a cohesive offering of professional
learning throughout the conference sessions.
Alabama Regional In-Service Center Summary

The Alabama Regional In-Service Centers (RICs) were established by the legislature in 1984. The
RICs were created to serve and support public school educators with high quality professional learning
and support. There are eleven (11) Regional In-Service Centers in Alabama, which are located in
higher education institutions throughout the state. They represent a partnership between higher
education, local districts, and the ALSDE. State law (Act 87-714) asserts that each RIC’s operational
schedule, programming, and budget allocations are subject to the authority and oversight of an
independent governing board made up of representation from regional LEAs, the affiliated higher
education institution, and the ALSDE. As outlined in legislation, the governing board’s role includes:
• In cooperation with the ALSDE, determine policies for the operation of the RICs including days
and hours of operation;
• Approve programs and activities that address needs as identified by needs assessments
and/or student achievement data;
• Approve the RIC’s annual budget;
• Approve consultants as requested by LEAs;
1
Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Effective Professional Development in an Era of High Stakes Accountability. Alexandria, VA. The Center
of Public Education. Retrieved from: http://conference.ohioschoolboards.org/2017/wp-
content/uploads/sites/17/2016/07/1pm111317A114Job-embedPD.pdf

• Delegate the RIC director the authority and responsibility for the daily operation, including the
development and maintenance of records (i.e., financial, programmatic) and the coordination
of programs and activities; and
• Approve the annual report of the RIC’s programs and activities.
In 2017, the “ARIC Subcommittee of the SJR86 Committee” reviewed, refined, and added additional
standards and responsibilities for all Regional In-Service Centers. In 2019, the State Board of
Education reviewed and approved the 2019 Regional In-Service Center Accountability Standards. As
of January 2020, the 2019 RIC Accountability Standards have not been publicized. They are not
located on any Regional In-Service Center website or the ALSDE’s website. In one instance, a RIC
posted a notice under Accountability Standards that read, “Coming soon—the recently revised
accountability standards for Alabama’s Regional In-Service Centers.” No other Regional In-Service
Center references the Accountability Standards on their websites.
During the review of each Regional In-Service Center website, it was noted that there was a high level
of variability of each site especially considering the regional support centers were created from the
same legislation. The analysis of the RICs’ websites and professional learning offerings showed the
following:
• Professional Development offered at the RICs vary in depth and breadth. There is only
one program area in which all centers (11 out of 11) align, that is the Alabama Math,
Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) programs. RICs not only provide professional
development, they also provide space to house science kits belonging to the program.
AMSTI programs also include Alabama Science in Motion (ASIM) and Alabama
Technology in Motion (TIM).
• Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) professional development is offered at 5 out of the 11
centers, less than 50%.
• Popular offerings at RICs include National Board-Certified Teacher (NBCT) training,
PowerSchool training, book studies, and lending libraries.
• There are only 3 out of 11 RICs (27%) that have easily accessible professional
development calendars located on their website displaying each month’s trainings. Other
sites use various formats to display their professional development offerings including lists
created on Word documents, offerings embedded into their website, or drop-down menus.
Some sites (3 out of 11) have no information posted regarding upcoming sessions. 4 out
of 7 have outdated sessions listed, on one site going back to 2015.
Educational Standards
The ALSDE works closely with educators to establish Courses of Study (COS) for each content area.
Courses of Study are educational standards that demonstrate what students should know and should be
able to do at each grade level. An ALSDE Course of Study is not meant to be used as a district’s curriculum,
but rather as a resource to develop and align their own curriculum.
The ALSDE engages in a process when reviewing and creating new Courses of Study that includes
collaboration with the Instructional Services Section and additional sections as needed. In addition, the
ALSDE invites other stakeholders (i.e. teachers, leaders, parents) from around the state to apply to serve
on the Study Committee.
Information is lacking regarding the COS development process on the ALSDE website. Below is the most
current list of the Courses of Study, but there is no timeline or schedule for the review process for each
content area.

Exhibit 14. Course of Study List
Alabama Course of Study/Standards Year of Additional Information/Comments

Approval
Alabama Course of Study: Driver and 2007

Traffic Safety Education
Alabama Course of Study: Career and 2008 There is a Study Committee being formed to
Technical Education update the CTE Course of Study during the
2020-2021 school year.
Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies 2010 It has been ten (10) years since the last time
the Social Studies Course of Study was
updated. The content has been delayed due
to other course of studies that were prioritized.
Alabama Course of Study: Science 2015
Revised Alabama Course of Study: English 2016 There is a Study Committee being formed to
Language Arts update the ELA Course of Study during the
2020-2021 school year.
Alabama Course of Study: Arts Education 2017
Alabama Course of Study: Languages 2017

Other than English
Alabama Course of Study: Digital Literacy 2018

and Computer Science
Alabama Course of Study: Mathematics 2019 The new Mathematics Course of Study was
approved in December 2019 by the State
Board of Education. Roll out of the standards
to districts will begin in 2020.
Alabama Course of Study: Physical 2019

Education
Alabama Course of Study: Health 2019
Curriculum Guides The Curriculum Guides, developed under the

supervision of Special Education Services,
• ELA may be used to support intervention and
• Math tutoring.
• Social Studies
• Science The Guides are not a substitute for the
• Algebra standards in the Course of Study document
Mathematics Course of Study
The ALSDE adopted a new Mathematics Course of Study in December 2019. Successful adoption of new
math standards and the necessary instructional strategies for success will require deliberate and decisive
efforts to change professional practices. It is insufficient to primarily disseminate information through
statewide regional meetings and hope that LEAs adopt the standards and change long-standing practices

teaching mathematics. Successful adoption requires defining explicit strategies in various school settings,
such as elementary vs. secondary or urban vs. rural to adopt the new math standards, support their effective
implementation through professional development and coaching, and subsequently change practices within
math classrooms throughout Alabama.
Stakeholder Communications
Communication to all stakeholders is a critical function of state education agencies. There are currently
several ways stakeholders receive information from the ALSDE. These include:
Alabama Education News (AEN). AEN is a monthly publication providing the latest information for
Alabama educators from the ALSDE. The newsletter is detailed, easy to read and provides a wealth of
information.
News Releases. The ALSDE distributes news releases on a very frequent basis. PCG tried to sign up for
these news releases via the website but the weblink is broken.
Weekly Memos: The ALSDE communicates policy and other changes to Superintendents through weekly
electronic memos. In the past, these memos went out on an ad hoc basis. To streamline the process, all
memos are now sent on Wednesdays. They are sent to the Superintendent and others who are relevant to
that specific memo. Superintendents reported they appreciated that all memos are distributed on the same
day and that other relevant staff also receive the memos.
Website: The ALSDE is currently in the process of updating its website, with an anticipated launch of June
2020. This work is contracted with Emgage, the same vendor who created the new School and District
Report Cards. Emgage conducted discovery interviews to determine the new design.
PCG spent a significant amount of time on the current website for this review and found it to be incredibly
challenging to navigate. In many instances, information is outdated, incomplete or leads to dead webpages.
There are references to former State Superintendents and numerous programs that are now defunct. The
website is not mobile friendly. In comparison to the many other State Education Agency websites PCG
navigates (which are known to be clunky), the ALSDE website is particularly problematic.
Peachjar: The ALSDE recently implemented a new electronic flyer delivery tool called Peachjar. Peachjar
provides an innovative flyer management system that sends ALSDE-approved E-flyers directly to
teachers/administrators via email. Recipients can easily find and view flyers and take immediate action with
links to additional information. Peachjar is used in school districts nationally.
Share the Good News Campaign: There is currently a Share the Good News Campaign that aims to
collect positive news stories from the field.
Social Media: The ALSDE has a presence on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Flickr, and YouTube.

IV. Comparative Analysis with Top NAEP States

Task: Compare and analyze the ALSDE’s functions, programs, policies, funding, and
organizational structure of ALSDE to states whose educational systems perform in the top 10%
of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).
Part of the requested scope of the study was to compare the organizational structure and other major
aspects of the Alabama Department of Education (ALSDE) to states who have demonstrated success on
the NAEP that scored in the top 10% of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Key Findings
Overall, we identified five broad lessons from the interviews based on decades of experiences shared with
us.
• The political and educational leadership of the state agreed upon higher standards for students and
a set of mechanisms to hold schools and districts accountable.
• States developed an overall plan for improvement, ways to measure that improvement and stayed
with the plan of action over a minimum of a few years.
• States were focused on their own Reading and Math results and used NAEP results as a guide as
to whether their standards were rigorous enough.
• The relationship between the state DOE and schools/district was a balance of outright direction
from the state in some areas and local flexibility in other areas.
• The DOE was organized to best serve their greater plan for improvement.
Methodology
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as the Nation's Report Card,
is the largest nationally representative assessment of student performance. The test is administered
annually to a sample of students in each state.
NAEP results serve as the most common performance metric between states. As the assessment remains
relatively the same each year, it also serves as an indicator of student academic progress over time. Top
performing states often include Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia.
Alabama has traditionally performed below the national average on all tests. In the most recent test
administration (2019), the number of eighth-grade students in Alabama scoring at or above the proficiency
benchmark in both math and science trailed the national average by 12 percentage points.
PCG contacted the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) which is the research agency for
NAEP testing. NCES staff performed a statistical analysis (see Appendix B) of the recent results across
grades and subjects and determined the top 10% of state performers to be Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wyoming in that order.
While we anticipated that a great deal could be learned by analyzing these state educational systems, PCG
was concerned that they are different from Alabama in major ways such as geography and demographics.
PCG suggested that states that have demonstrated significant growth in performance over the past few
years could have a more compelling and actionable story to share. Thus, with permission, we added three
States that we believed would add value to our comparative analysis.
These additional states are not only geographically close and face similar challenges, but these states
(Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee) have also experienced significant improvement on NAEP over the

past few years. PCG felt the very recent success on NAEP by Mississippi in particular, could be more
instructive for Alabama.
PCG contacted the eight Departments of Education and obtained relevant data and documents related to
governance, departmental organization, programs, strategic planning, policies, legislation, funding models,
staffing levels, and per pupil expenditures. PCG reviewed each SEA’s website, ESSA plan, and other public
documents to better understand their organization, programs, and service delivery model.
PCG also interviewed key participants in each state including the state’s chief state school officer (i.e.
Education Commissioner/Superintendent) or a designee. PCG also interviewed key participants in each
state that could provide a historic perspective on the key reasons for each state’s significant increase in
NAEP scores. These interviews were conducted using a standard set of questions during December 2019
and early January 2020. Questions focused on how each state raised student achievement, the relationship
of the DOE to districts/schools including any measures taken to ensure LEAs used curricula aligned to the
state standards; strategic goals (and whether there is an existing action plan), anything perceived unique
to their department’s organization, and whether they had any advice for Alabama. Notes from these
interviews were analyzed to identify common themes across all comparison states as well as unique
features that could inform the work underway in Alabama.
The section first presents key findings related to the comparative analysis of top performing NAEP states.
The section then presents a review of demographic and organizational characteristics among sample states
used in the comparison, alongside those of Alabama, and a deeper examination of Alabama’s performance
on NAEP and performance among comparison states. This is followed by findings from the state interviews
and then comparisons across the topic areas listed above. Other findings related to top performing NAEP
states may also be found within other sections of the report as they pertain to other topics of the review (i.e.
School Improvement and Educator Learning).
NAEP Sample State Characteristics

Exhibit 15 Alabama and Comparison States for Top Performing NAEP States Analysis (2018-2019)
presents demographic and organizational characteristics among states selected for the study sample.
Exhibit 15. Alabama and Comparison States for Top Performing NAEP States Analysis (2018-2019)2
% Free/
2019 NAEP # Reduced
#Students
Aggregate School # Price % Non-
K-12
State Ranking3 Districts Schools Lunch % IEP % EL White
Alabama 52 739,464 139 1,339 52% 14% 4% 41%
Massachusetts 2 951,631 406 1,846 33% 18% 11% 42%
New Jersey 3 1,404,592 584 2,516 37% 17% 7% 57%
Minnesota 4 862,971 554 2,064 38% 16% 8% 32%
Wyoming 6 93,029 60 349 36% 14% 2% 22%
2
Data drawn from state report cards as indicated: Alabama (2018-2019): https://www.alsde.edu/dept/erc/Pages/home.aspx;
Massachusetts (2018-2019) http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/staterc/?fyCode=2019; New Jersey (2017-2018):
https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/report.aspx?type=state&lang=english&SY=1718&schoolyear=2017-2018; Minnesota (2018-2019):
https://public.education.mn.gov/MDEAnalytics/Summary.jsp (district includes charter schools); Wyoming (2018-2019):
https://reporting.edu.wyo.gov/; New Hampshire (2018-2019): https://my.doe.nh.gov/profiles/ and https://ireport.education.nh.gov/
Florida (2018-2019): https://edudata.fldoe.org/ReportCards/Schools.html?school=0000&district=00; Tennessee (2018-2019):
https://reportcard.tnk12.gov/districts/0/page/DistrictProfile; Mississippi (2018-2019): https://newreports.mdek12.org/ (Includes Pre-
K); other MS data are from 2016-2017 Nations Report Card.
3
See Appendix B.

New
5 177,365 301 490 26% 18% 3% 15%
Hampshire
Florida 18 2,846,857 71 4,004 63% 14% 10% 63%
Tennessee 30 973,659 146 1,774 35% 14% 5% 38%
Mississippi 41 470,668 140 877 75% 15% 3% 56%
As indicated in the exhibit above, states that had the top or rising performance on NAEP vary significantly
in terms of the size of their enrollment, the number of school districts served by the state department of
education, the number of schools, the proportion of students in poverty, the proportion of students with
IEPs, and the proportion non-white students. The largest enrollment of the eight is Florida with 2.8 million
students which also has the largest proportion of non-white students (63%). The smallest enrollment is in
Wyoming (93,029 students) which also had the smallest number of LEAs (60). The largest number of school
districts served is in New Jersey with 584 LEAs, while the largest number of schools is in Florida (4,004).
Among the sample, the state with the highest population of free and reduced-price lunch students is
Mississippi (75%), while the state with the smallest proportion is New Hampshire (26%). All states reported
the proportion of students with IEPs between 14% and 18%. Wyoming had the smallest proportion of
students designated as English learners (2%).
Findings from State Education Agency Interviews

Our discussions with education leaders from the top performing NAEP states and those that showed great
improvement on NAEP provided many insights about their varied approaches to reform as well as change
levers. While there were unique aspects in each state’s story, we also found several common themes and
initiatives which we believe are most important to the ALSDE as it looks to improve student achievement
across the state.
Leadership. In all eight states, state representatives described establishing a coalition across sectors to
accomplish their reforms. In each case, most, if not all key players, including the Governor, legislature,
business community, higher education, state school board, state department of education and the general
public were brought together around a set of common education goals. The catalyst for building consensus
around the need for educational reform varied among states. In each state, an education champion led
efforts to cohere stakeholders, build consensus, and develop trust.
Plan for Improvement. State education leaders described the important role played by a robust plan for
improvement with clear measures. Development of the plans took several forms, but all drew upon a
process to collect stakeholder input, from a strategic planning process to the development of plans needed
to receive federal funds. All leaders referenced the priority given to the plan and making sure that there was
alignment and synergy between plans if there was more than one. With goals in place, state leaders
described planning backward and organizing all departmental activity to support the goals in the plan. They
also described making sure that there was widespread awareness of the goals. One state leader explained
that in her SEA, “you could ask anyone in the building, and they could tell you about their portion of the plan
and how it affected their daily work.”
Set high expectations. In every case, state leaders described a process of setting a higher bar for students
as well as for teachers. Establishing more rigorous academic standards was accomplished through a
slightly different process in each case. Education leaders described detailed plans to roll out standards to
ensure widespread awareness and understanding.
States also sought to implement aligned assessments. Some worked with outside vendors, others brought
the development of standards-aligned assessments “in house” and relied on local educators in the
development process. School districts had autonomy to make local curriculum selections, but new
assessments applied some pressure to select or develop curriculum that was aligned.

In most states, high school graduation requirements were also made more rigorous. In Massachusetts,
Florida, and later in Minnesota, new requirements for students included passing a state test to demonstrate
mastery of the state’s standards.
Setting new standards for teachers was identified as another critical feature of improvement efforts.
• In Massachusetts, state law determined that all new teachers had to pass a certification test.
• In Tennessee, a new teacher evaluation system used a value-add measure based on student
outcomes and teaching observations with data collection centralized at the state level. As part of
this work, Tennessee also focused attention on credentialing institutions of higher education and
created a report card system to validate high quality teacher preparation.
• In Minnesota, the legislature passed the “World’s Best Workforce (WBWF)” which requires that
local school boards adopt long-term strategic plans to improve teaching and learning to support a
range of student outcomes including access to excellent teachers. the equitable distribution of their
teachers.
Increase accountability. As part of improvement efforts, states also rolled out new accountability systems
to make student performance data public. Equipped with data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, by
socioeconomic status, stakeholders could see and compare how well all students were performing
statewide. States developed public rating systems for schools and districts using two primary models: an
A-F grading system or performance tiers. Additional accountability strategies used in Florida and Mississippi
were laws enacted to prevent student promotion from third to fourth grade without demonstrating grade-
level proficiency.
Minnesota’s WBWF law also required annual reports and a public meeting to review districts’ progress
towards goals and the strategies and initiatives used to get there. In the majority of states, the stakes were
increased for districts and schools that failed to make “adequate yearly progress” on performance measures
and could now be threatened with takeover.
NAEP results served as a guide, and sometimes a wake-up call, but not a goal in and of themselves for
states in the sample. For example, in Tennessee in 2007, a comparison between state assessment results
and national expectations presented a stark contrast. While the state rated 87 percent of eighth graders as
proficient or above in math, NAEP results indicated that only 23 percent had achieved that benchmark.4
Tennessee subsequently saw significant gains on NAEP as a result of statewide reforms and support that
aligned with higher standards and increased accountability.
Funding for underserved schools and districts. Leaders from sample states described making changes
in funding that allowed state resources to flow more equitably to districts. Changes were enacted through
court decisions or revised funding formulas to add funds for at-risk students including high poverty students,
English learners, or districts determined to have high need. Significant special appropriations were another
route taken in many states to ensure the appropriate level of resources to support improvement work within
LEAs.
Organize the DOE to support the goals. In each state, education leaders described reorganizing their
departments to maximize support for LEAs to accomplish the stated goals. A review of the organization
charts for each DOE reflects the very different paths taken toward this end. Education leaders described a
number of strategies including creating cross functional teams, bringing statewide resource centers under
closer leadership, and integrating federal programs into teams (rather than maintaining them as their own
“program”). They also described reviewing staffing to ensure that positions and people were appropriately
4
National Assessment Governing Board. (n.d.) Tennessee NAEP Results Inspire Statewide Effort to Improve Schools. Retrieved
from:
https://www.nagb.gov/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/achievement/Tennessee%20Narrative%206.8_508%20complian
t.pdf

aligned to departmental needs. In some cases, state hiring policies were seen as a potential barrier to the
process. In Mississippi, the DOE was granted a two-year waiver from state personnel rules for the purpose
of reviewing staffing and bringing in the right professionals at an appropriate salary to recruit and keep
them.
Research and Strategy Team. One departmental structure that leaders in several states highlighted was
the important role played by their Strategy and Research Team (each state calls this group something
different). Leaders described the role the teams played in sharing data and feedback with staff across the
department to support data-based decision-making and researching best practices and particular topics
related to their strategic plan. Tennessee referenced this unit as a key change lever their work.
Regional Centers. Another state structure that multiple state leaders described as a crucial support for
districts was their system of regional centers. In some states these were existing support structures that
needed to be refocused on the state’s ambitious goals with some room to tailor activities to local needs. In
Tennessee this materialized as a 70-30 split; 70 percent of activity in the regional center, staffed with a
team of specialists in math and literacy, Response to Intervention, and data analysis, who delivered priority
trainings, coaching, and other support as determined by the state and 30% was offered to LEAs to support
self-identified opportunities for improvement.
Set the conditions. In each state, leaders described extensive supports provided to LEAs to help them
realize the goals set by the state. Support offered included professional development, planning support,
support looking at data, and additional resources. But leaders also described packaging the supports with
an expectation that LEAS would perform at much higher levels. If they did, LEAs understood that they would
earn some freedom from scrutiny. Each leader discussed the challenge of balancing state and local control:
on the one hand offering carrots in the form of supports and resources, but on the other using sticks, as
available, to enforce expectations.
Early Childhood. Several states described making significant investments in early childhood education as
a priority area in their reform agendas. In New Jersey and Mississippi, higher standards and support offered
to LEAs acknowledged the need for a long-term solution to third grade achievement. In both states, this
resulted in establishing higher standards and quality control mechanisms including requirements related to
certification, significant training and support, developing model programs, and partnership with higher
education institutions.
Secondary Education Focus. In addition to more rigorous graduation requirements, several state leaders
described prioritizing secondary education as an important change lever for reform. In Tennessee and
Florida, state departments created opportunities for advanced or accelerated course work in high school
such as dual enrollment, AP and IB. State leaders also described creating opportunities for deeper student
engagement through connections with Career and Technical Education, and other workforce initiatives.
Stay the course. It is worth noting that in most cases we asked leaders to look back over an extended
period of time. We asked them to reflect on pivotal moments such as approved legislation, reports released
demanding better results, or court decisions that served as catalysts for reform, but also the extensive
groundwork laid over time to accomplish their goals.
One education leader summed up the need to pick a plan and follow it over the long term stating that
education reform “doesn’t happen by accident and doesn’t happen overnight.” Once the difficult work of
setting higher academic standards and increasing state accountability was put in place, in each case,
leaders described pushback from local school systems and communities. While some states made
modifications in response to critics, overall state leaders staunchly defended new standards, accountability
measures, and programs to give them time to work.

Comparison with NAEP Sample States

PCG conducted comparisons between NAEP sample states and Alabama on selected topics of school
improvement, education governance, state funding, departmental organization, and accountability.
School Improvement
During the review of the NAEP sample states’ approach to school improvement, it was noted that there are
far more available resources and supports both at the state and regional level. Below are practices from
NAEP sample states:
• Florida’s School Improvement Program falls under the Bureau of School Improvement. This
Bureau hires and places regional teams of school improvement specialists, each led by an
executive director, in four offices across the state to provide on-the-ground support to district
administrators, instructional coaches, and school leadership teams of low-performing schools. The
teams are focused on the differentiated needs of each school. There are 34+ staff in the Bureau of
School Improvement.
• Massachusetts has multiple teams that address school improvement under the Department of the
Statewide System of Support. That support includes teams such as Office of Effective Practices in
Turnaround, District and School Turnaround, and Center for District Support. There are staff
located both at the state department but also at the regional level focused on low performing
schools. There are 50+ staff members working on these teams to support districts throughout the
state. In addition, the Department compiles a list of “Priority Partners” who are vendors that have
been screened by the state to support a variety of school and district needs. The Priority Partner
list is updated on a bi-annual basis to ensure quality control.
• Minnesota focuses School Improvement support at the Regional Centers of Excellence (RCE).
The RCE provide differentiated supports to identified districts and schools through a statewide
regional delivery system that is equitable, effective, and efficient. Districts are identified by
Minnesota World’s Best Work Force (WBWF) criteria. Schools are identified by ESSA criteria. By
law, the Department of Education must assist the Regional Centers of Excellence to meet staff,
facilities, and technical needs, provide the centers with programmatic support, and work with the
centers to establish a coherent statewide system of regional support, including consulting, training,
and technical support. There are six (6) Regional Centers of Excellence with staff between 15-20
focused on School Improvement. In addition, there are two (2) staff at the DOE who focus on
supporting the REC.
• Mississippi’s Department of Education identifies schools for additional assistance and support,
which includes professional development, leadership coaching, additional funding, and assistance
to support the schools’ transformation goals. The MDE identifies the schools that need the most
assistance for their students to have the same opportunities for growth and success that exist for
students in other schools. The Office of School Improvement (OSI) is responsible for supporting
the systemic improvement and turnaround efforts of the lowest-performing schools. Currently, there
is 11+ full time staff housed in the MDE supporting this initiative.
• New Hampshire has a small internal staff to address the school improvement needs of districts
throughout the state. Therefore, they determined it would be beneficial to contract with outside
partners to work shoulder to shoulder with all CSI schools. Currently, WestEd and Demonstrated
Success support schools through a comprehensive needs assessment, school plan development,
data analysis, on-site coaching, and professional development.
• New Jersey has twenty-one (21) county offices of education that are coordinated by the Office of
Field Services. The offices are staffed with multiple teams to support schools and differentiate that
support by grouping districts into three levels. The Office of Comprehensive Support provides Level
3 support, which is defined as on-site support for districts with Comprehensive and Targeted
schools. This is achieved primarily by deploying field support teams with expertise in instructional
leadership, data-driven action planning, and cycles of continuous improvement guided by a growth

mindset to schools and districts statewide. The Office of Intervention and Support is primarily
responsible for support to districts by identifying and securing NJDOE teams of subject matter
experts to provide onsite assistance. The office proactively uses data to analyze needs and to
coordinate the support to all schools, in collaboration with all NJDOE field and program offices.
• Tennessee’s approach to school improvement is focused on its Achievement School Districts
(ASD). Tennessee has been using the model since 2011. The Achievement School District was
created to improve student achievement in the bottom 5% of schools in the state. To support the
ASD schools, Tennessee includes both internal staff numbering 14+ as well as contracting with 11
different education operators to oversee school improvement efforts in the schools within the ASD.
• Wyoming’s Wyoming Statute §21-2-204(h) directs the development of a “progressive multi-tiered
system of support and intervention to assist schools.” The DOE identifies appropriate tiered levels
of support and intervention for each Wyoming school based on a comprehensive screening
protocol. The WDE administers five pillars of support, wherein the agency can take an increasingly
active support role with districts and schools demonstrating the most intense and persistent needs.
The WDE contracts with outside partners to provide the districts with professional development and
coaching. The DOE provides the partners’ programs with oversight. There are fourteen (14) staff
members in the Statewide System of Support. That does not include partners who work directly
with districts.
The NAEP sample states describe a system of school improvement that meets the various needs of their
struggling schools. While most states have a regionally based system of support, they all have leadership
at the Department of Education. Moreover, they have teams ready to be deployed to schools and districts
to provide guidance and direction when needed to change the trajectory of student outcomes. Using the
NAEP sample states as a comparison to Alabama, there is an evident discrepancy in how resources are
deployed, which may be a contributing factor leading to the slow improvement of struggling schools.
Changing practices, improving curriculum and instruction, and promoting a school culture that is welcoming
and respectful of all students is very challenging work. When schools are mired in low student outcomes
and a culture of failure, they need support, not just nibbling around the edges, but sustained wrap-around
services that promoted academic optimism and changed practice.
Governance
The governance structure of K-12 education provides an important perspective on how education priorities
are set, decided on and implemented. This section examines the primary education governance models
used across the country, the models used in the NAEP sample states, and education governance as
currently practiced in Alabama and how each form frames education authority and accountability.5 Models
of education governance among these states are varied, and sometimes unique.
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) has developed a typology of education governance models
which are presented in Exhibit 20. As noted in the table, in the current model used in Alabama (Model IV)
education governance flows from the electorate to an elected state board of education which then appoints
a Chief State School Officer. Nationally, this model is used in six states including Alabama, and in no other
states in our sample. As described by ECS, “Model IV provides the governor the least amount of direct
authority over education governance. The state board of education is directly accountable to voters;
however, the board’s ability to reshape policy is often limited by statutory constraints.” This dynamic, they
note, can also produce a circumstance where education leaders are empowered to shape policy and
5
Information in this section is drawn from Railey, H, (2017). 50-State Review. State Education Governance Structures: 2017
update. Denver CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from: https://www.ecs.org/state-education-governance-
structures-2017-update/

exercise flexibility at the state level, but may have limited ability to press for expansive policy changes that
require significant funding or substantial policies changes.6
Among NAEP sample states, the model employed in three comparison states (Tennessee, New Hampshire,
and New Jersey) is Model I, in which the electorate choose the governor, who then appoints both the
members of the state board of education, as well as the chief state school officer.
As described by ECS, power in this model is centralized in the executive branch. The governor is at the
helm and in “the strongest position of all four models.” The governor’s ability to select both groups means
they are able to “shape the key venue for education policy debates (the state board) as well as the
administrative agency tasked with implementing and administering those policies (the state education
agency, led by the appointed chief state school officer.” The descriptions of educational change and reform
in those three sample states, as described by current and former commissioners, and the crucial role they
attributed to their governor’s leadership, illustrates the model. ECS also notes that “the structure of Model
I means that the success of education policies is tied to the policy priorities of the governor’s office.”
Two sample states, Florida and Massachusetts, use Model II wherein voters elect the governor, who then
appoints members of the state board of education (all or some of the positions). The state board then
appoints the chief state school officer.
In Model II the governor’s role is still strong, but less so than in Model I. ECS notes that having the power
to appoint the state board may offer governors incentive to take an active interest in education policy and
voters have a mechanism to hold the governor accountable. They also observe that because chief state
school officers are directly accountable to the state school board, and not the governor, the model provides
some flexibility to the CSSO in interpretation of policy priorities of the governor. And while governors can
shape the direction of education policy and incentives to support board/CSSO priorities in the legislature,
they lack the ability to oversee implementation or administration of policies and practices.
Exhibit 16. K-12 Governance Models, Alabama, and NAEP Sample States7
MODEL I MODEL II MODEL III MODEL IV OTHER
Governor Governor Appoints Appointed Elected Board,

Appoints Board Board, Board Board, Elected Board Appoints
STATE and Chief Appoints Chief Chief Chief
Alabama 
Florida 
Massachusetts 
Minnesota 
Mississippi 
New Hampshire 
New Jersey 
Tennessee 
Wyoming 
Wyoming’s education governance is organized using Model III, where voters elect both the governor and
the chief state school officer. In this model, the governor’s role is weaker than in the other two models and
the CSSO may have more authority. Here, ECS notes, voters “may distinguish the policy aims of the
governor from the chief state school officer.” The resulting policy environment can be complex: in cases
where the governor and CSSO are aligned, both may have greater ability to influence policy outcomes, but
6
Ibid, page 4.
7Source: Education Commission of the States, August 2017, 50-State Review State Education Governance Structures: 2017
Update

where their goals are not aligned, they “may struggle to pursue their separate education policy priorities,
given that they are both accountable to voters.”
Two other states in the sample use governance models that are unique to their state. In Mississippi, the
governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker of the house appoint members to the state school board,
and then the board appoints the chief state school officer. In Minnesota, there is no state-level board and
Minnesota’s governor is responsible to appoint the chief.
State Funding for Education

Funding in K-12 education is complex and funding patterns vary greatly among states including the
expected state and local contribution. Under ESSA, states are required to publish a range of data pertaining
to school funding including per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries, and the breakdown of education
expenditures by source.8 PCG compared per pupil expenditure and state funding data across the sample
states.
Exhibit 17 presents a comparison of per pupil expenditure between Alabama and top performing NAEP
states. Among the sample, Mississippi has the lowest per pupil expenditure ($8,692) and New Jersey has
the highest at $19,041. Among the four states with per pupil expenditures below the national average of
$11,841, Alabama is the closest at $9,258.
Exhibit 17. AL Per Pupil Expenditures Compared to Other States (2017)
$25,000
19,041
$20,000
16,986 16,431
15,535
$15,000 12,364
$11,841
9,258 9,176 8,692 8,876
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Per Pupil Expenditures National Average
State Funding Allocations

In addition to per pupil expenditure, PCG compared the proportion of state funding provided to school
districts. Exhibit 18 presents data from the US Census’ 2017 Annual Survey of School System Finances.
Among the sample states, Minnesota (64.9%) contributed the largest state share to LEAs followed by
Wyoming (59%) and Alabama (55%). New Hampshire contributed the smallest share (32%).
8Burnette, Daarel II. (2018). What is ESSA’s New School-Spending Transparency Requirement, and How Will it Work? Education
Week, August 9, 2018.

Exhibit 18. State Funding Sources in Alabama and Sample States9
70% 65%
59%
60% 55%
51%
50% 46%
39% 41%
39%
40%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Finally, PCG examined key elements of K-12 funding in Alabama and sample states (Exhibit 23).10 The
exhibit presents information about the general funding formula as well as the funding base per pupil, and if
and how funds are allocated for special populations such as special education, English language learners,
at-risk students, gifted and talented students, and funding for small schools.
The following are definitions of each of both the Resource Allocation and the Foundation Model to help
clarify the below analysis.
• Resource Allocation Model: Under a resource allocation model, states distribute resources rather
than assigning weights or dollar values based on certain criteria. For example, the state would
provide funding for a prescribed number of teaching positions based on student counts.
• Foundation Model: Under a foundation formula, districts receive a base amount of funding per
student with additional money or weights added to meet the needs of high-need student
populations.
Alabama and neighboring Tennessee are the only states in the group that use a resource allocation
model as their funding mechanism. They are among eight states nationally to use this model. Under a
resource allocation model, ECS notes that “states distribute resources rather than assigning weights or
dollar values based on certain criteria. For example, the state would provide funding for a prescribed
number of teaching positions based on student counts.”
Across all other states in the sample, state education funding is based on a foundation formula. Using
this model, districts receive a base amount of funding per student from the state (which may or may not be
stipulated within statute). Additional money or weights are added to districts’ allocations to meet the needs
of high-need student populations.
While Alabama uses the term “Foundation Budget,” the formula used does not fit the typical definition of
the foundation formula model. In 2014-2015, APA Consulting conducted a statewide study that reviewed
9
Source: 2017 Annual Survey of School System Finances, Table 5
10
Data or this section are derived from Dachelet, K. (2019) 50-State Comparison: K-12 Funding. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States, August 5, 2019. Retrieved from: https://c0arw235.caspio.com/dp/b7f93000fdfda7e7be064fce9c54

the equity and adequacy of education funding in Alabama. The study found Alabama’s funding system to
be neither equitable nor adequate. The final report recommended adopting a weighted student-based
funding model (foundation formula model) to align to national best practice.
Alabama and other states use different mechanisms to fund particular student populations. For example,
Alabama uses a census-based system to determine special education funding in which the state assumes
the same proportion of students in each district regardless of each district’s actual demographics. New
Jersey and Massachusetts also use a census-based system. In Massachusetts, it is used in conjunction
with high cost adjustments to offset the burden for the district.
Other states in the sample use a multiple weights system (Florida and Minnesota) which assigns more
than one weight or dollar amount based on certain factors such as severity of disability. This approach may
also use a more generalized weighting based on particular factors. Other systems use a resource allocation
model (Mississippi), a reimbursement system (Wyoming) in which districts submit actual expenditures to
the state and the state reimburses all or a portion of those expenditures. Another mechanism used among
sample states to fund special education is a flat weight system, as is used in New Hampshire, wherein
districts receive allocations for each student that meets identification criteria, but the amount is the same
regardless of students’ particular characteristics.
Funding for English language learners in Alabama is determined through a multiple weight system. School
systems are provided an appropriation based on a per student basis, with an additional allocation if
enrollment exceeds 10% of the total enrollment. Other states use different methods to provide additional
funding for this population as illustrated in the table.
According to data compiled by ECS, Alabama does not provide specific additional allocations to districts for
at-risk students, gifted and talented students, or for small or isolated schools and systems. Among states
in the sample, seven out of eight have an additional allocation for at-risk students, five of eight states provide
funds for gifted and talented students, and three of eight have mechanisms to determine additional funding
for small or isolated schools and systems.
Exhibit 19. K-12 Funding: Alabama and Sample State Comparison11
At Risk
English Funding Gifted
Language for Low- and Small Size
State Special Learner Income Talented or Isolated
Education Funding Base Amount Education Funding Students Funding Adjustment
Agency Mechanism (if found in Statute) 12 Funding (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) 13 (Y/N) (Y/N) 14
Alabama Resource- none Yes Yes None None none
Allocation
Model Census-Based Multiple
System Weights15
Florida Foundation $4,279 (2019-2020) Yes Yes None Yes Yes15

Formula
Multiple Flat Block Flat Weight
Weights Weight Grant System
System and System
High-Cost
11
Citations in law provided in original table: https://c0arw235.caspio.com/dp/b7f93000fdfda7e7be064fce9c54
12
Figures rounded to the nearest dollar.
13
Uses National School Lunch Program as At-risk identifier.
14
Uses student count as small size/isolated identifier; FL uses with distance; MN uses with distance and density.
15
Information provided by ALSDE

At Risk
English Funding Gifted
Language for Low- and Small Size
State Special Learner Income Talented or Isolated
Education Funding Base Amount Education Funding Students Funding Adjustment
Agency Mechanism (if found in Statute) 12 Funding (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) 13 (Y/N) (Y/N) 14
Massachusetts Foundation Student's base funding Yes Yes Yes14 None none
Formula number: derived by
both their enrollment Census-Based Multiple Flat
category (i.e. grade System and Weights Weight
level) and then by 11 High-Cost System System
different cost function
areas.
Minnesota Foundation $6,312 (2019-2020) Yes Yes Yes14 Yes Yes15

Formula $6,343 (2020-2021)
Multiple Multiple Multiple Flat Multiple
Weights Weights Weights Weight Weights
System and System System System System
Reimbursement
System
Mississippi Foundation none Yes none Yes14 Yes none

Formula
Resource- Flat Resource-
Allocation Weight Allocation
Model System Model
New Foundation $3,561 Yes Yes Yes14 none none

Hampshire Formula
Beginning July 2017 Flat Weight Flat Flat
and every biennium System Weight Weight
thereafter, adjusted System System
every two years base
on Consumer Price
Index.
New Jersey Foundation none Yes Yes Yes14 none none

Formula
Census-Based Flat Multiple
System Weight Weights
System System
Tennessee Resource- none Yes Yes Yes14 Yes none

Allocation
Model Resource- Resource- Resource- Resource-
Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation
Model Model Model Model
Wyoming Foundation none Yes Yes Yes14 Yes Yes15

Formula
Reimbursement Flat Flat Flat Resource-
System Weight Weight Weight Allocation
System System System Model
Organization of State Education Agencies

An area of inquiry for the review of NAEP top performing state departments of education was to take a
closer look at how the departments are organized to achieve their goals. In addition, PCG was asked to
review staffing levels for particular groups or functions within other state departments. However, reconciling
staffing assignments within inconsistent organizational structures rendered comparisons uninformative.

Early Childhood Education

A review of agency websites and organization charts of the states in our sample revealed that governance
of early childhood education resides within the state education agency in six of eight states. In Florida, the
Office of Early Learning is independent of the K-20 system by law, however the Executive Director is
accountable to the Education Commissioner. In Massachusetts, the Department of Early Learning and Care
(EEC) is a separate agency from the Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (DESE). The
Massachusetts Executive Office of Education under the Governor, led by the Education Commissioner,
however, oversees three agencies: EEC, DESE and the Department of Higher Education. Among the two
states that described prioritizing improvements in early childhood education standards and teaching in order
to improve student achievement, noted above, both co-locate early childhood oversight in the state
education agency.
Exhibit 20. Early Childhood Education Oversight, Sample States Compared
Within
State
State Education Education
Agency Agency? Office/Department Name, Location in State Government
Alabama No Department of Early Childhood Education (ECE), Executive Office, led by

Secretary of Early Childhood Education
Florida No Office of Early Learning (OEL), State of FL; Executive Director of OEL is
“fully accountable to the Commissioner of Education” but “is not part of the
P-20 system”
Massachusetts No Department of Early Education and Care (EEC); Executive Office of

Education under the Governor, led by Education Commissioner.
Minnesota Yes Early Learning Services, Department of Teaching and Learning
Mississippi Yes Office of Early Childhood, Elementary Education and Reading
New Hampshire Yes Early Childhood Education, Division of Education Improvement (undergoing
reorganization)
New Jersey Yes Division of Early Childhood, Department of Education
Tennessee Yes Early Learning, Department of Education
Wyoming Yes Early Childhood Readiness (ECR), Department of Education
Research and Strategy

Some states noted the important role played by their research and strategy group to foster the use of data
within the department and support data-based discussions among all departments regarding policy,
programs, and support.
Staff at the ALSDE described having had a similar office that was recently reorganized and its staff (and
some functions) were redistributed to different offices within the ALSDE.
Among the eight sample states, five had separate research and planning offices within the department:
Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New Jersey. Despite disparate names, these groups
fulfill similar functions within each the organization, and in most cases the mission for their office explicitly
connects their work with the vision, plans, or goals of the Department. The below table provides a list of the
office and their role.

Exhibit 21. Research and Strategy Division, Sample States Compared
State Education Department Name Role

Agency (and URL)
Alabama Does not have
Florida Division of Accountability, Supports the Department’s mission of increasing

Research & Measurement the proficiency of all students within one
http://www.fldoe.org/about- seamless, efficient system by providing them with
us/division-of-accountability- the opportunity to expand their knowledge and
research-me.stml skills through learning opportunities and research
valued by students, parents, and communities.
Maintains data portal and overall accountability
system.
Massachusetts Office of Planning and OPR's mission is to help DESE and the field
Research implement effective policy and programs and
http://www.doe.mass.edu/res make effective resource use decisions to improve
earch/ student outcomes.
The mission of research and evaluation (within

OPR) is to improve the use of data and research
findings to influence program and policy decision-
making within the agency and the field, including
DESE’s goal of preparing all students or success
after high school and the agency’s five strategies.
DESE has a defined research agenda related to
the agency’s goals and strategies in order to
improve their implementation and outcomes.
Minnesota Does not have
Mississippi Office of Research and Responsible for: producing objective and

Development accurate research to inform decision-making of
https://www.mdek12.org/OTS the MDE leadership. “ORD thereby supports the
S/ORD broader mission of the Mississippi State Board
of Education strategic plan, to improve student
achievement and opportunities throughout
Mississippi’s education system.”
New Hampshire Does not have
New Jersey Office of Strategic Operations Responsible for: strategic planning, program
https://www.state.nj.us/educa evaluation, logistical and operational support,
tion/about/divisions/stratops.s process mapping, data-driven problem solving
html and analysis, data management, expertise in
designing stakeholder outreach and engagement
as well as leading and maintaining knowledge
management systems and structures. Also
responsible for developing, implementing and
maintaining the progress monitoring system for
tracking progress to goals across the Department

State Education Department Name Role

Agency (and URL)
Tennessee Data and Research Responsible for: monitoring goals by measuring
https://www.tn.gov/education/ progress on key indicators; bringing data
data.html conversations to programs.
Wyoming Does not have
Nutrition
A growing body of research has demonstrated the connection between student health and academic
performance.16 Local, state, and federal programs are established to help children eat healthy foods, but
their administration is handled differently in each state. In some cases, the majority of these programs are
administered within the state department of education, while in others, some or all programs may be
administered by different state agencies. The table below illustrates the many federal programs established
to prevent hunger and promote healthy eating, and the agency responsible for their administration within
each sample state as well as Alabama.
Overall, Alabama and Massachusetts are the most similar in that they administer 11 USDA Food and
Nutrition Programs under their departments of education. Other states in the sample administer some, but
not all programs. Two state education agencies, New Jersey and Florida do not manage any USDA nutrition
programs and coordinate with other state agencies instead to bring food to students. Other agencies that
administer food and nutrition services include state departments of agriculture, health, human services, and
elder services as indicated after the table.
16
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Health and Academic Achievement.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/health-academic-achievement.pdf

Exhibit 22. Nutrition Programs and Administration in Alabama and Sample States
Massachusetts DESE
New Hampshire DOE
New Jersey DOE

Mississippi DOE
Tennessee DOE
Minnesota DOE
Wyoming DOE
Alabama SDE
Florida DOE
State/
USDA Program
Summer Food Service Program      
National School Lunch Program
(and Afterschool Snack       
Program)
Special Milk Program       
School Breakfast Program       

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable       
Program
Child and Adult Care Food      
Program
Community Food Systems      n/a 

Commodity Supplemental Food  
Program
Emergency Food Assistance  
Program
USDA Foods in Schools     
USDA Foods     
Source: USDA FNS, https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts?keywords=&f%5B0%5D=state%3A281
Programs not administered by State Education Agencies in other states are as follows:
• Florida: All programs in Florida are administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services except for Child and Adult Care Food Program, which is administered by both
the Florida Department of Elder Affairs and the Florida Department of Health.
• Minnesota: The two programs not administered by the Department of Education, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, are administered by
the Minnesota Department of Health.
• Mississippi: Community Food Systems is also administered by the Mississippi Department of
Agriculture. The two other programs, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, are administered by the Mississippi Department of Human
Services.
• New Hampshire: The Emergency Food Assistance Program, USDA Foods in Schools, and USDA
Foods are all administered by the New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services. The
Commodity Supplemental Food Program is under the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services.
• New Jersey: The New Jersey Department of Agriculture administers all programs except for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program which is administered by the New Jersey Department of
Health.

• Tennessee: The Summer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program is
administered by the Tennessee Department of Human Services. The Commodity Supplemental
Food Program is administered by the Tennessee Department of Health, and the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, USDA Foods in Schools, and USDA Foods are administered by the
Tennessee Department of Agriculture.
• Wyoming: The Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program are administered by the Wyoming Department of Family Services.
Accountability
State accountability systems play an important role in determining school, district, and state progress
toward student performance goals. Each state’s accountability system is unique but shares a common goal
to provide information that can be used to improve student achievement. PCG compared accountability
indicators measured for non-high schools and high schools, districts, and states in Alabama, Tennessee,
and Massachusetts, as captured in the table below (Exhibit 23).
Looking across the three states, there are several notable differences.
• At the non-high school level, Alabama weighs Chronic Absenteeism 15% of the overall
accountability score, compared to 10% in Tennessee and Massachusetts.
• Graduation rate (30%) is weighed more than both academic achievement (20%) and academic
growth (25%) to measure accountability at the high school, district, and state levels. In contrast,
academic achievement is weighed the most across levels in Tennessee (30-45%) and
Massachusetts (40-60%), and the graduation rate indicator is not weighed as highly as in Alabama
(5% across levels in TN, 20% across levels in MA).
• In Alabama, progress in English language proficiency (5%) is weighed the least as an accountability
indicator across all levels. Both Tennessee and Massachusetts consider progress in English
language proficiency as 10% of the total accountability score across levels.
Exhibit 23. Comparison of Accountability Indicators used in Alabama, Tennessee, and Massachusetts17 18 19
Alabama Tennessee Massachusetts

(Fall 2019) (Spring 2019) (2019)
Non-High Schools / Schools without a Grade 12
With EL** No EL**
Academic 40% 45% 60% 67.5%
Achievement
(Weighted)
Academic 40% 35% 20% 22.5%
Growth
(Weighted)
Progress in 5% 10% 10% --
English
Language
Proficiency
17
Sources: ALSDE Alabama’s Accountability System Technical Guide Fall 2019; 2019 School Accountability Protocol User Guide,
Tennessee Department of Education; School Leader’s Guide to the 2019 Accountability Determinations, Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (Updated January 6, 2020); Massachusetts 2019 Official Accountability Report – State Totals.
18
*Massachusetts Report Cards measures Chronic Absenteeism, along with Advanced Coursework Completion, as part of the overall
category, Additional Indicators.
19
**Massachusetts uses two weighting columns to measure accountability for Non-High Schools and High Schools. With EL indicates
measures for schools that collect data on EL progress, and No EL indicates measures for schools that do not have this data. For the
purposes of the three-state comparison, percentages from the With EL column will be considered.


(Fall 2019) (Spring 2019) (2019)
Chronic 15% 10% 10% 10%
Absenteeism
High Schools / Schools with a Grade 12
With EL No EL
Academic 20% 30% 40% 47.5%
Achievement
(Weighted)
Academic 25% 25% 20% 22.5%
Growth
(Weighted)
Graduation Rate 30% 5% 20% 20%
Progress in 5% 10% 10% --
English
Language
Proficiency
College and 10% 20% -- --
Career (graduate &
Readiness meet
postsecondary
readiness
criteria)
Chronic 10% 10% 10%* 10%*
Absenteeism
District
Non-HS HS
All Lowest All Lowest
Performing Performing
Academic 20% 30% 60% 67.5% 40% 67.5%
Achievement
(Weighted)
Academic 25% 25% 20% 22.5% 20% 22.5%
Growth
(Weighted)
Graduation Rate 30% 5% -- -- 20% --
Progress in 5% 10% 10% -- 10% --

English
Language
Proficiency
College and 10% 20% (graduate -- -- -- --
Career and meet
Readiness postsecondary
readiness
criteria)
Chronic 10% 10% 10%* 10%* 10%* 10%*
Absenteeism
% of possible % of % of % of
points possible possible possible
points points points
Average Total % (Weight: Average Total %
70%) (Weight: 30%)
Average Total %
State
Non-HS HS
(all students)


(Fall 2019) (Spring 2019) (2019)
(all students)
Academic 20% 30% 60% 40%

Achievement
(Weighted)
Academic 25% 25% 20% 20%
Growth
(Weighted)
Graduation Rate 30% 5% 10% 10%
Progress in 5% 10% 10% 10%
English
Language
Proficiency
College and 10% 20% (graduate -- --
Career and meet
Readiness postsecondary
readiness
criteria)
Chronic 10% 10% 10%* 10%*
Absenteeism
Educator Quality
The Learning Policy Institute has identified key factors that reflect and influence teacher supply and attrition
and signal whether states are likely to have an adequate supply of qualified teachers to fill their classrooms.
Based on these data—which rank compensation, teacher turnover, working conditions, and qualifications—
each state is assigned a “teaching attractiveness rating,” indicating how supportive it appears to be of
teacher recruitment and retention and a “teacher equity rating,” indicating the extent to which students, in
particular students of color, are assigned uncertified or inexperienced teachers. Ratings are on a 1-5 scale,
with 1 being the least desirable and 5 being the most desirable.20 The following is an analysis on how
Alabama performs on Teacher Attractiveness and Teacher Equity compared to NAEP sample states.
Alabama received a teaching attractiveness rating of 3.8, the second highest rating across the NAEP
sample states. The teaching attractiveness rating indicated how supportive it appears to be of teacher
recruitment and retention based on compensation, working conditions, teacher qualifications, and teacher
turnover.
20
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/understanding-teacher-shortages-interactive

Exhibit 24. Teacher Attractiveness Rating
5
4.57
4 3.85 3.78
3 3.28 3.25 3.05
2.83
2.35
2 2.03
1
0
Alabama received a teacher equity rating of 3, the fifth highest ranking out of the group of nine comparable
states. Metrics to develop this rating include percentage of inexperienced teachers in high-minority schools
compared to low-minority schools, percentage of uncertified teachers to be in high-minority schools
compared to low-minority schools, and percentage of teachers of color.
Exhibit 25. Teacher Equity Rating
5
4.3
4 4
3.8 3.8
3 3
2.5
2
1.5
1 1 1
In addition to the above ratings, PCG analyzed data from the following indicators used by The Learning
Policy Institute to calculate the Teaching Attractiveness Rating: Wage Competitiveness, Teacher
Qualifications, and Teacher Turnover. PCG compared Alabama’s indicator data to eight other states and
the nation.
Alabama had a wage competitiveness rating of 70. This rating was below the national average of 75 and
was the second lowest rating of the nine comparable states. Wyoming and New Jersey had the highest
wage competitiveness rating, 86% and 85% respectively.

Exhibit 26. Wage Competitiveness Rating21
100
90 75 85
80 86
70 77
60 76 75 72
70 69 71
50
40
30
20
10
0
Rating US Average
Out of nine states, Alabama had the fourth lowest percentage of teachers who were inexperienced.
Alabama’s average of 12.0% was slightly below the national average of 12.7%.
Exhibit 27. Percentage of Inexperienced Teachers22
20%
12.7% 19.2%
15%
14.1% 13.2% 13.4%
10% 12.0% 12.4% 11.7% 11.6%
8.9%
5%
0%
Rating US Average
At 1.4%, Alabama had the second lowest percentage of uncertified teachers. Five out of the nine
comparable states, including Alabama, were below the national average of 2.6%.
21
Average estimated teacher wage as percentage of estimated non-teacher wage for college graduates in each state, at
comparable age levels, level of education (BA or MA degree), and working hours per week and year (2016 data).
22
Percentage of first and second-year teachers in 2016.

Exhibit 28. Percentage of Uncertified Teachers23
10%
5% 2.6% 5.9%
4.7% 4.1%
3.2%
1.4% 1.7% 2.1% 1.6% 0.4%
0%
Rating US Average
Out of nine comparable states, Alabama had the lowest percentage of teachers planning to leave the
profession “as soon as possible” (4.6%).
Exhibit 29. Percentage of Teachers Planning to Leave the Profession24
20%
15%
7.3%
10% 10.4%
8.7%
5% 6.4% 7.1% 7.2% 6.6% 6.3%
4.6%
0%
Rating US Average
23
Percentage of teachers who have not met state certification requirements in 2016, including those teaching while still finishing
their preparation, or teaching with an emergency-style credential.
24
Percentage of teachers planning to leave teaching as soon as possible or as soon as a more desirable job opportunity arises
(2016). Data not available for Wyoming.

V. Inventory and Review of Programs

Task: Conduct an inventory and review ALSDE’s programs.
PCG conducted a high-level program review of all programs at the ALSDE. This section inventories existing
programs and determines each program’s efficacy towards the ALSDE’s mission.
Key Findings
PCG identified the following findings that impact the efficacy across all programs at the ALSDE.
1. Across all programs, PCG heard ample examples of departmental planning, pending initiatives or
planned future activities. PCG did not see detailed implementation plans, documented best
practices or data analysis of program success to the same extent.
2. There is not a consistent culture of data use to drive program decisions, inform program
expenditures or set policies.
3. Personnel requirements inhibit the hiring of highly qualified staff in a timely way.
4. Outdated internal systems and paper-based practices are unnecessarily time-consuming and limit
productivity.
5. Communication across departments and reporting levels is not a core expectation and therefore is
limited. This leads to siloed practices, redundancies and programming gaps.
6. Program decisions often appear to be driven by external factors (i.e., legislation) rather than
internal, proactive subject matter leadership.
7. Program staff do not believe they have to the authority to hold schools and districts accountable for
non-compliance.
8. Most staff appear to be dedicated individuals who are invested in the mission of the Department
and work hard to improve the education of all of Alabama’s students.
Program Definition
PCG defines the ALSDE educational programs, for the purpose of this review, as the Divisions and/or
Sections which provide students with equal access to a high-quality education improving student outcomes
in academics, as well as positively impacting their social emotional and physical well-being.
PCG defines the ALSDE supporting functions as the supports that positively impact the success of
students but are not primarily focused on learning outcomes or social emotional and physical well-being.
Program Inventory
The Program Inventory outlines all programs currently administered by various divisions at the ALSDE.
Each section lists the name of an overarching program with a short description. Within each overarching
program section are specific programs and services that are currently provided. Note there are functions
and services provided at the ALSDE such as LEA Accounting, Teacher Certification, Human Resources,
etc. that PCG did not consider an ALSDE program per the above definition and therefore were not included
in the chart below.

Exhibit 30. ALSDE Program Inventory
Program Overview Description
• Math Coaching and Support-K-12, PD, resources and

support to AMSTI schools
• Science Coaching and Support-K-12, PD, science kits,
and support
Administers the Alabama • ASiM- Alabama Science in Motion- 9-12, mobile labs to
AMSTI Math Science Technology high schools in all regions including rural districts.
Initiative • DLCS- Digital Literacy and Computer Science- K-12,
resources and lesson planning for schools.
• Regional Center Collaboration
• Middle and High School Robotics Grant Program
• Reading Coaching and Support- K-3, embedded PD in

schools including the development of all PD used in the
LEAs
• Regional Reading Coaches- trains and supports
regional coaches that in turn support LEA reading
Administers the Alabama specialists
ARI
Reading Initiative • ECL3- Professional Learning Communities for Leaders
• Letters Training- cohort-based training focused on the
science of reading
• Dyslexia Labs
• English Language Learners
• Course of Studies- development of and updates to

Standards
• Textbook Adoption- Supports process for LEAs focused
on aligned textbooks
• Guidance and Counseling Services
• Library Media
Instructional Supports Curriculum and • Dual Enrollment- High school/college
Services Instruction • Advanced Placement Programs
• Awards and Scholarship Programs- oversees the
process for all awards and scholarships
• Professional Development- provides training and
support to LEAs
• Student High School Credits
• AL School Health and Nurses- Laws & Policies,

Immunization, Health Forms, Curriculum, Safe at
Schools (Diabetes)
• Student Behavior- Student Incident Reports, PBIS
Provides support to districts training, Restorative Justice Practices
Prevention and
related to student's social- • Youth Risk Behavior Survey Implementation
Support Services
emotional well-being • Graduation Rate- Tracking Data, Drop Out Prevention
• 504 Compliance
• School Safety-Threat Assessment, Emergency Mgt
• MTSS/RTI
 Technical Assistance for LEAs, including IEPs, guidance

Ensures compliance and
Special for Spec Ed Admin, Laws/Policies
support for students with
Education
disabilities • Technical Assistance- Provide to LEAs, including IEPs,
guidance for Special Ed Admin, Laws/Policies

• Alternative Assessments
• Dispute Resolutions- Mediation, Due Process Hearings
 Preschool- Includes Child Find, Least Restrictive

Environment, Developmental Programs
 Post-Secondary- Transitions, Diploma Pathways, Work
Components, Higher Ed
 Focused Monitoring- Compliance Monitoring for LEAs on
all Special Education components
• Preschool-Includes Childfind, Least Restrictive

Environment, Development Programs
• Post-Secondary- Transitions, Diploma Pathways, Work
Components, Higher Education
• Focused Monitoring- Compliance Monitoring for LEAs
on all Special Ed components
• Data/Reporting-State Performance Plan (SPP), Child
Count, Set Measurable Goals
• School Report Card-Letter grades A-F based on data

formula
• Failing School Determination List (lowest 6%)- Uses
data to determine the failing schools
Oversees Alabama • ESSA Accountability- Collects and reports data for the
Accountability
Accountability System ESSA plan
• Research-Reviews best practices in data reporting and
analysis from other states
• Report on Data-Provides reports on data as requested
• Provides differentiated services to schools based on

need
Provides services to the • Supports Comprehensive Support and Improvement
School
lowest 6% of schools in (CSI) Schools based on data
Improvement
Alabama • Splits state in half to provide services
• Collaborates with ARI and AMSTI to support schools
• Title I: Services for low income schools

• Title I: Migrant Education
Manages all aspects of • Title II: Professional Learning
Federal • Title III: English Language Learners
federal programming and
Programs • Title V: Rural Schools
funding
• 21st Century Schools
• McKinney Vento- Homeless Student Support
• Approves new Educator Prep Programs

• Completes Program Reviews in Higher Education
Educator Liaison to Institutes of Higher • Oversees Background Checks
Preparation Education • Oversees Teacher Credentialing
• Verification of Higher Education degrees

• ALEX- Alabama Learning Exchange – lesson plans for

teachers
• ACCESS Virtual Learning-Online courses for students
Supports LEAs in technology that meet the course of study standards
Education • ACTC- Provides support the for Alabama Technology
planning and student online
Technology Conference
courses
• Digital Learning Website-Provides resources for K12
schools such as virtual field trips
• eLearning Alabama- Online learning for educators
Supports Internal and • Teacher Effectiveness

Professional • Professional Development-PowerSchool Training
External Learning Needs of
Learning • Internal Book Studies
ALSDE
• Internal Communication Videos featuring Dr. Mackey
• School Nutrition Programs

Ensures procurement of high • Food Distribution
Child Nutrition quality and cost-efficient food • Summer Food Service
Program products for students and • Child and Adult Care Food Programs
adults in Alabama • Compliance Monitoring
• Oversees seven virtual schools in state

• Compliance monitoring for charter and virtual schools
Charter and Supporting virtual and charter • Supports Charter School Authorization
Virtual Schools schools statewide • Onboards charter schools to ensure they are compliant
with all regulations
• SS Disabilities Clients- Provides services and

Disability Determination processes claims for disabled clients
DDI • Provide public service to disabled people in Alabama
Services
• SSI Claims- Federal welfare for disabled child
• Oversees implementation of the Alabama

Comprehensive Assessment Program (ACAP)
Supervises state testing and • Supports NAEP Testing Administration
Assessment • Oversees ACT Testing Administration
reporting
• Oversees implementation of the Alabama Alternative
Assessment (AAA) for 1% of students
• Coordinates program monitoring either on-site or

Monitors programs in all through a desk audit by department
Compliance schools throughout the state • Programs monitored include: Fed programs, Career
Monitoring to ensure state and federal Tech, Guidance, Safety, Ed Certification, Transcript
policies are being followed Audit, Tech, Sped 1 & 2, Transportation 1 & 2 and Food
Service
• CTE- Career Clusters

Career and • Workforce Development
Career and Technical • Compliance Monitoring for CTE
Technical
Education (CTE) • Perkins Grant (federal funding for districts)
Education (CTE)
• Professional Development
• Statewide Student Conferences

• Career Readiness Indicators

• Mentors CTE District Directors
• Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) Program
• Supports AMSTI through professional development and

Regional Regionally housed in material management
Inservice Centers colleges and universities • Provides literacy training supporting ARI focus areas
(RIC) across the state (11 RICs) • Conducts book studies
• Train teachers on Technology in Motion
• Provides extensive training that leads to the NBCT

National Certification certification
National Board
Program for teachers that is • ALSDE provides financial support for teachers to
Certified
recognized on a national complete the program
Teachers (NBCT)
level • Educators receive a $5,000 stipend to their salary if
they obtain a NBCT certification.
• Provides training and technical assistance to LEAs

Alabama Teacher Provides LEAs the structure
upon request
Mentor Program to support high quality new
• Disseminates surveys to mentors and mentees to
(ATMP) teachers supports
gather perception data used for
Section Descriptions
Divisions at the ALSDE are divided into Sections. Each Section oversees the various programs described
above, along with performing several educational functions. The sections are further described below.
Exhibit 31. ALSDE Section Inventory
ALSDE Section Inventory
Educational Programs Educational Functions
I. Student Learning VI. LEA Auxiliary Support Services

• Alabama Math, Science, and Technology • Child Nutrition Program
Initiatives (AMSTI) • School Facilities
• Alabama Reading Initiative • Pupil Transportation
• Federal Programs
• Instructional Services (including Counseling
and Guidance)
• School Improvement
• Special Education Program (including Gifted)
II. Teaching and Leading VII. Information Systems

• Educator Certification
• Educator Preparation
III. Career and Technical Education VIII. SDE Business and Support
• CTE Services
• Accounting and Reporting (LEA and
SDE)

• Human Resources
• Procurement and Operations
IV. Evaluation, Accountability, and Support IX. Disability Determination Services
• Accountability
• Assessment
• Compliance Monitoring
• Education Technology
• Prevention and Support
V. Professional Learning X. Superintendent Supports

• Professional Learning section • Communication
• Regional In-Service Centers • General Counsel
Student Learning
Alabama Math, Science, Technology Initiatives (AMSTI)
The Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) is a key program to improve math and
science teaching throughout the state. AMSTI’s mission is to provide all students in Grades K-12 with the
knowledge and skills needed for success in the workforce and/or post-secondary studies.
AMSTI uses a three-pronged approach to support schools and districts throughout the state in the areas of
math and science. The approach includes providing professional development and coaching, resources
and materials, and follow up supports. Schools that apply to become “AMSTI Schools” agree to send their
math and science teachers for training for two consecutive years. AMSTI teachers receive resources and
support to implement lessons in their classrooms. Any school K-12 is eligible to apply.
There have been budgetary concerns for the program over the past decade.
• In FY 2009, AMSTI’s budget appropriations reached the highest levels since its inception in 2006,
with an appropriation of over 40 million dollars. The funding appropriations supported 626 schools
statewide.
• In FY 2020, AMSTI received 30 million dollars for 1,153 schools, or 86% of the state’s schools.
• AMSTI serves more students with 25% less funding than it received 14 years prior.
The goal of the AMSTI program is to build school-based structures and capacity for sustainability. In
2018, AMSTI math training underwent a revision, which was piloted in the summer of 2018 and is based
on the current research of effective mathematics teaching practices. AMSTI’s training helps teachers
practice and embed formative assessment cycles designed to analyze student work samples and adjust
instruction accordingly to advance student thinking and skills.
AMSTI Strategic Plan
AMSTI recently partnered with Cognia, formerly AdvancED-Measured Progress, to develop a three-year,
strategic improvement plan. This plan will provide a pathway for the section to move forward as well as
provide a road map for the regions to follow as they provide critical support to the improvement effort
underway in mathematics. The plan develops an improvement framework for all areas that AMSTI supports
including elementary and secondary math, science, digital literacy and computer science, as well as the
AMSTI materials operation. The expectation will be that each of the regions will use the improvement plan
from Cognia and operationalize it for their region aligning it to AMSTI’s Strategic Plan. Each Regional In-
Service Center will be expected to track their plan’s implementation and be accountable for results. The
plan consists of four themes: Student Learning, Educator Effectiveness, Organizational Effectiveness, and

Stakeholder Relations. The plan outlines the critical initiatives, as well as key measures that will be used to
indicate success.
This plan appears to provide a foundation for the changes that AMSTI must make to support an increase
in student achievement and to provide the transparency requested by stakeholders to ensure a good
investment in AMSTI programs. Accountability must be an important component of the plan and building in
key metrics will provide the data that has been missing in the past.
ALSDE’s Math Coaching Plan
Per January 2020 planning documents, the ALSDE intends to use a math coaching model to embed math
professional learning at the school level. The ALSDE’s goal is to hire 220 new math coaches ensuring every
region and an additional eleven new math coaches throughout the state beginning with a pilot in 2020-2021
and full implementation in the 2021-2022 school year.
PCG has identified the following concerns that will need to be addressed:
• Given the shortage of certified math teachers within the state, employing a new cadre of math
coaches in each region will tax the level of high-quality math teachers available to schools and
districts.
• For the influx of new math coaches to be successful, the ALSDE must develop a statewide
coaching model and create a multi-tiered implementation plan. New work with the Region 7
Comprehensive Center may achieve this goal. The Region 7 Comprehensive Center work was in
its infancy at the time of this report. The December 2019 Region 7 Comprehensive Center
(R7CC) Draft Logic Models for 2020 appeared promising.
• The ALSDE will have to set firm expectations of accountability at all levels including Regional In-
Service Centers, LEAs, coaches, and AMSTI’s staff.
• The ALSDE must stay focused and be consistent in their approach. There will be no benefit to
adding more staff without a strong program design, well trained coaches, and firm accountability.
• Leading this initiative will be an important undertaking by the ALSDE that should not be rushed and
pushed out to regions before everyone is ready. A successful math coaching initiative will need
strong leadership and a commitment from multiple stakeholders including the State Board, LEAs,
Regional In-Service Centers, and the ALSDE.
AMSTI Team Staffing
The AMSTI team has two (2) Administrative Support Assistants (ASAs), seven (7) administrator positions
(2 may be vacant), and ten (10) education specialist positions (3 may be vacant). In addition, there are 200-
220 field specialists hired and supervised by the Regional In-Services Centers.
Core Responsibilities:
• Provide some level of accountability and a measure of oversight of initiatives at the Regional In-
Service Centers specific to AMSTI.
• Oversees internal AMSTI staff. Does not have direct oversight of employees at Regional In-Service
Centers.
• Works with AMSTI sites in each of 11 regions to ensure the materials at the warehouse for Math
and Science are updating science kits for schools for each quarter.
• Supervises Alabama Science in Motion (ASiM) and operates lab delivery system to secondary
programs, one van for each region. Provides needed support for rural districts. This year’s budget
for ASiM is 2.5 million dollars.
• Develops annual implementation plan for accountability.
• Provides annual reports to legislators.
• Creates professional development to support the Course of Study in science and math.
• Provides support to hundreds of staff out in the field.

• Works with Advanced Ed to develop a 3-year improvement plan.

• Partnered with other stakeholders when the Math Course of Study was written. It was the first time
being asked to participate with other sections on standards development and alignment.
• Collaborates with Instructional Services, Assessment, CTE, Professional Learning, and Special
Education.
Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI)
The Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), initially founded as a statewide K-12 initiative, is currently charged
with preparing K-3 teachers and local reading coaches with the science of reading knowledge and skills to
effectively provide core literacy instruction and reading intervention that will meet the most challenging
needs for all students in grades K-3.
Since its inception in 1997, the ARI mission has been to improve literacy statewide, understanding that all
components of the science of reading combine to develop all students into skillful readers and writers. The
passing of Alabama’s Literacy Act in 2019, which takes effect in 2020-21, amplifies the need to support
strategies, incentives, and interventions specific to the science of reading for grades K-3. The cornerstone
of the legislation is the provision that 3rd grade students not reading at grade level will be retained beginning
in the 2021-22 school year. The legislation includes multiple exceptions that prevent a single assessment
from being the decisive factor of retention. With the passage of this high-stakes literacy initiative, it is more
important than ever that the Alabama Reading Initiative refocus and reestablish fidelity to its goal of having
all students reading at grade level by the end of third grade.
ARI’s refocused approach is “boots on the ground” training and support for classroom teachers, school
leaders, and district administrators through a network of local, regional, and state support. The ALSDE
identified the following to begin the improvement process:
• Integrate Alabama Literacy Act requirements and provide LEA support.

• Restore focus on the original mission and goal to ensure all students in grades K-3 read on grade-
level.
• Re-establish singular focus on school-level literacy coaching, to build knowledge, skills, and
expertise in early grade reading instruction.
• Re-establish the original ARI training modules and teacher pre-service and in-service training
grounded in the science of reading.
• Ensure there is a system of coaching support for K-3 teacher training (pre-service teachers, novice
teachers, retooling veteran teachers).
• Align coaching support for Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS)
trained educators that will ensure transfer to practice.
• Reinstate support for district and school instructional leadership that supports a strong school
reading and literacy plan.
• Implement the state plan of support for dyslexia, English language learners, and summer learning.
• Identify and target personnel, resources, and priority support for districts and schools with the most
urgent needs.
Alabama Literacy Act
In order to achieve grade-level reading goals established with the inception of ARI and mandated in
the 2019 Alabama Literacy Act, both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed by the ALSDE to
design a plan focused on what support should look like in the regions and how the support would be
differentiated for school reading specialists, school administrators, and central office staff who support
teachers in schools with grades K, 1, 2, and 3 across the state.

The ALSDE assigned the oversight of the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling
(LETRS) training to the ARI Section to ensure all literacy training will be coordinated from a single
point. The Education Administrator for LETRS oversees coordination with partners from the Alabama
Department of Early Childhood Education (ADECE) and the Alabama Commission on Higher Education
(ACHE). The ARI professional learning now includes statewide training in LETRS to PreK-3 educators.
Through the fall of 2019, LETRS has been delivered to 2,500 educators, providing them with a deeper
understanding in the science of reading that will increase a teacher’s ability to identify reading
difficulties and implement research-based instruction and intervention strategies that will support alI
learners, especially those struggling to read grade-level text.
ARI Literacy Coaches
The legislature has appropriated more funding for literacy coaches throughout the regions during the 2019-
2020 school year and the State Superintendent has requested additional funding in FY 2020-2021. A
Memorandum of Understanding, prescriptive and detailed job descriptions, and a highly focused set of
expectations will be coupled with the additional coaching staff in districts throughout the state.
Previously, the ALSDE never collected information on levels of education certification for coaches in LEAs
other than that they held a valid teacher certificate and met other requirements outlined in the ARI job
description. They were not required to have additional certification in reading unless it was something that
local superintendents and/or local boards required. The ALSDE sent job descriptions and LEAs hired
accordingly.
Going forward, according to the Alabama’s Literacy Act, districts will be required to report to the State
Superintendent that local school coaches have the following minimum qualifications:
1. The required Alabama Professional Educator Certificate.

2. A bachelor's degree and advanced coursework or professional development in the science
of reading, such as multisensory language instruction, or comparable alternative training
approved by the State Board of Education.
3. A minimum of two years of experience as a successful elementary or literacy teacher.
4. A knowledge of scientifically based reading research, special expertise in quality reading
instruction and intervention, dyslexia specific interventions, and data analysis.
5. A strong knowledge base in the science of learning to read and the science of early
childhood education.
6. Excellent communication skills with outstanding presentation, interpersonal, and time
management skills.
The change towards higher expectations for reading coaches will be difficult for some districts. Over the
last few years, coaches were hired to fill in gaps in schools including as building administrators, department
heads, or other difficult to fill positions. That will no longer be possible. Under the Alabama Literacy Act, the
requirement to increase expectations on the part of the LEAs and expect the ARI to provide professional
learning, support, and coaching to regional and local coaches is a game changer that will have greater
impact on struggling readers.
With the added accountability, the ALSDE has an opportunity to use data to measure outcomes and make
corrections along the way to continually improve the program. Moreover, the ARI staff need to be out in the
field monitoring practices and holding everyone accountable, including the Regional In-Service Centers for
the work that needs to be done. The legislature has made a large investment in this initiative, however
additional funding is not a guarantee of success if the plan is weak or not implemented with a high degree
of fidelity.
ARI Team Staffing
For the SY 2019-2020, there are twelve (12) full time staff (including principal/leadership coaches).

• Develops the training that ARI provides to all local reading coaches statewide. The ARI has
modules that were developed, duplicated and edited, reflecting the current research on reading.
There is no development work with LETRS; that is done by an outside vendor.
• Trains regional staff to go into schools/districts and train regional coaching communities.
• Provides support for regional coaches as they go into classrooms and coach teachers.
• Facilitates multiple trainings since there was a lapse in training due to inconsistency of funding.
Currently, there is a gap in what K-3 teachers have been trained on.
• Created a residency in reading for coaches.
• Responsible for implementation of the dyslexia amendment.
• Developed a leadership training program for elementary principals focused on literacy.
• Provides training for coaches through ARI modules that were specifically developed to build
coaching skills.
Federal Programs
The Federal Programs Section administers all federally funded education programs by providing technical
assistance to LEAs, approving applications for funding and monitoring for compliance to federal statutes
and regulations.
Federal Team Staffing
The Federal Programs Team consists of thirteen (13) Education Specialists, three (3) ASAs; three (3)
Administrators.
• Oversees federal programs including:

o Title I Part A, Part C, Part D; Title II, Title III (English Learners), Title IV Part B; Title VI,
Title VII;
o 21st Century Community Learning Centers;
o McKinney-Vento Homeless Program;
o Dependent Care Development Grants; and
o Teacher Loan Forgiveness
• Supports districts when they call. Most times they are looking for assistance to help problem solve
within their district. Federal Programs assembles a team and goes into the district to provide on the
ground support. 
• Provides training and professional development to LEAs based on requests from districts.
• Works with data constantly to address problems. 
• Collaborates with other ALSDE sections whose funding is related to professional development.
That includes School Improvement, EL, ARI, Teacher Education/Certification, Transportation, IT
• Created organizational meetings for the Federal Programs team. During those meetings establish
internal and LEA deadlines.
• Leads compliance monitoring visits for the LEAs.
• Ensures clear communication through documentation.
• Communicates with the USDOE to ensure the ALSDE is keeping abreast of accurate information
to share out with LEAs.
Instructional Services Program
The Instructional Services Section is responsible for assisting schools with the frameworks/
systems/supports that are needed to provide effective instruction.
Instructional Services Team Staffing

There are eleven (11) staff members. Staff consist of content experts, administrators, and ASAs. One (1)
administrator position was recently posted.
• Oversees all Courses of Study (COS) development and updates. That includes all core content
areas, the arts, and media.
• Provides updates throughout the state on topics related to curriculum and instruction.
• Supervises textbook adoption process. With the adoption of the Math COS, there is a need to
update the approved math textbooks and program list. A process and timeline have been outlined
by the section. It includes bid forms to be submitted to the ALSDE, samples reviewed by the
textbook committee and by Fall 2020 recommendations will be made to the State Board of
Education.
• Oversees partnerships such as A-Plus College Ready, Advanced Placement program,
International Baccalaureate Program, and dual enrollment with local colleges.
• Designs and facilitates training for various groups out in the field (i.e., administrators, counselors,
registrars)
• Oversees the PowerSchool changes that fall under the section. A big task was to renumber all the
course of studies to align with PowerSchool’s national numbering system. There is a new
intentional structure of numbering that the LEAs will be working with beginning next year.
• Speaks with parents daily, there are a lot of calls from parents looking for answers regarding issues
in their local schools.
• Works with Assessment Services as they roll out the new testing program. In addition, works with
the Accountability Section as they build a statewide accountability system from the ground up
• Oversees Teacher of the Year and other recognition programs.
• Supports and answers LEA inquires.
• Transitioning guidance and counseling services back to Instructional Services from CTE. This
includes college and career readiness, statewide advisory program, school facility dogs, and
supporting mental health programs.
School Improvement Program
The School Improvement Program provides the lowest 6% of schools with additional assistance and
support, including professional development, leadership coaching, additional funding, and assistance to
support the school’s goals. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a federal law, requires that the states
identify two types of schools for support and improvement. In Alabama that includes:
• Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI)

• Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI)
The section provided 761 hours of face to face time in schools/districts during the 2018-2019 school year.
School Improvement Team Staffing
There are four (4) full time staff on the team. The rest of the department is made up of retired part- time
state employees. sixteen (16) principal coaches, five (5) literacy coaches. The two (2) Regional
Coordinators split the state in half to provide services.
• Provides differentiated services depending on the situation of the school/district.

• Coordinates both principal and literacy coaches that provide services to schools.
• Provides technical assistance and professional development to the 61 CSI.
• Oversees Transformation Academy and Deep Dives.
• Supports both CSI and ATSI schools based on level of need.

• Provides Instructional Reviews.

• Focuses on Cycle of School Improvement.
• Supports and monitors School Improvement Plans.
• Collaborates with other sections who can assist in providing additional support throughout the
regions. ARI provides additional support to the CSI schools.
• Brings school leaders and teachers together to discuss challenges, effective practices.
• Responds to the needs of schools & districts. The schools/districts know they are reliable and
dependable. However, the actions are very reactive rather than proactive.
Special Education Services
Special Education Services seeks to improve the education experience for children with disabilities. The
team strives to nurture a dedicated staff support the field through professional development opportunities,
field experience, and monitoring. In keeping with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and State
law, Special Education helps local schools and districts provide effective educational programs to students
with disabilities, ages 3-20, who need special education and related services. Gifted Education and Section
504 are also housed within this section.
Special Education Team Staffing
There are 53 staff members. 1 staff member is assigned to Gifted.
 Provides technical assistance to LEAs, including related to specific IEPs, guidance for Special
Education Administrators, state and federal law.
 Respond to parent questions or complaints.
 Focused Monitoring- Compliance Monitoring for LEAs on all Special Education and components.
Run out of this office, not in conjunction with Compliance Monitoring.
 Monitoring for Gifted Education.
 Data/Reporting-State Performance Plan (SPP), Child Count.
 Oversight of Alternative Assessments.
 Dispute Resolutions- Mediation and Due Process Hearings.
 Special Education Preschool- Includes Child Find, Least Restrictive Environment, Developmental
Programs.
 Post-Secondary Outcomes.
 Professional Learning.
Teaching and Leading

Education Certification
Educator Certification is responsible for ensuring that academic requirements for certification approaches
are met, background clearance requirements for professional and support staff are satisfied, and that all
test requirements are met for issuance of certificates.
Education Certification Team Staffing
There are currently thirty-seven (37) staff members on the certification team, including 9 ASAs and 4 clerks.
That number includes staff who serve in the Background Check section.
 Develops, updates, implements, and enforce rules regarding the Educator Certification
Chapter of the Alabama Administrative Code.
 Develops and implements routes for obtaining professional educator certification.

 Creates certification application forms, guidelines, and other documents to communicate

current information to applicants and stakeholders.
 Trains staff to develop forms, correspondence, and documents.
 Ensures that staff adheres to all laws and requirements for criminal history background reviews
and certificate issuance.
 Collaborates with the Information Systems Section of the Department regarding all technology
functions.
 Collaborates with the Office of General Counsel, Career and Technical Education, Federal
Programs, Special Education, Educator Assessment, Educator Preparation, and Curriculum.
 Communicates and collaborates with Certificate Issuing Agencies and institutions of higher
education in other states regarding certification and background review topics.
 Communicates and collaborates with Alabama local education agencies, nonpublic/private
schools, institutions of higher education, professional organizations, and other stakeholders
regarding certification and background review topics.
 Communicates with applicants, law enforcement agencies, municipal and district courts, local
education agencies, nonpublic/private schools, and institutions of higher education regarding
files noting illegal behavior and acts of misconduct regarding certificate and license holders.
 Responds to inquiries from State Certificate Issuing Agencies, media outlets, and upper level
management.
 Responds to and resolves applicant complaints.
 Prepares and conducts presentations for the State Board meetings, State Board work
sessions; and conferences with stakeholders.
 Ensures that immigration status is verified prior to certificate issuance for all applicants.
 Manages vendor relationships with various entities.
 Collects, analyzes, and interprets certification data.
 Assures that all certification fees are reconciled (over one million dollars annually).
 Participates in the development of guidance related to the Alabama Educator Certification
Testing Program and oversee the effective implementation of the program.
 Manages the fingerprint process for all individuals who have unsupervised access to children
as indicated by the Alabama Child Protection Act of 1999, as amended, and the Educator
Certification Chapter of the Alabama Administrative Code. This code only includes
employees, not volunteers or field trip chaperones.
 Manages the storage, use procedures, and dissemination of criminal history information
 Makes suitability determinations for applicants based on criminal history information.
 Ensures compliance regarding the management and dissemination of criminal history
information during audits conducted by the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Educator Preparation Programs
Educator Preparation is tasked with implementing the standards adopted by the State Board of Education
for the preparation of well-prepared and effective teachers and instructional support personnel. Staff work
with educator preparation programs at Alabama colleges and universities to assure continuous compliance
with all standards in the Teacher Education Chapter of the AL Administrative Code.
Educator Team Staffing
There are five (5) staff members including one (1) ASA.
• Supports Institutes of Higher Education with educational programs when requested.

• Completes education program reviews at colleges and universities throughout the state.

• Collects data from colleges and universities such as program admission by institutions.
• Oversees Educator Certification and Personnel Background Checks sections.
• Drafts rules for review of educator prep programs that prepare students for certification (i.e.,
Computer Science Education program).
• Provides compliance monitoring at colleges and universities to ensure compliance with all
standards in teacher education programs.
• Collaborates with other sections on Praxis Teacher Assessment changes.
• Works internally with Instructional services, Federal Programs, CTE, Special Education, and Legal.
• Provides support to Institutes of Higher Education on meeting educational teaching standards
through their program.
Career and Technical Education

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Program
The Career and Technical Education/Workforce Development programs are focused on helping students
achieve success through career awareness, leadership development, and academic excellence. These
programs also provide services to Alabama’s teachers, administrators, and counselors through professional
development that works to further K-12 student achievement and project-based learning.
CTE is focused on developing the skills of K-12 students to prepare them for postsecondary learning and
workforce opportunities. It also provides them essential leadership skills through participation in student
organizations.
CTE’s direct communication with teachers in the field is constant and most of their work is field based.
Equally, there is frequent contact with thousands of students each year between direct work and
interactions at conferences. There has been a recent shift this past year to greater focus on academic
standards in CTE classes. For example, this year’s annual conference focused on the standards.
CTE Team Staffing
There are forty (40) employees for the sixteen (16) cluster areas. There were nine (9) vacancies at the time
of the report. The CTE Director position became vacant over the course of this review.
• Provides technical assistance to the LEAs, including superintendents, CTE directors, curriculum
coordinators and teachers.
• Visits CTE classrooms to observe content delivery.
• Plans student conferences throughout the state.
• Oversees the CTP-TCT New Teacher Institute, which provides 196 hours of professional
development.
• 95% of time is devoted to field work. This includes working with business and industry, working with
LEAs setting up new initiative or connecting the two to improve programming.
• Works with Governors’ Office on various projects including Governor’s Workforce Development
Council.
• Oversees various programming such as Workforce Development, Career Cluster Program, and
JROTC (currently has 17,000+ students).
• Counseling and Guidance was a part of CTE, but recently was moved to Instructional Services in
Fall 2019.
Evaluation, Accountability, and Support

Accountability Program

The Accountability program works with Alabama’s districts, schools, as well as sections within the ALSDE
to provide information regarding Alabama’s Accountability Models. In addition, the Accountability section
assists districts in the use of the data to make research-based decisions that are best suited to meet the
needs of students.
Alabama's Accountability System meets the requirements of both the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
and Alabama Act 2012-402. Federal law mandates the use of various indicators for meaningful
differentiation among schools, while Alabama Act 2012-402 requires the State Superintendent to develop
a school grading system.
Accountability Team Staffing
There are currently four (4) staff members in the section. There are also three (3) vacancies. Six years ago,
the Accountability and Assessment split into separate sections.
• Creates the Failing Schools list based on academic outcomes data. Failing Schools are selected
when they are the bottom 6% of state test scores.
• Provides the data required for ESSA Accountability.
• Oversees the School Report Card.
• Provides data to determine the letter grades that will differentiate schools based on the ESSA plan.
• Attends CCSSO conference. This national conference for Chief State School Officers provides the
latest information from the USDOE on changes to assessment and federal accountability.
• Trains and provides technical assistance, including calls from the field.
• Revamps business rules for ESSA modification and rules, researches how to improve different
business rules throughout the Department, runs report to see what the changes would look like.
• Creates time requested reports from senior ALSDE leadership or legislature.
• Researches national trends by investigating and collecting data on NAEP states to stay ahead of
best practices.
• Creates 9-month attendance report each spring.
• Looks at seven data sets during the summer to put together data reports.
• Provides training to schools and districts, including training at MEGA Conference.
• Collaborates with the Communications team to create informational material regarding assessment
results.
Assessment Program
The Office of Student Assessment is responsible for the coordination, development, and implementation of
the state testing program. The goal is to improve academic achievement for all Alabama students. This
goal is accomplished by providing administrators, educators, parents, and the community tools and
information about student performance in the context of college and career readiness.
Assessment Team Staffing
Currently the team has four (4) education specialists. There are two (2) vacancies for additional education
specialists, which should be filled soon.
• Ensures that assessments are administered appropriately

• Oversees development and administration of assessments.
• Communicates with district Superintendents about assessment development process.
• Writes items, reviews items for bias, makes sure items are appropriate for student subgroups such
as English Learners and Students with Disabilities.

• Handles all logistics of setting up NAEP. The NAEP field staff go into schools and districts to do
their work, not the ALSDE staff.
• Collaborates internally with Information Systems, Accountability, and Instructional Services
• Reviews passages; ensures grade-level appropriateness.
• Works with independent third-party vendor to complete an alignment study of assessment items to
ensure their alignment to the ALSDE standards.
• Provides training for teachers who serve as item writers.
• Collaborates with vendor to standardize training and provide teachers with a step by step process
of item writing.
• Provides training and monthly webinars with system test coordinators. If something new is
happening in assessment will travel to districts to provide training. Webcasts have been used as
well to provide access to past training sessions.
• Maps assessment items to previous standards and to the new ones.
• Works closely with legal about what to do if there was an impropriety in testing, they provide
guidelines.
• Focuses on transparency about the assessments within their section. Districts must have as much
data/info as possible to be ready for assessments.
Compliance Monitoring
The Compliance Monitoring program monitors all K-12 school systems in Alabama for compliance with
state and federal regulations and State Board of Education mandates. Monitoring is a means of ensuring
selected programs under ESSA meet federal guidelines and are implemented with fidelity in order to
increase student achievement. Looks specifically at the programmatic regulations, as well as the
expenditure of funds.
The Compliance Monitoring Team received a new compliance monitoring technology system this year.
There have been three electronic systems in the past seven years. The new system, Cognia, E-Prove
System has improved the data collection process.
Compliance Team Staffing
The Compliance Monitoring Team consists of two (2) full time employees, one (1) administrator, and one
ASA. Additionally, the team utilizes staff from the various departments being monitored (i.e., Teacher
Credentialing, Transportation, Federal Programs).
• Sets and coordinates schedule for compliance monitoring, technical assistance and risk
assessment. In June, the compliance monitoring schedule is provided to the superintendents during
the annual Superintendent Conference. Monitoring is on a five-year schedule.
• Designs compliance monitoring to determine LEA compliance with federal program requirements,
while at the same time providing technical assistance with any compliance areas. The purposes of
monitoring include: (1) reviewing information from a LEA; (2) determining the need for Corrective
Actions; and (3) identifying areas needing technical assistance.
• Provides training and technical assistance at the MEGA Conference that focuses on changes in
monitoring practices.
• Travels to schools throughout the state from September to June to participate in the Compliance
Monitoring process.
Education Technology
Education Technology's mission is to use technology as a tool to prepare students to become a productive,
contributing citizens. The office serves and supports LEAs as a contact in school system technology
planning, implementation of the Alabama Technology Plan for K-12 Education, ALEX (a repository/website

for lesson plans), ACCESS Virtual Learning program, and coordinates the Alabama Education Technology
Conference.
The ACCESS Virtual Learning (Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators, and Students Statewide) is
an education initiative that provides opportunities and options for Alabama public high school students to
engage in Advanced Placement (AP), course remediation, electives, and other courses to which they may
not otherwise have access or be able to schedule within their school day. The ACCESS Virtual Learning
Program continues to grow and has high usage in rural schools where the course selection may be limited
for high school students.
Education Technology Team Staffing
The Education Technology Team consists of nine (9) staff members, including both full and part-time
employees.
• Supports the ACCESS virtual learning program for students, which is the third largest in the country,
with approximately 7,000 student users. This program is not a virtual school, but rather a program
that provides a variety of courses aligned to the Alabama Course of Studies. The program allows
students to take courses that may not be available in their district, especially in rural districts. It also
provides a forum for credit recovery.
• Oversees programs that include ALEX, ACCESS, E-Learning, E-Rate, Alabama Joint Purchasing
(ALJP).
• Updates the ALEX program
• Plans the Alabama Technical Conference which attracts 1,500+ attendees annually.
• Provides training for E-rate, Google Suite, and Google Classroom.
• Ties training to PLUs for administrators.
• Supports LEAs through interaction with their technology coordinators.
• Reviews and manages all the Technology Plans for each LEA as part of compliance monitoring
• Procures or develops e-learning courses that align to Alabama Course of Study for the ACCESS
virtual learning program.
Prevention and Support Programs
The Prevention and Support Programs and Services Section focuses its attention on assisting school
systems and schools with Alcohol and Drug Prevention, Attendance, Bullying Prevention, Character
Education and Positive Behavior Supports, Discipline (School Incident Reports), Dropout Prevention,
Graduation Rate, Health Services and School Nursing, and School Safety.
Prevention and Support Team Staffing
The team consists of two (2) RNs, one and a half (1.5) ASAs, four (4) Education Specialists, and three (3)
Administrators (1 leading the section). In addition, there are ten (10) grant funded field support staff.
• Administers the state-wide Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

• Supports the Safe Schools Council.
• Provides technical assistance to LEAs who request support or are in a crisis situation
• Forms partnership with University of Alabama and other agencies as there is not enough money in
the budget to address all the needs in the LEAs.
• Supports LEAs in PBIS, School Safety, Culture and Climate issues, Bullying Prevention.
• Provides support for 3,000 school nurses through policies, training, compliance reviews.
• Builds relationships with LEAs and communities. Works with Chamber of Commerce.

• Works to change the punitive model of discipline and retool the code of conduct by working with
LEAs on their board policies.
• Collects College and Career Ready data, graduation rates, attendance rates.
• Partners with state staff in the areas of Safety, including Law Enforcement, Attorney General,
Legislative Groups, Emergency Management, Speaker of House. Partnerships are focused on all
types of safety hazards, recently it has been hurricanes.
• Provides follow up from field staff on the Governor’s Safe Council including:
o Threat assessment.
o Walkthrough of schools for safety.
o Overview on youth mental health. Schools can ask for school mental health training.
• Coordinates mental health training that comes from different departments including Prevention and
Support.
• Secures resources and builds out partnerships to scale to impact the section’s effectiveness.
• Analyzes data for the four indicators in College and Career Ready. When the Research and
Evaluation Section disbanded, Prevention and Support Services became the hub for data quality.
The section does some spot checks with Graduation Cohort for Graduation, College and Career
Ready and Drop Out data. The section does a lot of data analytics, which was added on over last
few years in addition to the prevention work.
Professional Learning
Professional Learning
Professional Learning is a new team created by Dr. Mackey at the beginning of his tenure as State
Superintendent. The primary purpose of professional learning is to improve educational practice and
increase student achievement.
Professional Learning Team Staffing
There are six (6) staff members, including the ALSDE Chief of Staff. Currently there is no ASA working on
this team.
• Conducts book study for internal staff. The latest book study, Six Secrets of Change by Michael
Fullan, included 134 staff signed up to be part of the activity. The book study is an attempt at
cross-section learning internally at the ALSDE.
• Produces Dr. Mackey’s monthly internal video series updating the ALSDE on happenings
within the Department.
• Works with universities on Educator Effectiveness.
• Developing Teacher Evaluation tool as ESSA requires consistent measures and a more
comprehensive approach.
• Supports PowerSchool training.
• Surveys internal staff to assess improvement to the culture of the ALSDE.
• Works with Curriculum and Development, Alabama Counsel of Leadership Development and
PLU credits state-wide.
• Coordinates new principal mentoring program in partnership with higher education and LEAs
• Bolsters the connection between the ALSDE and the Regional In-Service Centers. There are
a lot of changes and accountability happening with the RICs, including new Accountability
Standards.
• Oversees leadership development. Meets with providers who provide professional learning for
leaders. Professional learning content should be aligned to the leadership standards to be
approved for PLU status.
• Receives ‘special projects’ as assigned by Dr. Mackey.

LEA Auxiliary Support Services

Child Nutrition Program
The Child Nutrition Program manages and implements United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Child Nutrition Programs operating in Alabama’s schools and preschool facilities. Staff interpret federal and
state policies and laws, provide technical assistance and complete program audits; allocate USDA donated
foods, ensure procurement of high quality and cost-efficient food products are compliant with regulations.
Child Nutrition Team Staffing
There are 37 staff members on the Child Nutrition team. There are 4 vacancies within the section.
• Oversees the following:

o National School Lunch Program;
o School Breakfast Program;
o Free and Reduced Lunch eligibility;
o Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program;
o Special Milk Program;
o Summer Food Program;
o Afterschool Snack Program;
o Food Distribution of USDA donated food; and
o Commodity Supplemental Food Program (for elderly in state);
• Audit responsibilities for all programs under child nutrition.
• Oversees bidding program for food and non-food for state. If districts want to participate as part of
the buying group, they are allowed. Also, larger childcare centers, private schools, and residential
childcare facilities are members of the buying group to helps to lower food costs.
• Supervises compliance with the USDA regulations.
• Works with federal programs and data collection group within the ALSDE.
• Collaborates with Finance. There is a part of SDE Accounting that’s just for the Food and Nutrition
program. Interaction with SDE Accounting is important to determine the financial viability of each
school system’s lunch balance.
• Provides training and support to the Alabama School Nutrition Association. Child Nutrition
convenes two meetings a year with child nutrition directors to review the new rules and regulations.
• Holds summer training with national school lunch program paired with Child Nutrition Institute.
Typically, when training cafeteria managers in the summer there is close to 200 participants.
• The ALSDE Child Nutrition Program is not just for K-12, but for child and adult care
feeding programs. With the breastfeeding training program and the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, the Child Nutrition Program has the possibility of feeding Alabama residents from birth to
end of life.
Facilities Programs
The Facilities Program, led by the School Architect, assists local boards of education and various
professionals with the planning, budgeting, design, bidding and construction of school facilities. Activities
include approval of plans, A/E agreements and Construction Contracts. Other responsibilities include
oversight of Capital Planning, Facility Assessment and the sale or exchange of state-owned property by
the county system.
Facilities Team Staffing
There are 2 members of the team, an administrator who also oversees other departments and an ASA.

• Supports local superintendents and school boards regarding school facilities and building projects.
• Collects and reviews the five-year capital plan for each LEA. Public School Funds cannot be
released until the Capital Plan has been received by the ALSDE.
• Oversees the sale or exchange of state-owned property.
• Provides technical assistance and guidance to LEAs when requested.
• Communicates changes in state and federal regulations that are important to LEAs (i.e., clean
water, asbestos).
• Participates in compliance monitoring.
• Provides oversight of construction projects such as approval of plans and construction contracts.
• Oversees new charter school facilities to ensure they meet all state regulations.
Pupil Transportation Services
Pupil Transportation provides support and professional development for local transportation departments
throughout Alabama. While Driver and Traffic Safety Education places emphasis on making sure that
students are safe drivers, School Bus Instructors place emphasis on ensuring that all bus drivers have the
knowledge and resources necessary to provide safe transportation for the students each day.
Pupil Transportation is dedicated to the safety and well-being of all students in the public schools of
Alabama. With that end in mind, ALSDE conducts on-site monitoring and evaluates pupil transportation in
each LEA to ensure the safety of students and compliance with all requirements.
Pupil Transportation Team Staffing
The Transportation Services Dept has a staff of sixteen (16) full time employees. That includes five (5)
Inspectors, who inspect 10,000 buses in LEAs per year to be compliant with state law. The section also
includes 1 staff member that teaches special education bus driver certification classes.
• Works in the ALSDE with Human Resources; facilities; special education (buses); federal programs
(McKinney-Vento), summer school, LEA accounting, and Accountability.
• Oversees the Driver Education training program. This is a third-party program.
• Supports funding fleet renewal. The fleet renewal program provides local school systems funding
for each school bus in their fleet that is ten years old or less. This funding is provided for a maximum
of ten years. Approximately 75% of Alabama's school buses are ten years old or less.
• Certifies and recertifies every school bus driver in the state.
• Provides training for all certification classes. First time certification is a 12-hour class. Certification
renewals are 4- hour classes.
• Partners with the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA).
SDE Business and Support Services

LEA Accounting, Accounting, Fiscal Accountability, and SDE Accounting
LEA Accounting is responsible for reviewing local school system budgets, indirect cost applications,
financial statements, program expenditure reports, as well as disbursing state and federal funds. Other
activities include preparing financial and statistical reports to various state and federal agencies and
calculating major federal formula grant allocation amounts to local school systems.
Fiscal Accountability is responsible for financial administrative and fiscal accountability requirements for
school systems as mandated. Activities include: K-12 funding, local education agency audits, certification

and training of school finance and administrative personnel, and technical assistance to local school
systems and state offices.
The SDE Accounting Section deals with ALSDE financial matters. A partial list of responsibilities includes
budgets, financial reporting, payroll information, travel cost reimbursements, audits, and state/federal law
compliance.
LEA Accounting, Fiscal Accountability, and SDE Accounting Team Staffing
LEA Accounting has fifteen (15) staff members; SDE Accounting has twenty-eight (28) staff members; One
(1) staff member for Fiscal Accountability. It was noted this section has a very stable staff with little turnover.
• Works closely with Federal Projects and Special Education Dept internally.
• Works with school CFOs.
• Review financial statements, amendments.
• Curates resources on the ALSDE website primarily for CFOs.
• Collects financial data from districts and provides state reports with those data. Linked to funding.
• Provides training when requested.
• Works with State Legislature and state laws.
• Writes accounting manuals, procedures – following up with audit standards, reviews audits.
• Helps to write legislation, state board rules.
• Provides financial and administrative training.
• Provides certification for district CSFOs.
• Gives LEAs a fiscal review, before they get audited. It helps LEAs to avoid fines.
• Works with all departments evenly throughout the ALSDE for all different issues such as contracts,
purchase orders, etc.
Procurement Services
The Procurement Section provides expertise in the procurement of products and services to department
staff ensuring procurement activities are performed within law, rule, policy & procedure.
Procurement Service Team Staffing
There are eight (8) staff members on the team. They currently have openings and are short-handed, but
they do not want to hire until there is clarity as to the future of the section. The vacancies have been open
for a year.
• Oversees the following:

• Purchasing for all sections within department
• Mail Services- internal mail and supply delivery
• Fleet Management for executives (10 automobiles)
• Property Management including the ALSDE floors
• Inventory control
• Office supplies
• Construction- building offices and cubicles
• RFP process- adheres to all the laws and regulations
• Receives all commodities ordered in the Department. If the property is over $500.00, it must be
tagged before being delivered to purchaser. Material receipt goes to accounting for payment.
• Tracks all paperwork from A2 (Requisitions) at the ALSDE. This can be a confusing and long
process. There are multiple steps to ordering anything using a requisition form, which is a color-

coded carbon paper form with 5 separate copies. All copies are signed by supervisors on up. Since
the process is paper based, there are problems with requests sitting on supervisor’s desks when
they are out of the office or just getting lost in a back log. There is no tracking system for ‘requesters’
to see how the A2 is progressing or where it is stuck. These purchases are not just commodities,
but also services being provided by outside vendors. If there are no glitches, the requisition process
could take a week, if there are hold ups such as staff are unavailable for signatures, it could take
3+ weeks to process. See the following exhibit for a step by step overview of the complete
requisition process.
• Oversees employee reimbursement. Using Concur to reimburse staff for out of state travel has
expedited the process. Concur was brought about because it was too much for the procurement
section to manage and ensure staff were paid in a reasonable amount of time. The section still
oversees in-state travel, as it is not such a hassle. There are government rates set for in state
travel, which simplifies the process.

Exhibit 32. ALSDE Current Procurement Process Map

Disability Determination Services

Department of Disability Determination Services
Alabama’s Disability Determination Services (DDS) is a distinct department that resides within the ALSDE.
DDS determines whether a resident residing in the state is disabled, according to Social Security’s rules.
The DDS processes claims applications for services. There is no DDS office at the ALSDE, but rather there
are DDS offices in Mobile and Birmingham. DDS is in the ALSDE for historical reasons. DDS continued to
report to the ALSDE after splitting from Vocation Rehabilitation Services in the late 1980’s.
DDS Staffing
The program employs 406 staff members who are deployed in offices in Mobile or Birmingham. Additionally,
there are 58 doctors who are contracted to provide services to the DDS. All positions are hired through the
ALSDE Human Resources Department. All personnel tasks continue to be assigned to the Human
Resources Department (i.e., employee annual appraisals, raises, employee conflict resolutions) throughout
the employees’ tenure with the DDS. The ALSDE also assumes all responsibility for legal and IT support.
• Provides public service to individuals with disabilities in the state. Even though the services are
different from other programs at the ALSDE, they have an opportunity to serve the public in
Alabama
• Provides Disability Insurance for adults with disabilities under age 66. The average age of clients
is between 40-66.
• Makes financial and medical decisions for clients.
• Review claims on a regular basis for medical client.
• Trains staff on how to process claims to ensure accuracy.

VI. Staffing Analysis
Task: Determine if the ALSDE’s programs are adequately staffed based on stated functions.
PCG conducted an analysis of the ALSDE’s current staffing levels and distributions across functional areas.
PCG also reviewed the current organizational structure and identified gaps in staff duties required to
successfully perform core functions. This section proposes a forward-looking organizational structure that
better aligns staff duties to supporting improved student outcomes.
Overall Staffing Analysis

This section analyzes current staff levels by position, cost center, funding source and vacancies. For the
purposes of our analysis, PCG did not include DDS staff.
Exhibit 33. Number of Positions, 2017-20
500
476 473.5
437 435.5
400
300
200
100
0
2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Positions
The total number of ALSDE staff as of January 2020 is 473.5. This count includes both full and part-time
staff members. This number is slightly higher than 476 in 2017. In 2018, staff counts dropped by roughly
40 positions and have risen again over the past year.
Exhibit 34. Percent of Full and Part Time Staff
Part Time
24%
Full Time
76%

Exhibit 35. Number of Employees by FTE
<.03 FTE .03-.49 FTE .5-.9 FTE 1.0 FTE

0 1 80 361
Three quarters of all staff are full-time employees. The workload of the 25% of employees that work part
time is at least 50% with only one exception.
Nearly all part-time staff are classified as “retired state employees.” According to the State of Alabama
Personnel Department, a Retired State Employee is a “State retiree currently receiving retirement benefits
from the Employees’ Retirement System, the Teachers’ Retirement System, or the Judicial Retirement
System. The salary of a person appointed to this classification cannot exceed the hourly rate paid to the
employee at the time of his/her retirement. Also, the salary must be an hourly equivalent of a semi-monthly
rate in the State Pay Plan. Individuals appointed to this classification do not earn benefits and can be
separated from employment at the discretion of the agency. Compensation earned by Retired State
Employees cannot exceed the limits established by the Retirement Systems of Alabama.”
Staffing Analysis by Cost Center and Funding Type

The following tables look at number of employees by Cost Center, Fund Codes and Funding Source.
• The greatest number of employees, full and part-time, is funded by Special Education Services,
with a total of 53 staff members.
• The Child Nutrition Program has the highest number of full-time employees (36) and a total staff
member count of 40.
• The School Improvement Cost Center funds the greatest number of part-time employees at 24,
along with 6 full-time staff.
Exhibit 36. Number of Employees by Cost Center
Cost Center No. Full Time Employees No. Part Time Employees Total
Special Education Services 32 21 53
Child Nutrition Program 36 4 40
Educator Certification 33 2 35
Federal Programs 18 13 31
School Improvement 6 24 30
Career Technical Education 25 3 28
SDE Accounting 24 2 26
Education Technology 18 0 18
Pupil Transportation 13 5 18
AMSTI 14 1 15
LEA Accounting and Reporting 15 0 15
Instructional Services 12 2 14
Network Operations 13 0 13
Prevention & Support 11 1 12
Legal 10 0 10
Alabama Reading Initiative 10 0 10
Software Development 9 0 9
Procurement and Operations 8 0 8

Cost Center No. Full Time Employees No. Part Time Employees Total
State Superintendent Office 4 2 6
Driver Education 3 3 6
Assessment 6 0 6
Teaching and Leading 5 0 5
Human Resources 4 1 5
Communications 5 0 5
Professional Learning 4 1 5
Division of A&F 4 0 4
Evaluation, Accountability and Support 4 0 4
Educator Preparation 3 0 3
Accountability 3 0 3
Division of Instruction 2 0 2
Student Learning 2 0 2
LEA Auxiliary Support Services 2 0 2
Compliance Monitoring 2 0 2
School Facilities 1 0 1
SDE Business & Support Services 0 0 0
Total 361 85 446
Exhibit 37. Number of Positions by Fund
Fund Positions Funded

SDE-O&M 157
IDEA-Part B 48
Shared Services 36
State Admin Expense 30
Title I, Part A School Improvement 25
Internal Service-Information Systems 22
Title I, Part A 20
Career Tech Initiative 18
AL Math, Science, and Tech Initiative 15
Vocational Education - Basic Grant 9
Educator Certificates 8
Governor's Academic & Financial Improvement 8
Distance Learning 8
Alabama Reading Initiative 8
Audit Expense-Child Adult Care Program 5
Driver Education 5
Student Assessment 4
Title IV, Part B – 21st Century Comm. Learning 4
Centers
State Assessment 3

Title I, Part C – Migrant Education 2

Title X – Homeless Education 2
Project AWARE (SAMHSA) 2
Advanced Placement 1
English Language Learners Program 1
Title I, Part A School Improvement - 1003(g) 1
Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training 1
Direct Certification Improvement Grant 1
Admin Expense-Summer Food Service Program 1
State-Wide Purchasing 1
The State Department of Education-Operating & Management funding source funds the most positions at
157. IDEA-Part B is the federal funding source that funds the greatest number of positions at 48.
Exhibit 38. Percent of Positions Funded by State and Federal Funds
Federal
Funds
25%
State Funds
75%
Three-quarters of the ALSDE positions are paid for with State Funds.
Exhibit 39. Number of Positions Funded by State Funds

SDE-O&M 157
Shared Services 36
State Admin Expense 30
Internal Service-Information Systems 22
Career Tech Initiative 18
AL Math, Science, and Tech Initiative 15
Educator Certificates 8
Governor's Academic & Financial 8
Improvement
Distance Learning 8
Alabama Reading Initiative 8
Audit Expense-Child Adult Care 5
Program

Driver Education 5
Student Assessment 4
State Assessment 3
Project AWARE (SAMHSA) 2
Advanced Placement 1
English Language Learners Program 1
Direct Certification Improvement Grant 1
Admin Expense-Summer Food Service 1
Program
State-Wide Purchasing 1
Total 334
State-level funds pay for 334 positions at the ALSDE. Apart from the SDE-O&M funding source that pays
for 157 positions, the other state-level funds cover a range of 1 position (Advanced Placement, ELL
Program, Director Certification Improvement Grant, Admin Expense-Summer Food Service Program, and
State-Wide Purchasing) to 36 positions (Share Services Fund).
Exhibit 40. Number of Positions Funded by Federal Funds

IDEA-Part B 48
Title I, Part A School Improvement 25
Title I, Part A 20
Vocational Education - Basic Grant 9
Title IV, Part B – 21st Century Comm. Learning 4
Centers
Title I, Part C – Migrant Education 2
Title X – Homeless Education 2
Title I, Part A School Improvement - 1003(g) 1
Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training 1
Total 112
Federal funds cover 112 positions at ALSDE. Three federal funding sources pay for more than 10 positions:
IDEA-Part B (48); Title I, Part A School Improvement (25); and Title I, Part A (20).
Staffing Analysis by Type

The Education Specialist I role has the greatest number of both full and part-time employees, at 121 and
123 respectively. There is no Educational Specialist II role. The next largest group is Retired State
Employees, with 74 occupied positions. These are part-time positions. It is notable that there are 53 full-
time Education Administrator Is, but only 8 full-time Education Administrator IIs.
Exhibit 41. Number of Employees by Classification
Classification No. Full Time No. Part Time Total

Education Specialist I 121 2 123
Retired State Employee 0 74 74
Education Administrator I 53 0 53


ASA III 29 1 30
Staff Accountant 15 0 15
Senior Accountant 13 0 13
ASA II 11 1 12
Education Exempt 10 0 10
Account Clerk 7 1 8
Accounting Manager 8 0 8
Clerk 8 0 8
Education Administrator II 8 0 8
Assistant Superintendent 6 0 6
Accountant 5 0 5
School Bus Equipment Inspector 4 0 4
ASA I 3 0 3
Attorney III 3 0 3
IT Systems Specialist Associate 3 0 3
IT Systems Specialist Senior 3 0 3
IT Systems Technician 3 0 3
Programmer Analyst 3 0 3
Audit Manager 2 0 2
Clerk Steno IV 2 0 2
Deputy Superintendent 2 0 2
Laborer 2 0 2
Personnel Assistant III 2 0 2
Program Director 2 0 2
Programmer Analyst Senior 2 0 2
Public Information Specialist 2 0 2
State Intern 0 2 2
Surplus Commodity Administrator 2 0 2
Accounting Director I 1 0 1
Accounting Technician 1 0 1
Attorney IV 1 0 1
Audiovisual Specialist III 1 0 1
Data Processing Specialist 1 0 1
Departmental Marketing Specialist 1 0 1
Departmental Operations Specialist 1 0 1
Deputy Attorney General 1 0 1
Docket Clerk 1 0 1
Executive Assistant III 1 0 1
Executive Secretary 1 0 1
General Services Supervisor 1 0 1
Graphic Arts Technician 1 0 1
Human Services Program Coordinator 1 0 1


IT Manager II 1 0 1
IT Operations Technician 1 0 1
IT Systems Specialist 1 0 1
IT Systems Technician Senior 1 0 1
Legal Research Assistant 1 0 1
Nurse Administrator 1 0 1
Nurse Manager 1 0 1
Nutritionist Senior 1 0 1
Paralegal 1 0 1
Procurement Officer I 1 0 1
Programmer Analyst Associate 1 0 1
School Bus Inspector Supervisor 1 0 1
Special Investigator 1 0 1
State Superintendent 1 0 1
Stock Clerk I 1 0 1
Total 363 81 444*
*Total number of employees by Classification is 444 and by Cost Center is 446. Two employees were funded by 2 different cost
centers, and thus counted for each Cost Center.
Exhibit 42. Percent of Staff by Classification, (Ed. Specialist, Ed. Administrator, Clerk/ASA vs. All Other
Positions)
27.7% 13.7% 11.9% 46.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ed Specialist Ed Administrator Clerk/ASA All Other Positions
Education Specialists and Education Administrators make up 40% of all employees at the ALSDE.
Clerks/ASAs are 12% of the ALSDE workforce.

Exhibit 43. Education vs. Operational Staff Percentages
Education
Staff
Operational 44%
56%
There are more Operational Staff (56%) than Education Staff (44%) that work at the ALSDE. The following
positions were included in the Education Staff calculation: Education Specialist I, Education Administrators
I and II, Deputy Superintendents, Directors, Assistant Superintendents, and State Superintendent. The
remaining positions were included in the Operational staff calculation.
Exhibit 44. Percentage of Vacant Positions Compared to Budgeted Positions
Vacant
Positions
15%
Filled
Positions
85%
Currently, the ALSDE is not operating at capacity with 15% of budgeted positions vacant (81 vacancies).
Many of these vacant positions fall under the Education Specialist I (22 vacancies), Education Administrator
I (11 vacancies), and Retired State Employee classifications (25 vacancies). The remaining vacancies are
operational, with 9 in an ASA role. Many staff cited personnel requirements and the hiring process as the
primary reason for these vacancies. Constraints cited included lengthy processing timelines and lack of
qualified candidates on the personnel register.

Staff Training and Development

Staff counts only tell part of the story related to staffing adequacy. PCG’s analysis identified the critical need
for increased professionalization of staffing, including revised hiring protocols, staff training and greater
differentiation in career ladders.
• During focus groups, there was a notable absence of staff who were early in their careers in
professional roles. It did not appear that the ALSDE has a strategic approach to hiring and growing
more junior staff who may have a long-term commitment to the Department.
• Several focus group members referenced numerous pending retirements and identified ineffective
or absent transition planning as a concern.
• Several focus group members highlighted the need for more training on Microsoft Office
applications and other technology to ensure staff can perform the core functions of their job. There
are many clerical positions that would particularly benefit from this type of training. Any technology
training that occurs now is done in an ad hoc manner via IT help desk support.
• Supervision and management skills arose as a significant concern in many conversations. There
is no training strategy in place to strengthen these skillsets for individuals in supervisory roles.
• There is no formalized onboarding or new employee training program specific to the ALSDE. Given
a staff of 450+ employees, this leads to inconsistent understanding of policies, procedures and
expectations.
• The ALSDE Employee Handbook is in the process of being updated.
• A number of job descriptions are in the process of being rewritten.
• There is no clear path for advancement once a staff member reaches the title of ASA III.
• There is a large gap in job duties and required qualifications between Education Specialist I and
Education Administrator I.
Use of Clerical Staff and Other Administrative Support

There are 45 ASAs in total at the ALSDE. PCG held two (2) focus groups of ASA III staff totaling 16 ASA
IIIs. The groups represented most sections and ranged in experience from less than a year to 40+ years.
The groups were a representative sample of ASA III positions throughout the ALSDE. The following
including a summary of key themes across these focus groups.
What roles do you have in your sections?
• Books and oversees reimbursement of travel expenses

• Writes memos for the section
• Supports staff who work out in the field
• Provides support to members of the section including Administrators and Education Specialists
• Supervises and reviews work of ASA II staff
• Generates A2s to order materials based on section staff requests through the procurement process
• Receives and distributes to the proper staff all paperwork from LEAs
• Works directly with LEAs to support their needs
• Coordinates contracts and proposals for the section
• Supports the contract development process
• Writes letters for administrators
• Disseminates information to LEAs daily
• Maintains database
• Answer calls from the public and tries to redirect to the correct section when needed
• Maintains section’s property inventory of materials
• Coordinates all meetings, workshops, and conferences including the MEGA Conference
• Receives all paper applications for programs in section. In one program, there are 130 applications.

• Oversees the daily operations of the office

• “Other duties as needed.” In some instances, with staff vacancies, takes up work from others that
needs to be completed even if not included in the Job Description
What are opportunities for improvement?
Communication:
o Dissemination of information is problematic.

o When changes happen, little information is shared with ASAs
o All staff ALSDE meetings are not informational, and instead feel like team building exercises.
o Routing process for memos is difficult and too cumbersome. Memos must be signed by many
supervisors and administrators beginning with the section coordinator. It can take weeks for a
memo to complete the routing process because it can be held up for multiple reasons or
returned if the wrong letterhead is used.
Personnel Related:
o There is no succession or transition planning by HR.

o Once you reach the top level of an ASA III, there is no other step for promotion. There are
many people who have worked in the ALSDE for 20+ years that have reached the top of the
salary schedule.
o ASAs do not perceive an institutional respect for their role within the ALSDE.
o The ALSDE is the only state office that has no parking close by the office. It may not seem like
a big deal, but it adds to the culture of not being valued
o The ALSDE has not had any emergency preparedness training.
Training:
o Training is not available to develop new skills.
Processes/Operations:
o Processing travel is very difficult.

o Concur is a new electronic tool to submit out of state travel expenses. Once it is implemented
throughout the ALSDE, it will have a big impact. ASAs will no longer be required to submit all
travel expenses for the section.
o The A2 procurement process is time-consuming. Everyone must use A2 paper copies for
requisitions, printing off five colored carbon copies A2 separately to be routed throughout the
Dept. No one knows where the A2 is in the process until it either gets returned to be fixed or
the product/service ordered arrives.
o The policies and procedures manual is outdated. It does not always represent the way the
Department operates, making it difficult to hold others accountable to a process when it is
unclear. There was an attempt to update the manual, but it never was completed.
Staffing Analysis: Support of ALSDE Functions

The current ALSDE Organizational Chart was approved and effective September 1, 2018. The current
organization is comprised of two Divisions: 1) the Division of Instruction and 2) the Division of Administration
and Finance. Divisions are then divided at the unit level with various programs supporting the work of these
units. There is also Legal, Communications and a Chief of Staff. The Professional Learning unit falls under
the Chief of Staff.

Exhibit 45. ALSDE Organizational Chart, effective September 1, 2018
PCG requested all unit level organizational charts to better understand the staffing and distribution of
responsibility related to the administration of specific programs. For some units, written Organizational
Charts needed to be created to respond to our request. There is no common format or template for unit
level organization charts. The ALSDE Organizational Chart above and all Unit level Organizational Charts
can be found in Appendix E.
PCG also conducted an inventory of all merit positions by title and core responsibilities to better understand
expectations and distribution of staff in these roles. This inventory can be found in Appendix H. There are
51 distinct position titles included in that inventory.
To understand the context behind the development of the current Organizational chart, PCG requested all
Organizational Charts that have been created for or by the ALSDE over the past five years. PCG received
nine, and we understand there may be more. Many of these appeared to be the result of leadership changes
in the State Superintendent position.
Finally, PCG reviewed the Organizational Charts, department descriptions and staff titles of the states used
for the NAEP comparative analysis to identify organizational trends among those states.
Previous Organizational Studies

In 2017, the State Personnel Office contracted with Kenning Consulting to conduct an Organization
Effectiveness Study. Recommendations from this study directly impacted current ALSDE reporting
structures. Adopted changes were implemented by the ALSDE in April 2018. There are several findings in
the report that still hold true. These are:

• There is a lack of clarity in the role of the Regional In-Service Centers. Is the focus a programmatic
focus or an accounting focus for the pass-through funding?
• The organization structure is based on funding units instead of programmatic synergy.
• Having only 1 level of Educational Specialists limits the ALSDE’s ability to levels of size and
complexity of responsibility.
At the time of the report, the number of exempt positions was in excess of 30 positions. It was noted by
most ALSDE staff interviewed that the impact of the Kenning Report on hiring decisions is pervasive and
undergirds most staffing related decisions today. Many program staff indicated feeling constrained by
personnel policies adopted as a result of this study. It was noted that with proper explanation and
documented evidence of need, the State Personnel will typically grant position allowances.
PCG’s concern with this study is that it looked at existing positions and right-sized the organization based
on current roles and responsibilities. It did not determine if existing roles and responsibilities were
appropriate or the best lever for supporting educational improvement in Alabama. PCG approached our
organizational review with an education subject matter lens and reviewed the organizational structures for
programmatic gaps or misalignment towards achieving the ALSDE’s core functions.
Recommended Organizational Structure

PCG has reconsidered the organizational structure of the ALSDE with a lens towards increased
accountability, assistance and support of school districts. The organizational structure should align with the
Strategy to Action Plan and the core function of every program must be to improve student outcomes. PCG
recommendations do not assume the need for additional FTEs, but rather a significant repositioning of job
descriptions and responsibilities. Many of these new job descriptions require an increased professional
skillset and deep subject matter expertise of the program area. PCG does not believe these proposed
changes can or should be made quickly, as the organization does not currently have all the necessary
people and structure to currently enact these changes. PCG recommends these changes occur over the
next three years to ensure maximum impact.
PCG proposes the following Organizational Structure.

Senior Leader Team:
1- Direct reports to the State Superintendent include: Deputy Superintendent of Student Learning,
Deputy Superintendent of Operations, Deputy Attorney General, Chief of Staff, Director of Strategic
Communications, Board and Legislative Affairs, and Director of Data, Strategy and Internal Audit.
2- Expand Chief of Staff role to 1.0 FTE (currently at 0.5). Core job duties include:
a. Direct Support to State Superintendent
b. Strategic Initiatives
c. Policy Advisor
d. LEA Communications
e. Board Support
f. Cross-departmental Communications
g. Crisis Management
3- Expand current Communications Director role to encompass board communications, legislative
affairs and oversight of a Problem Resolution unit.
a. The Problem Resolution should be the first and primary point of contact when a parent or
other stakeholder calls the ALSDE with a specific complaint or concern. This role will be to
either resolve the concern or route to the appropriate unit. All calls should be logged and
tracked for timely resolution and consistent messaging.
b. Expand focus on strategic communications, including both external communications and
internal messaging.
4- Legal: Move legislative affairs out of this team.

5- Chief of Staff’s office: Dissolve the current Professional Learning Team. Move these duties to other
units as described below.
6- Create a true Data Analysis, Strategy and Internal Audit Division to inform policy and practice and
ensure ALSDE efficacy of practice.
a. All Strategic Planning should run through this office.
b. This Division should be charged with leading efforts to create culture of data use at the
ALSDE and across Alabama’s districts and schools.
c. Include a Project Management Office (PMO) to ensure consistent project management
protocols and implementation planning procedures are followed. Require Project
Management Professional (PMP) certification or equivalent for this role. The PMO would
support all new initiatives and other large-scale implementations related to the strategic
plan.
d. Create an Internal Audit team to ensure fidelity of program implementation and provide
internal oversight.
Division of Student Learning:
1- Change name of Division of Instruction to Division of Student Learning to redirect focus to end goal.
2- Reconfigure Division to align to core functions: 1) Implementation of Educational Standards; 2) LEA
Accountability and Assistance; 3) Educator Quality and 4) Prepared Graduates.
3- Create a District Accountability and Assistance unit that has significantly more reach and
responsibility than the current School Improvement Team.
4- Bring the responsibilities of the RICS in-house to become a true regional arm of the ALSDE.
Assume this transition will be a multi-year endeavor.
5- Expand CTE to take a more comprehensive look at Career Readiness/Post-Secondary Success.
6- Create a section known as Innovative Schools that focuses on new models of school and innovative
practice at the school and district level.
7- Expand the role of Teaching and Leading to include all aspects of Educator Quality.
Operations Division:
1- Expand the role of Human Resources to Internal Employee Learning and Development to support
staff growth and professionalization.
a. Onboarding
b. Professional Learning
c. Performance Monitoring and Employee Growth
d. Technology Trainer
e. Determine if some of HR’s current duties could be moved to personnel.
2- Removal of DDS. As noted earlier, DDS does not support the core functions of the ALSDE.
Additional detail provided in the recommendations.
3- Removal of non-school based Nutrition Services functions to the Department of Agriculture or
another appropriate Agency.
4- All other functions remain as is.

Exhibit 46. Re-imagined ALSDE Senior Leadership Organizational Chart

Exhibit 47. Re-imagined ALSDE Office of Student Learning Organizational Chart

The following tables include the proposed core program and duties of the Division of Student Learning.
PCG is recommending a significant reshuffling of current organization to better align to core functions. PCG
recommends each of these units to be headed by senior-level leaders who have deep content expertise in
their field and a history of proven success.
Exhibit 48. Instructional Support Unit Programs and Duties
Instructional Support Unit Programs and Duties
Standards, Curriculum • Course of Studies

and Instruction • Curriculum Guides
• Instructional Materials
• Family Resources
Alabama Reading • Administration of the Alabama Reading Initiative
Initiative
Alabama Math, Science • Administration of the Alabama Math, Science and Technology
and Technology Initiative Initiative
Special Education • Policies, Procedures and Guidance

• Grants and Funding
• Statewide IEP
• Program Improvement Monitoring
• Child Find
• Early Childhood/Early Intervention
• SPP/APR
• Gifted
ELL • Policies, Procedures and Guidance
• Grants and Funding
• Statewide ELL Plan
Federal Programs ESSA • Oversight of all Federal Programs under ESSA
MTSS • Policies, Procedures and Guidance
Student Wellness • Mental Health
• Nursing
• 504
• Counseling and Guidance
Education Technology • Education Technology
• PowerSchool Learning Modules
Exhibit 49. District Supports Unit Programs and Duties
District Supports Unit Programs and Duties
Accountability Monitoring • Comprehensive District Reviews

• Compliance Monitoring with a results-driven focus
Assistance • Targeted District Support

• Regional Support Offices
• School and District Transformation

Exhibit 50. Educational Options Programs and Duties
Educational Options Programs and Duties
Career Pathways • CTE

• Career Readiness/Planning
• Work-based Learning
• Vocational Technical Schools
• Dual Enrollment/Early Colleges
• Program Monitoring and Accountability
Charter Schools • Policies, Procedures and Guidance
• Technical Assistance
Virtual Schools and • Policies, Procedures and Guidance
Online Learning • Technical Assistance
Innovative Schools • New models of schooling
Exhibit 51. Educator Improvement Programs and Duties
Educator Improvement Programs and Duties
Education Preparation • Higher Education oversight of Ed Prep Programs
Educator Talent • Recruitment

Acquisition • Alternative Certification Models
• Educator Diversity
Educator Licensure • Certification
• Recertification
Educator Effectiveness • Educator Evaluation
and Support • Educator Recognitions
• Educator Mentoring and Induction
• Leadership Development
• Professional Learning (in collaboration with Instructional
Supports as content experts)

VII. Priority Recommendations

PCG saw ample evidence that the ALSDE has a foundation on which to build. As noted throughout this
report, the Agency has many notable strengths including its willingness to participate in this review as part
of a continuous improvement cycle.
However, without a sense of urgency and an unrelenting commitment to implementing the

recommendations in this report with fidelity, the ALSDE will stagnate. Enacting change, the kind of change
that will fundamentally improve outcomes of all students, requires focus, a strong vision from the State
Superintendent and enacted by senior leadership staff, an appropriate allocation of resources, mandated
professional learning, and clear, non-negotiable, accountability measures. This type of reform requires the
involvement and commitment of every staff person and a willingness to establish high expectations for
districts, schools and students.
The following are PCG’s key, non-negotiable recommendations. Without faithful implementation of these
five recommendations, all other organizational recommendations will have limited to no impact.
1. Take the Lead.

The ALSDE must take full ownership and accountability for student progress across Alabama. The ALSDE
is responsible for both academic and social/emotional success of students, with the end goal of ensuring
all graduates are prepared for life after high school. The ALSDE must establish their proper role as the state
educational authority in Alabama and perform accordingly.
The ALSDE leadership must be bold but also collaborative. There are times when the ALSDE must take
charge and bear full responsibility for aspects of reform, and other places where the ALSDE must set the
conditions for others to assume leadership. Like an expert conductor, the ALSDE may not have the
expertise to play all the instruments but through a combination of the use of outside experts, significantly
involving the people in schools and districts that do the hardest work, and partnering with as many involved
groups as possible, the Department can and should be able to move the State of Alabama forward in
significant ways.
2. Develop and Implement a Strategy to Action Plan.

The ALSDE tends to be reactive primarily because it does not have a clear plan of action, leading to
inconsistent decision-making. Decisions are in response to external pressure and appear to be quick fixes
without regard to long term ramifications or connections to other initiatives within the Department or the
State.
The ALSDE must develop a comprehensive, detailed and transparent Strategy to Action Plan with defined
steps and activities, financial implications, milestones, deadlines and results. This Strategy to Action Plan
should guide the implementation of all recommendations in this report. As a first step, the ALSDE will need
to inventory and consolidate all existing plans to ensure all staff are working towards the same goals. To
ensure transparency and partnership, the ALSDE must institute routine and public progress updates. An
iterative Strategic Communications Plan should be developed and implemented to communicate the
Strategy to Action Plan. Regular progress updates should be provided to the Alabama State Legislature,
the State Board of Education, Superintendents and all of Alabama’s citizens.
3. Focus First on the Priorities.

There is much to address but beginning with a few, clear critical initiatives is the only way to galvanize the
State to move in the right direction. The Strategy to Action Plan must drive this prioritization.

STANDARDS: For the next year, the core focus must be on the adoption of the Reading and Math Course
of Study at the local level. If teachers understand these standards and align their instruction to them, student
achievement will improve. The ALSDE must implement a detailed Communications, Professional Learning,
and Technical Assistance Plan to support standards adoption. Equally, state testing should be used as an
improvement tool to ensure instruction is aligned to the standards. The ALSDE needs to begin immediately
to prepare to analyze the results of the new state tests and provide critical data to schools and districts.
The ALSDE must ensure local educators have detailed data to examine test results and to connect the test
items to the standards. The release of test items will also be an important tool for local educators. The
ALSDE should also look for ways to disseminate classroom teaching practices that are working across the
state to get results.
STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: The pending PowerSchool implementation has the potential to
substantially impact how schools and districts function. For the first time, all systems, schools and teachers
across Alabama will have access to the same learning management, student information, reporting and
analytics tools. The scale of this initiative is huge. An equal and prioritized focus must be placed on this roll-
out to ensure implementation success.
4. Hold Schools and Districts Accountable.

Student performance and compliance with state and federal requirements is the responsibility of local
schools and districts. The ALSDE must hold all schools and districts accountable for their performance in
an actionable way. Current accountability structures do not incite needed urgency at the local level. For
example, only 38% of all students and 20% of Black students statewide were considered proficient in
Science by Alabama measures in 2019, yet the state received a letter grade of B on the State Report Card.
Accountability and assistance must be closely linked to produce continuous and sustainable improvement.
Strengthen the ALSDE’s ability to provide targeted, coordinated and deep technical assistance for schools
and districts that have demonstrated the inability to do it on their own.
5. Significantly Reorganize the ALSDE Internally.

Substantial structural changes must occur at the ALSDE to implement the recommendations in this report.
The organizational structure should align with the Strategy to Action Plan and the core function of every
program must be to improve student outcomes. All staff employed by the ALSDE should have the core
skills and competencies needed to do their job well. There needs to be a significant focus on the
professionalization of staff, including a deep investment in staff training. The current hiring process also
needs to be revisited in collaboration with the State Personnel Office. Outdated internal systems and paper-
based practices are unnecessarily time-consuming and limit productivity. Streamlining procedures and
moving to electronic systems across the ALSDE has the potential to significantly improve outputs.

VIII. Additional Recommendations

Standards, Accountability, and Assistance
1. Accountability. Accountability and assistance must be closely linked to produce continuous and
sustainable improvement.
a. Modernize data and analytics systems, improve analytic capabilities, and place data at the
center of all policy discussions in public education.
b. The Accountability unit primarily functions as an internal data analytics shop. Broaden the
role of accountability to focus on policy, research, and district guidance to drive the school
improvement conversation.
c. There is a wealth of data used to produce School Report Cards. Develop data reports,
policy briefs and analytics tools that can support local decision-making. These should be
publicly available.
2. Report Card. The current School and District Report Card Develop should be refined to improve
stakeholder clarity and ensure accurate understanding.
a. Be more explicit about the formula that is used to calculate a school or district’s letter grade
on the Record Card.
b. Review state-level formula inputs to reconsider if state letter grade should be a “B.” If
deemed appropriate, Report Card should more clearly justify how this letter grade was
determined.
c. Use icons such as arrows to demonstrate upward or downward growth.
d. Provide comparative data to allow for end users to understand how a school or district
performs against other districts and the state overall.
e. Develop user guides and videos to orient stakeholders to better understand how letter
grades are calculated and how to interpret data shared.
f. Determine if there is the ability to suppress certain data fields that are not relevant to certain
grade spans (i.e., graduation rates at the elementary level). The inclusion of the term “no
data” can be misleading to some end users.
g. Consider how assigned letter grades align to other accountability systems.
3. Education Funding. Alabama’s education funding model does not differentiate based on student
need or poverty level.
a. Review impact of adopting a weighted student-based funding model (foundation formula
model) to align to national best practice.
4. Graduation Rates. The current graduation rate in Alabama is 90%, yet a quarter of all students
must take remedial courses in Alabama’s colleges. Given NAEP scores and remedial course taking
rates, determine if requirements for graduation are too low.
5. School Improvement. Strengthen the scope and capacity of this team to better drive school
improvement.
a. The CSI team charged with providing the support is small and under resourced. Most
NAEP states reviewed have a cadre of staff to support this function. In addition, these
states augment with outside partners who have expertise, experience and
success working with low performing schools, both in rural and urban areas.
b. Create incentives to ensure schools and districts use their resources to improve student
outcomes rather than fill in budget gaps within the districts.
6. Innovation. Create an Innovation Unit to allow districts and schools flexibility to implement
practices that best support their community and incubate new ideas. Increased accountability
measured by student outcomes must be a non-negotiable component of granting increased
flexibility.
7. Compliance Monitoring. Monitoring is solely focused on compliance indicators. Determine if there
are opportunities to augment monitoring elements to emphasize results/student outcomes.

a. The ALSDE uses a risk score to determine onsite monitoring each year. Consider how
districts that are frequently identified as high risk would benefit from more intensive or
mandated technical assistance from compliance monitoring or other program staff.
b. Compliance reports (outside of special education) are not currently posted online. Not
sharing this data inhibits accountability and transparency. This is particularly true for
Correction Action Plans (CAPs).
c. PowerSchool may help to streamline the monitoring process.
Governance
8. State Board of Education. Facilitate annual board retreats and other board trainings to set board
expectations, priorities and roles. The Chief of Staff should serve as the first point of contact for
board inquires and questions.
9. State Leadership. Strengthen two-way communication with the State legislature. Communication
should be frequent, meaningful and led by the State Superintendent.
10. Strategic Plan. Finalize and disseminate the draft Strategic Plan as a Strategy to Action Plan.
a. Be explicit on strategic actions
b. Set metrics and track progress towards goals
c. Provide regular public updates on plan progress
Internal Functions
11. Reorganization of the ALSDE. Implement the significant organizational changes outlined earlier
in this report to better align the ALSDE to its core functions. These include:
a. Expand Chief of Staff role to 1.0 FTE (currently at 0.5).
b. Expand current Communications Director role to encompass board communications,
legislative affairs and oversight of a Problem Resolution unit.
c. Legal: Move legislative affairs out of this team.
d. Dissolve the current Professional Learning Team. Move these duties to other sections.
e. Create a true Data Analysis, Strategy, and Internal Audit Division to inform policy and
practice and ensure the ALSDE’s efficacy of practice.
f. Reconfigure Division of Instruction to align to core functions: 1) Implementation of
Educational Standards; 2) LEA Accountability and Assistance; 3) Educator Quality and 4)
Prepared Graduates.
g. Create a District Accountability and Assistance unit that has significantly more reach and
responsibility than the current School Improvement Team.
h. Expand the role of Teaching and Leading to include all aspects of Educator Quality.
12. Personnel. In close collaboration with the State Personnel Office, relax personnel requirements
for a 24-month period to allow the ALSDE to have the most effective staff in place to support the
implementation and delivery of all recommendations in this report. Monitor activity closely to ensure
appropriate staffing decisions.
13. Regional or Satellite Offices. Many programs are heavily field-based and staff waste significant
time on travel. Regional satellite centers may support efficiency and increase the pool of quality job
candidates. Conduct a cost analysis study to determine the long-term feasibility of a regional model.
14. Current Facilities. The current space in the Gordon Persons building is not conducive to a
collaborative or productive working environment. Staff are siloed, spread across multiple floors with
another Agency wedged between, and the layout is confusing and not welcoming to visitors.
Develop a plan to move to a facility that better supports the core functions of the ALSDE. Consider
how a building move might be coupled with a regional office approach.
15. Human Resources. Realign the work of Human Resources to make its core focus the
professionalization and development of staff. Consider if some existing job functions could be
transferred to the Payroll Office to better support this repositioning of responsibilities. Duties at a
minimum should include:

a. Onboarding Program for Staff

b. Professional Learning Program, differentiated by staff role, experience and learning needs
c. Performance Monitoring and Employee Growth
d. Technology Training
e. Written documentation on staff expectations, job descriptions, human resources policies
and procedures.
16. Job Ladders. Determine if there is opportunity for internal professional growth and advancement
through greater stratification in job titles.
a. Enhance opportunities for clerical staff that excel at the ASA III level
b. Differentiate roles at the Education Specialist level to include at least an Education
Specialist II position
17. Legal Services. Develop systems to ensure better tracking of activities to allow for consistent
practices and more informed decision-making.
a. Procure a Case Management System to create a shared database that allows for
document sharing, better record keeping, time tracking and trend analysis.
b. Log calls received and resolution from school districts, families and other stakeholders.
Conduct regular analysis of issues received by type, district and outcome to determine
areas where Agency guidance, policies or other proactive measures might lessen or
eliminate concerns.
c. Review Board of Adjustment claim activity over the past 24 months, including frequency of
low dollar claims, to determine if policy changes should be made to current practices.
d. Analyze type and frequency of legal support provided directly to school districts to
determine if many of these activities should be local obligations. Develop written guidance
around when legal services should be provided at the state level versus district managed.
18. Information Technology. Continue to set the expectation that the role of IT is to function as an
internal Fee for Service unit for the ALSDE programs. Program staff must own all business
requirements development, system design, and final approval of all IT development activities.
a. Several IT solutions are developed and hosted internally. Before new design updates
occur, consider if existing technologies can be procured that fit system requirements. For
example, the Child Nutrition application needs to be rewritten. Consider off-the-shelf
solutions through an RFI process prior to developing in house.
b. Analyze purchasing trends over the past 24 months to determine if a P-Card would
expedite purchasing turnaround time on low dollar items.
c. The IT department reported challenges in recruiting qualified staff under current State
Personnel practices. As such, several employees are in long-term contract positions.
Consider if current hiring procedures should be revised to better attract more qualified
candidates to these positions.
d. Adopt Agency-wide internal document sharing practices to allow for better collaboration
amongst staff and with school districts. For example, use of Microsoft SharePoint, Teams
and OneDrive would greatly increase collaborative work habits.
e. Agency staff would benefit from additional training in Microsoft Office Applications and
other technology use. Target ASA and Education Specialist staff first. This function should
be an HR responsibility with IT input.
19. Written Procedures. There is an absence of written policies, procedures, manuals and guidance
used to drive internal work. Ensure procedures have written documentation that is consistent
across programs (where relevant) and is regularly updated. This should be housed in an electronic
format in a location that is readily accessible to all staff.
20. Emergency Management. Practice safety drills with an emergency management internal team.
While the ALSDE is focused on upgrading security and ensuring safety drills are being held in
schools and districts around the state, the ALSDE has been remiss with that same focus with their
own building and staff.

21. Purchasing/Procurement Process. Streamline the purchasing/procurement process to reduce

the number of steps and signatures.
a. The ALSDE is working on a technology requisition system with a targeted completion date
of summer 2020. Confirm this system will increase timeliness and ease of procurement
process.
22. Memo Routing Processes. Streamline the routing processes for memos, letters and contracts to
improve internal efficiencies and communication with school districts.
a. Convert paper-based memo writing process to an electronic format. Electronic routing will
allow for better standardization, internal tracking for timeliness, and reduce the risk of lost
or misplaced documentation.
b. Reduce the number of required signatures to only those whose review is critical.
c. Develop a Style Guide and Memo Template so that all staff are aware of memo writing
formatting expectations.
d. Provide training to all new staff on memo writing processes to ensure consistent practices.
23. Child Nutrition Program. Conduct an in-depth review of the current structures and function of this
program to ensure efficacy, compliance and aligned practices. The Child Nutrition Program
currently oversees several programs that are provided elsewhere in other states.
a. Consider moving all non-school based nutrition programs to the Department of Agriculture
or other suitable agency. This would likely include: Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the Child and Adult Care Program.
b. Review internal operations that adhere to federal regulations. Many recent audit findings,
while easily correctable, are due to a lack of oversight within the section.
c. Consider reviewing the expectations of the staff and section leadership. The Child Nutrition
Program currently oversees a staff of 37+ and oversees more than 11 programs without
an administrator assigned to lead the section. Making changes to roles and responsibilities
within the section may ensure more oversight leading to less audit findings.
d. Ensure a customer service orientation to all aspects of Child Nutrition program delivery.
Communications
24. Complaint and Inquiry Management. There is not a centralized location for families and other
stakeholders to call when there are a potential concerns or questions. In its absence, multiple
individuals are answering calls that are outside of their core work, callers are often bounced around
or receive misinformation, and there is no centralized knowledge of the types of calls received.
a. Create a unit to receive inquiries and complaints from families and other stakeholders to
streamline process for callers. This unit should set up systems to ensure appropriate
logging of calls, consistency of communication, and ensure problem resolution.
b. Elevate calls to appropriate individuals in other units as needed.
c. Conduct trend analysis to identify greatest areas of concern for callers.
25. External Communications to All Stakeholders. Create a Strategic Communications Plan that
ensures consistent, frequent and targeted messaging to all constituents. The Strategic
Communications Plan should be regularly revisited and updated to reflect current messaging
needs. At a minimum this Communication Plan should include:
a. An updated, website that is friendly to all end users.
i. Include a plan for how the website will be maintained and frequently updated.
ii. New website should be mobile-friendly and meet accessibility standards.
iii. Develop content guidelines to ensure all information on website serves a purpose,
is informative, and accurate
iv. The new website is in development with a target roll out date of July 2020. Track
progress to ensure an on-time launch.
b. A social media strategy to target messages around key reform initiatives to engage
stakeholders, educate and build community.

i. See Tennessee’s #TNBestforALL campaign as an example.

c.A media relations strategy to ensure calculated deployment of media to tell the ALSDE’s
story.
d. Identification of metrics and tracking of these metrics to determine awareness, engagement
and consumers. Web-based applications such Google Analytics to track website traffic and
Hootsuite for social media management can support metric analysis.
e. Update logo and Style Guide to communicate a more contemporary, energized message
to stakeholders.
f. Presentation (i.e., PowerPoint) and report templates to ensure consistent and professional
materials are used.
g. Targeted communications plans should be developed for all key and new initiatives, and
should including branding, identification of target audiences, messaging and metrics.
These should be mutually owned by the Communications Department and the respective
program area.
26. Communications to Districts. Current written communications to Superintendents and other
school district leaders comes in the form of disparate memos. Develop a streamlined newsletter
that can be used to communicate overall messaging and strategy, along with formal guidance.
Educator Workforce
27. Teacher Certification Process. Significant changes must be made to the current teacher
certification and recertification process to remove inefficient processes, redundancies and
opportunities for human error. Improvements should also reduce the reliance on paper-based
processes. The LeanFrog Report was comprehensive, and recommendations are aligned to PCG’s
findings.
a. Release an RFI to determine if a vendor solution may meet the ALSDE needs prior to
implementing a web-based solution in house.
28. Educator Effectiveness. Finalize and implement the new Teacher Evaluation System. Develop a
detailed implementation plan that includes a comprehensive Communications Strategy and
Professional Learning Approach so that all teachers understand new expectations prior to roll-out.
29. National Board-Certified Teachers (NBCT). Review effectiveness of National Board-Certified
Teacher pay supplemental to determine if program has intended outcomes. Revise policy as
necessary depending on data review. At a minimum, analyze:
a. Achievement outcomes for students taught by an Alabama NBCT versus others.
b. % of those receiving the NBCT pay supplemental who are current classroom teachers
versus in those other positions.
c. Efficacy of the additional $5,000 supplement for NBCT teachers in identified struggling
schools.
d. Distribution of NBCT teachers across the state by school demographics.
30. Teacher Recruitment and Retention. Prioritize and implement the 33 recommendations from the
Teacher Taskforce Report.
a. Develop an implementation roadmap to develop a multi-year plan and ensure
accountability to timelines.
b. Determine if there is the opportunity to implement a statewide alternative certification and
consider other outside of the box approaches to teacher retention.
Disability Determination Services

31. Disability Determination Services (DDS). DDS processes claims for Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income disability claims. It does not perform a direct K-12 educational
function. Given this and the below data, PCG recommends moving DDS to another Agency outside
of the ALSDE.

a. DDS is an outlier to the ALSDE. The section provides different services than any other
section but uses many ALSDE resources. The resources include:
i. Finance- Reports and is supervised by CFO. Receives services from the SDE
Business and Support Services
ii. Human Resources- Manages all aspects of 406 employees (almost the size of the
rest of the ALSDE). Hires from 8 different registers.
iii. Legal- Reviews all contracts, which may be 50+ in a month
iv. Accounting
v. Procurement- Ordering goes through the ALSDE procurement process
vi. IT Department
b. The ALSDE staff report the unit to be high functioning and well-managed, with indirect
costs covering all operational expenses. However, the DDS Director has served in the
Department for 45 years and PCG’s assumption is retirement will be forthcoming. It is
highly likely that shifting to new leadership will put a strain on the ALSDE and initially impact
services.
c. In analyzing NAEP states, the DDS programs are not located under the State Departments
of Education with the exception of NH, which has it under Vocational Rehabilitation
Services at the DOE. The list of states are as follows:
i. Florida- Department of Health
ii. Mississippi- Department of Rehabilitation Services
iii. Massachusetts- Office on Disability
iv. Tennessee- Department of Human Services' Division of Rehabilitation Services
v. NH- Department of Education- Voc Rehab Services
vi. Wyoming- Department of Health
vii. New Jersey- Department of Human Services
viii. Minnesota- Department of Human Services
d. Uncoupling a department that has been with the ALSDE for 50+ years will be complicated
and may take legislative involvement. However, making changes that align with other
successful NAEP states will ensure that all services being provided are focused on
education, which must become the priority.
Coordination with Other Agencies

32. Department of Early Childhood Education (DECE): The work of DECE directly impacts a
student’s learning trajectory.
a. Strengthen communication with the DECE’s Office of School Readiness to ensure for
greater policy alignment and more streamlined experiences for families and schools
specifically as it relates to Pre-K and the PK-3 Early Learning Continuum.
b. Ensure coordination between Early Invention and Special Education to better support
families of children who qualify for these services.
c. Develop intentional partnership strategies with DECE to promote overall school readiness.
33. Department of Mental Health. Expand to school-based mental health collaboration to increase
access to mental health professionals across the state.
34. Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
a. Strengthen partnership to increase student access to and participate in dual enrollment
opportunities.
b. Increase data sharing to allow for better tracking of students’ post-secondary outcomes.
Improved Instruction and Supports to Districts

35. Career Readiness and Workforce Readiness.

a. Leverage external initiatives to expand current focus. The Governor’s “Strong Start, Strong
Finish” initiative prioritizes the education to workforce pipeline. Perkins V requires
intensified focus on academic standards and alignment to workforce development.
b. Calling the unit “CTE” limits the vast scope of workforce preparation activities this office
can and should perform.
c. The CTE Director role is currently vacant. This provides an opportunity to broaden role to
greater encompass “college, career, and life” readiness.
d. Develop a P-20W statewide longitudinal data system to support tracking of post-secondary
outcomes.
e. Develop a statewide system for K-12 career exploration and planning.
f. Require individual career plans for all students in grades 6-12.
g. The Graduation Tracking System serves as an early warning tool to identify students off-
track to graduate at the local level. It is unclear to PCG how and if this is still used.
h. Deploy CTE pathway-aligned models of work-based learning and dual enrollment.
i. Credentials tracked for the CCR Accountability metric should be aligned to regional labor
market data and tied to high-growth, high-demand, and high-wage sectors.
j. Partner with the Alabama Office of Apprenticeship to increase work-based learning
opportunities for students.
36. Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). An MTSS Taskforce formed this year to begin to
develop state guidance on an MTSS framework. MTSS is a decision-making framework that
enables schools to proactively identify student’s strengths and needs based on data and use of
evidence-based practices. MTSS address both academics and student’s social-emotional needs.
MTSS should be a core component to how school districts build the necessary supports to ensure
the success of all students.
a. Develop written guidance for districts to understand the philosophy, model and required
components.
b. Design a professional development strategy that ensures training is provided to all districts.
c. Given the complexity of this work, consider engaging with a national expert to facilitate
framework design and implementation strategy.
37. Mathematics
a. Aggressively disseminate the new Math standards across the State. Since they represent
what Alabama students should know and be able to do in Mathematics at the various grade
levels, the most important audience are teachers, local administrators, and parents. Less
detailed documents need to be shared across the State with families, community members
and other stakeholders.
b. Lead the initiative of unpacking the new math standards and use all resources available to
train coaches and teachers to implement the standards with fidelity. With the support of
regional centers, all schools throughout the state should have access to the support it
needs to adhere to the more rigorous standards. Data should lead this roll out process with
the districts serving the bottom 6% of schools receiving priority.
c. Track AMSTI impact on teacher practice. Create systems for data collection using multiple
measures outlined below to monitor progress throughout the implementation. Link multiple
data sources and monitoring progress toward measurable goals.
i. Define the strategies needed to achieve the ALSDE’s vision of improved student
achievement in mathematics as well as measure whether the instructional
strategies are effective.
ii. Ensure strategies are in place to ensure long-term, sustainable results
iii. Identify the current performance for both teacher effectiveness and student
achievement against the measures (baseline data) and the target performance
desired at predetermined points.
iv. Recognize when strategic shifts are needed to accomplish the ALSDE goals
without a big lapse in time.

d. Break down the silo between AMSTI and Instructional Services. While one of the
Instructional Services tasks is to develop Courses of Study (standards), there appears to
be a lack of communication and collaboration between members of each team.
i. Schedule consistent time set aside for the math and science education specialists
to collaborate and plan to provide supports to the LEAs.
38. Gifted Education. Gifted Education only has one staff member. As a result, the predominant focus
is on compliance.
a. Prioritize the hiring on current vacancy to allow for a greater focus on technical assistance
and professional learning.
b. Determine if this role should remain housed within special education or stand on its own.
c. Gifted Education is not on the Cognia system for Compliance monitoring. For a lack of
another system, monitoring data reports are currently shared via email. Move to a more
secure data/document sharing platform.
39. English Language Learners. The number of English Language Learners in Alabama is growing.
Current services are disjointed and spread among multiple sections. Hire a statewide ELL
administrator to develop a strategic approach to support this population.
40. Special Education. Consider how all activities of this section work to help school districts raise the
level of and access to high levels of rigor as well as generate a culture of academic optimism for
students with IEPs.
a. Under the revised Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) framework, the federal Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) has sharpened its focus on what happens in the
classroom to promote educational benefits and improve outcomes and results for students
with disabilities. The accountability system that existed prior to the new one placed
substantial emphasis on procedural compliance, but it often did not consider how
requirements affected the learning outcomes of students.25 RDA offers a strategic
opportunity for Special Education to shift programmatic emphasis and monitoring towards
a greater emphasis on outcomes.
b. Monitor state IEP system in PowerSchool to ensure it supports reporting and monitoring
needs.
41. Regional In-Service Centers (RICs). Conduct a feasibility study to determine if the functions of
the RICs can and should be moved in-house to the ALSDE. In the interim, do the following:
a. Expect all Regional In-Service Centers to align to the 2019 Accountability Standards. They
should be posted on every website and RICs should be held accountable to meeting them.
b. Set minimum expectations for all websites. There should be an easily accessible and
updated monthly professional development calendar. Expecting educators to spend time
searching for professional learning on a RIC website will not encourage them to sign up for
learning that they need to support student achievement.
c. Provide more focus on supporting training for ALSDE’s initiatives. It is difficult for educators
to travel hours to attend a training in Montgomery. The advantage of RICs is that all
Alabama educators have the same opportunity to receive high-quality professional
learning no matter where they are located. With the Alabama Literacy Act in effect,
teachers need as much support as possible to achieve the lofty goal of all students reading
on grade level by the end of third grade. Every Regional Center should be contributing to
this effort.
d. Build a stronger collaboration with the ALSDE. The oversight and accountability of the RICs
is difficult to understand. Many are unclear as to “who is in
charge.” Set the expectations for all Regional In-Service Centers and how will those
expectations be measured.
42. Whole Child Wellness/Prevention and Support Services
25
April 5, 2012, RDA Summary, U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rdasummary.doc

a. Create mission and vision for a comprehensive approach to whole child wellness and align
resources and services to that mission.
b. Develop stronger communication and collaboration between Prevention and Support and
other sections such as special education and instructional services.
43. MEGA Conference. The MEGA Conference provides many different educator groups with an
opportunity to gather, connect, and learn. While the sessions are large in number, the focus and
goals of the Conference are not clear. There is substantial effort on the ALSDE staff to support this
conference.
a. Review the goals of the MEGA conference and determine if the current delivery format
meets those goals.
b. All MEGA Conference sessions should explicitly link to the ALSDE’s goals as well as align
to the Alabama’s professional learning standards. When educators choose which
session(s) to attend, they should clearly know what goal and/or strategy that is aligned to
the session(s). Including a vast array of short professional learning sessions that are limited
in their connection to the Department’s initiatives is a missed opportunity.
44. Virtual Learning. The ACCESS virtual learning program provides equal access to high quality
instruction to all student learners across the state.
a. Continue to expand to capacity to increase course enrollment.
b. Continue to expand AP and other advanced course offerings. Based on the ACCESS
course catalogue, there are 10 AP courses offered out of the 39 available from the College
Board.
c. Use data to drive program design. Analyze and publish course success rates and
enrollment trends to refine offerings. Determine course taking impact on college and career
readiness.
45. PowerSchool Implementation. The implementation of PowerSchool statewide has the potential
exponentially improve educator, school, and district practice. By summer 2020, the Student
Information System will be fully implemented statewide. By school year 2020-21, educators are
expected to fully use all modules in the system. Statewide technology implementations are
challenging, particularly ones that requires a dramatic shift in educator practice. Thoughtful and
focused attention and long-term scenario planning must be given to ensure adoption success.
While current PowerSchool training will focus on access to and use of the technologies, it is
imperative that the ALSDE is developing subject matter guidance and complementary professional
learning that will ensure deep adoption and long-term impact.
a. Ensure educators and administrators have multiple and relevant opportunities for system
trainings that focus on practical applications.
b. Develop structures and guidance to support a data culture and inquiry-based thinking in
schools and districts.
c. Develop a training plan to ensure educators, administrators, and technology coordinators
know how to understand and apply data.
d. Create canned reports to encourage appropriate usage of analytics tools among less
experienced end users and to create efficiencies among all end users.
e. Develop criteria to determine professional learning quality control on the Learning
Management System.
f. Embed PowerSchool into all professional learning opportunities offered by the ALSDE.
Ensure that RICs are doing the same.
g. Require all ALSDE staff to participate in end user training to ensure system understanding.
h. Launch a Communications Campaign that brands the tool specific to Alabama, generates
system awareness, and creates excitement.
46. Charter Schools. The Alabama School Choice and Opportunity Act passed by the legislature in
2016 ensures the likelihood that charter schools will be part of the educational landscape within
Alabama in the upcoming years. Although the law was passed four years ago, charter school
openings are still in their infancy stage with currently only four (4) opened and operated within the

state. With that said, more charter school applications are in progress and the ALSDE anticipates
three (3) additional openings in the near future. Currently, the ALSDE has one person serving in
the role of liaising between the ALSDE, the charter school operator, and the Alabama Public
Charter School Commission. As the state begins to support these new schools, consider the
following:
a. Communicate internally the role that the ALSDE has in the support and oversight of charter
schools. When probing about charter schools with ALSDE staff, there was a lot of confusion
regarding roles and responsibilities of staff.
b. Separate charter schools from virtual schools on the ALSDE website as well as internally.
There is a lot of information focused on charter schools, but it is confusing when both
entities share the same webpage. As more potential operators need pertinent information
to launch a new charter school, that page will become a lifeline.
c. Design a plan to build out the ALSDE staff for this team. One person as the liaison, but
also providing technical assistance to new charter schools is unsustainable as the numbers
grow.

IX. Appendix
The Appendix includes the following sections:
A. PCG Team
B. NAEP Comparison State Sample Selection
C. NAEP Performance Comparison
D. NAEP Sample State Education Agency Organizational Charts
E. Sample of ALSDE Organizational Charts
F. Total CSI Allocations and School Improvement Strategies, by School
G. CSI Schools and Academic Target Attainment
H. Department Merit-Based Pay Position Descriptions
I. List of Reviewed Documents

A. PCG Team
PCG’s team members include:
Anna d’Entremont served as the Project Lead and was responsible for all project oversight. Anna brings
two decades of education and management experience to this project. She has a strong background in
understanding the organizational policies and practices essential to support program and process
improvement. She has worked with numerous schools, districts and state education agencies across the
county delivering consulting services, including audits, strategic planning and guiding educational leaders
through change management. State-level clients include the Delaware Department of Education,
Minnesota Office of Higher Education, Rhode Island Department of Education and the Massachusetts
Department of Education among others. Prior to joining PCG in 2008, Anna was the Director of Operations
of the Edward W. Brooke Charter School in Boston, MA. In this role, she served as co-director and the
operational leader of a high-performing K-8 urban charter school. Anna also worked as a Program Officer
at New Visions for Public Schools, where she managed a diverse portfolio of initiatives designed to support
and develop innovation in 85 new small high schools across New York City. Anna began her career as a
bilingual kindergarten teacher for the Houston Independent School District and as an elementary school
ESL teacher in the DC Public Schools. She is also a Teach for America alumna and received her Ed.M. in
Education Policy from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dr. David Driscoll served as Senior Advisor for State Agency Leadership. He has ensured that all
recommendations are grounded in best practices and reflect the realities and constraints of state education
agencies. Commissioner Driscoll has a 55-year career in public education and educational leadership. A
former secondary school mathematics teacher, he was named Melrose Assistant Superintendent in 1972
and Superintendent of Schools in the same community in 1984. He served in that role until 1993, when he
was appointed Massachusetts Deputy Commissioner of Education, just days after the state's Education
Reform Act was signed into law. He became Interim Commissioner of Education on July 1, 1998 and was
named Commissioner on March 10, 1999.
As Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Driscoll held several key leadership roles, both in the external affairs of the
Department and in internal management. He was the Principal Investigator for the National Science
Foundation's mathematics and science program in Massachusetts, PALMS, and was instrumental in 1997
in gaining the NSF's approval of a second five-year round of funding for this initiative. He was also appointed
to oversee the implementation of the state agreement on management and governance of the Lawrence
Public Schools. As Interim Commissioner, Dr. Driscoll worked with Governor Cellucci, Senate President
Birmingham and House Speaker Finneran to pass the state's "12-62 Plan," a law aimed at enhancing future
educator quality. The program gained national recognition for its accelerated teacher education and bonus
programs, both aimed at encouraging mid-career professionals to become classroom teachers. As
Commissioner, Dr. Driscoll oversaw the development of the state's curriculum frameworks, implementation
and expansion of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), the development of
the state's School and District Accountability System and the development and administration of the
Educator Certification Test and new licensure regulations. These initiatives and others have led to
consistent annual improvement in student achievement as measured by state standards (MCAS) national
measures (NAEP, SAT) and international tests (TIMMS). In 2005 Massachusetts was named the first state
to ever earn the highest scaled score in the nation on all four NAEP exams.
Dr. Driscoll earned his bachelor’s degree in mathematics at Boston College, his master’s degree in
Educational Administration from Salem State College, and his Doctorate in Education Administration from
Boston College. Dr. Driscoll has served on a number of national Boards including K-12Inc., Alliance for
Excellent Education, US Education Delivery Institute and Teach Plus. His is currently Chair of the Fordham
Institute. He was appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) that oversees the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) by Secretary Paige and served as Chair of NAGB
from 2009-2013. As a Private Consultant, Dr. Driscoll mentored State Commissioners of Education in
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania. He appeared as an expert witness before

appointed State Commissions for Education Reform in Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island and Virginia. In
November 2017, Harvard Education Press published his book, Commitment and Common Sense: Leading
Education Reform in Massachusetts.
Mary Ellen Hannon, CAGS, served as District Experience Lead. Ms. Hannon led interviews with district
superintendents to better understand the district experience. Ms. Hannon has over 30 years of successful
educational systems experience, including extensive understanding in school leadership, data analysis,
curriculum design, and school improvement management. Ms. Hannon served as the Project Director for
the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary School’s project Monitoring Teaching and Learning in
Level 4 and 5 Schools. Her responsibilities included leading client meetings, overseeing the development
of a classroom monitoring tool, collecting and analyzing school data, and developing reports for the
Commissioner of Education. Recently, Ms. Hannon has been reviewing and providing feedback on
Turnaround Plans for MA Level 3 schools. Additionally, Ms. Hannon served as project director and lead
principal coach for the Saginaw, MI ISD Priority School Coaching project. Ms. Hannon coaches school
leaders in priority schools to support increased student achievement. Currently, she is coaching principal
supervisors in Broward County, FL and Crowley, TX.
Ms. Hannon was appointed to the NH Professional Standards Board, which reviews teacher certification
standards and higher education programs for new teacher graduates. Prior to joining PCG, Ms. Hannon
served as a Superintendent of Schools in New Hampshire. Under her leadership, the district was
recognized by NH Department of Education as a leader in data-based decision making. In addition, she
has served as adjunct professor, assistant superintendent, curriculum director, and elementary teacher.
Dr. Christine Donis-Keller served as State Comparison Lead. She led the benchmarking with states who
perform in the top 10% of the NAEP. In addition, Dr. Donis-Keller led interview protocol design and ensure
all data collection in completed in a rigorous manner. Dr. Donis-Keller is a research and evaluation specialist
who has worked in the education field for over 25 years and has worked at PCG since 2011. Dr. Donis-
Keller leads data collection methodology and analysis for PCG’s education projects including the
development of research instruments and protocols, conducting interviews, focus groups, surveys, and
case studies to understand program effectiveness. Recent evaluation work at PCG includes the evaluation
of implementation and impact of a district-wide arts initiative in Hartford Public Schools; a 21st Century
Community Learning Center in Jersey City, NJ; a Family and Community Engagement grant project in
Bridgeton, NJ; and the State Systemic Improvement Plan in Indiana. Additional work includes special
education reviews in Alexandria and Arlington, VA, and evaluations of statewide school reform initiatives in
Florida and Tennessee. She has supported progress monitoring of Level 4 and 5 schools in Massachusetts,
developed a needs assessment for Head Start of Broward County, FL, and wrote a set of best practice
case studies for the Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement’s Connections for Classrooms
program.
Before joining PCG, Dr. Donis-Keller led a three-year research study of school district consolidation in
Maine funded by foundations and the state DOE. The multi strand research project included interviews with
hundreds of stakeholders in communities, schools, and districts before and after consolidation votes, and
state policymakers including members of the legislature and the Governor’s office. She has provided
support to researchers and practitioners in other states who are interested in consolidation and has
provided testimony to a state committee in CT on her research. Dr. Donis-Keller received her Doctorate in
the Sociology of Education from New York University. She has published reports school district
reorganization, theme high schools, charter schools, and the four-day school week.
Matthew Scott served the role of Data Analyst. Mr. Scott brings 10 years of education management
experience specializing in accreditation, strategic planning, program quality review, learning assessment
processes, and education policy. Prior to joining PCG, Matthew spent 7 years as the Director of Institutional
Effectiveness, Accreditation, and Regulatory Affairs for a specialized graduate school. In this capacity, he
oversaw a portfolio of strategic growth and regulatory initiatives, including an initial institutional accreditation
effort, new program development, enrollment management, and state approval processes. He began his

career as a student advisor and leadership development professional for the University of the Pacific. He
earned a M.A in Educational Administration and Leadership from the University of the Pacific, and a B.A.
in Political Science from California State University, Long Beach.
Sydney Menzin served as Project Support. In this role, she provided project management and data
analysis support. Prior to joining PCG, Sydney completed her MA in Urban Education Policy at Brown
University. During this time, she served as a Research Consultant for the Massachusetts-based Rennie
Center for Education Research and Policy and as a Research Assistant for Providence Public Schools. In
these roles, Sydney was charged with responsibilities of project management, data collection/analysis, and
policy research related to student leadership, social emotional learning, opportunity youth, and community
partnerships. She previously served as Director of Digital Strategy and Outreach Coordinator for former
First Lady Michelle Obama’s social media campaign, Better Make Room, which puts students at the
forefront of promoting postsecondary attainment. Following this work, she supported Rhode Island
Governor Gina Raimondo’s Education team with efforts to improve postsecondary access and affordability
and to build a college-going movement across the state. Sydney has worked with students in classroom
settings as a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant in Madrid, Spain, and as a volunteer with the organization
Generation Citizen, facilitating an action-civics curriculum in schools throughout Rhode Island.

B. NAEP Comparison State Sample Selection

In order to create an aggregated ranking across all years and all scores, NCES took 2019 state average
scores for each subject/grade and calculated the difference between each state's average score and the
national public average score. Then they standardized the difference by dividing it by the national public
standard deviation.
The Summary data presented in Exhibit 52 presents an average across the standardized difference from
each subject/grade. This average is the average across subjects/grades in difference from the national
average (in terms of standard deviations).
States are sorted by the Average column. The top state (MA) is 0.290 standard deviations above the
national public average across math and reading, grades 4 and 8.
Exhibit 52. Top 10% of NAEP States
Jurisdiction Average Rank*

(Grades 4 & 8, Reading
and Mathematics)
Massachusetts 0.290 2
New Jersey 0.220 3
Minnesota 0.158 4
New Hampshire 0.145 5
Wyoming 0.143 6
*The top jurisdiction was Department of Defense Schools (DoDEA)

C. NAEP Performance Comparison

In addition to the aggregated ranking of NAEP states (Exhibit 15), the exhibits that follow explore 2019
NAEP performance among Alabama and comparison sample states in reading and mathematics in 4th and
8th grade. The data presented in each grade level and subject area examine average NAEP scores as well
as the percent proficient or above. A final set of exhibits examine the performance of Alabama’s subgroups
over time on NAEP including eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch and race and ethnicity.
Reading
The national average score for fourth grade reading in 2019 was 219. Alabama’s fourth grader’s score
was 212, seven points below the national average. Each state in the comparison group performed at
(Mississippi and Tennessee) or above the national average.
The national average for fourth grade percent proficient or above (Exhibit 54) was 34% for 2019. Alabama’s
rate, 28%, was six (6) percentage points below. Alabama’s state reading assessment results indicated that
47% were proficient or above, and nearly 20 percentage point difference. All other states in the sample
performed at or above the national average, except for Mississippi which was two percentage points below
(32%).
In eighth grade reading, all states in the comparison sample achieved scores at or above the national
average (262) except Mississippi (256). Alabama was 9 points below at 253. The national average for
students at or above proficient was 32% for eighth grade reading. All states in the sample except Mississippi
(25%) met or exceeded the average. Alabama was 8 percentage points below at 24% proficient or above.
In contrast, Alabama’s state reading assessment results indicate that 43% are proficient or above, a 21-
percentage point difference.
Exhibit 53. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019)
300
248
250 225 231 224 227 227
219 219 219
219
200 212
150
100
50
Score National Average

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 53%
50% 45% 42%
38% 38% 41%
40% 34% 32% 35%
30% 28% 34%
20%
10%
0%
Exhibit 55. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019)
300 291
262 273 268 270 262 265
256
250 263 262
253
200
150
100
50

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 45% 44% 43%
38%
40% 32% 34% 32% 34%
30% 24% 25% 32%
20%
10%
0%
Mathematics
The national average score for fourth grade mathematics in 2019 was 240. Alabama’s fourth grader’s
score was 230, 10 points below the national average. Each state in the comparison group performed at
(Tennessee) or above the national average, including Mississippi which was one point above (241).
The national average of percent proficient or above for fourth grade was 40% for 2019. All other states in
the sample performed at or above, except for Mississippi which was one percentage point below (39%).
Alabama’s rate is 12 percentage points below the average (28%). Alabama’s percent proficient on their
state assessment was 47% for fourth grade mathematics.
In eighth grade mathematics, we see a similar pattern. All states in the sample achieved scores at or
above the national average (281) except Florida (279) and Mississippi (274). Alabama was 12 points below
at 269. The national average for students at or above proficient is 33% for 8th grade mathematics. All states
in the sample but Florida (31%), Mississippi (24%) and Tennessee (31%) exceeded this amount. Alabama
was 12 percentage points below at 21% proficient or above on NAEP while the state’s assessment results
showed 45% of eighth graders proficient or above.

Exhibit 57. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019)
300
240 246 247 248 241 245 246 240 246
250
230
200
150
100
50
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 50% 53%
48% 46% 48% 48%
50% 40% 39% 40%
40%
30% 28%
20%
10%
0%

Exhibit 59. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores Compared to Other States (2019)
300 281 294 287 292

291 280 286
250 269 279 274
200
150
100
50
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 47%
50% 44% 44%
33% 38% 37%
40%
30% 31%
20% 31%
21% 24%
10%
0%
Race/Ethnicity
Exhibits 61-62 present reading performance by race and ethnicity for Alabama’s fourth and eighth graders.
Scores for all groups have declined since 2011 for fourth grade. The gap between white and black students
and white and Hispanic students in fourth grade has remained over 21% (between 21% and 29%) from
2011-2019. Among eighth graders, the gap between Hispanic and white students has ranged from a 15 to
25 percentage point difference, while between black and white students the gap has ranged from 22 to 27
percentage points. Overall scores for black and white students declined during this period while scores for
Hispanic students, after increasing through 2015, are the same in 2019 as they were in 2011. In 2019 the
gap with white students narrowed for both groups.

Exhibit 61. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Black or African American 204 202 204 202 195
White 230 227 226 228 223
Hispanic 205 206 199 199 198
Exhibit 62. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2011-2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
White 268 266 267 268 261
Hispanic 246 249 252 243 246
Exhibits 63-64 present mathematics performance by race and ethnicity for Alabama’s fourth and eighth
graders. The gap between white and black students in fourth grade has remained over 20% (between 22
and 27 percentage points). The gap between Hispanic and white students was smaller and ranged from 13
to 19 percentage points. Among eighth graders, the gap between Hispanic and white students has
decreased, while the gap between black and white students has been relatively flat at 30 percentage points.

Exhibit 63. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
White 240 242 239 242 239
Hispanic 227 228 221 218 220
Exhibit 64. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
White 280 280 276 277 279
Hispanic 255 257 260 257 262
Free/Reduced-Price Lunch
Exhibits 65-66 present comparisons for reading results between students who are Free and Reduced
Lunch status and non-eligible students for fourth and eighth grade. The gap for both grade levels has
remained over 21 percentage points since 2011 and increased to 30 percentage points for fourth graders
in 2019. Among eighth graders, the gap has narrowed to 21 percentage points from a high of 27 percentage
points in 2017.

Exhibit 65. AL Grade 4 Reading NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Eligible 209 207 208 207 199
Not Eligible 235 229 232 236 229
Exhibit 66. AL Grade 8 Reading NAEP Scores by Race and Ethnicity (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Eligible 248 246 250 247 243
Not Eligible 270 272 270 274 264
Exhibits 67-68 present comparisons for mathematics results between Free and Reduced Lunch eligible
students and non-eligible students for fourth and eighth grade. The gap in fourth grade between the two
groups has remained relatively flat since 2011, ranging from 21 to 23 percentage points. Among eighth
graders, the gap is larger and has also remained relatively flat since 2011, ranging from 28 to 31 percentage
points.
Exhibit 67. AL Grade 4 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Eligible 222 223 223 225 220
Not Eligible 244 246 244 247 243

Exhibit 68. AL Grade 8 Mathematics NAEP Scores by Free and Reduced Lunch Status (2019)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Eligible 256 256 254 258 254
Not Eligible 284 287 282 286 284

D. NAEP Sample State Education Agency Organizational Charts

This section includes available organizational charts for the Departments of Education for the following
states included in the NAEP comparison analysis:
• Florida
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• Tennessee
• Wyoming
New Hampshire is not included, as it does not have a current organizational chart.

Florida Department of Education

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Minnesota Department of Education

New Jersey Department of Education

Tennessee Department of Education

Wyoming Department of Education

E. Sample of ALSDE Organizational Charts

1. ALSDE Organizational Chart
2. ALSDE Accounting
3. AMSTI
4. Child Nutrition Programs
5. Education Technology
6. Educator Certification
7. Evaluation, Accountability, and Support
8. Human Resources
9. Information Systems
10. Instructional Services
11. LEA Accounting and Reporting
12. Procurement and Operations
13. Professional Learning (November 2019)
14. Proposed ALSDE Organizational Chart (April 2018)
15. Pupil Transportation
16. Special Education Services
17. Student Learning
18. Teaching and Leading

1. ALSDE Senior Staff

2. ALSDE Accounting

3. AMSTI

4. Child Nutrition Programs

5. Education Technology

6. Educator Certification

7. Evaluation, Accountability, and Support

8. Human Resources

9. Information Systems

10. Instructional Services





11. LEA Accounting and Reporting

12. Procurement and Operations

13. Professional Learning

14. Pupil Transportation

15. Special Education Services

16. Student Learning

17. Teaching and Leading

F. Total CSI Allocations and School Improvement Strategies, by

School
School Total School Improvement Strategy Implemented at CSI Schools
Allocation
School 1 $123,121.00 Purchased Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Read 180/Computer Hardware and
System 44 Software. Purchased In-Care Technologies Chromebooks.
Purchased/Tech Services/US Business. Purchased Classroom Materials and
Supplies
School 2 $260,041.00 Benchmark Literacy (Reading program); Math 180 (Intervention Program;
Instructional Coach.
School 3 $288,167.00 Reading Specialist hired to provide intervention for targeted students and PD
for teachers. Materials purchased to assist teachers to reach students operating
below grade level.
School 4 $212,809.00 Asst. Prin. hired to focus solely on discipline; Reading program purchased to
address those students severely below grade level.
School 5 $80,666.00 Provided Summer Enrichment Program for grades K-5 Purchased Lit Camp
supplies for grades 4-5.
School 6 $129,490.00 Purchased Edgunity for intervention and credit recovery. Purchased chrome
books to support technology in classrooms. Provided Professional
Development for teachers.
School 7 $90,218.00 Used extended day (First 30) to provide additional time for academic
intervention. Provided professional development for instructional coach.
Provided incentives for 90% attendance (students and staff). Created
attendance team (social worker, nurse, secretary, counselor) to identify root
causes of absenteeism, communicate with parents, and conference as needed
with students and parent.
School 8 $189,989.00 Differentiated Instruction with STAR, MyOn, SPED Co-Teaching/Co-Planning,
Instructional Rounds, Flocabulary, EL Summer School, Classworks,
Technology, Coaching Cycles, Writing Workshops
School 9 $151,779.00 Computers were purchased to provide opportunity for ind. instruction during
intervention period. Also, personnel hired to provide math intervention for
students.
School $312,049.00 Saturday school (extended day) for students to prepare for ACT. Resources
10 and professional development for teachers on ACT. Provided incentives to
improve student attendance and address chronic absenteeism.
School $177,783.00 30-45 minutes of intervention was provided by each teacher daily for reading
11 and math.
iRead and System 44 intervention provided by ELI and ARI coaches
Regular Formative Assessments data collected and utilized for intervention
focus by classroom teacher.
Incentives were provided for students related to attendance.
Concentrated focus was placed on school level leadership teams through
regular classroom observations, feedback and support to teachers.
School $141,165.00 Teachers used timely standards aligned formative assessments to measure
12 students’ progress and adjust instruction.
Extended reading and math intervention time by incorporating and additional
hour for reading one day a week.
Tutors worked with students on reading and math skills.

School $142,226.00 Incentives were provided for students related to attendance.

13 Teachers used timely standards aligned formative assessments to measure
students’ progress.
Read 180/System 44
Extended intervention time
After school tutoring
School $345,482.00 Teacher planning time was prioritized in master schedule to allow for
14 collaborative planning and data analysis using student work and other
resources.
Teachers used timely standards aligned formative assessments to measure
students’ progress
Tutors worked with students on reading and math skills.
Professional development related to academic and behavior instruction.
Math and Literacy night for parents where they were provided with math and
literacy strategies to support their child’s learning at home.
Community outreach programs provided by school leaders to address areas of
personal and social development and good decision making.
Read 180/Systems 44 Intervention.
School $395,899.00 CSI Teacher Leaders (MS)
17
School $278,615.00 Teacher and Leader PD (particularly in the area of ELA and math),
18 Climate/Culture Supports (including attendance), CSI Teacher Leader (MS)
School $127,367.00 Goal setting and progress monitoring with students.
19 Faculty Professional Learning Community
PBIS Celebrations/Awards Program
Regular monitoring and evaluation of intervention plan based on benchmark
data to meet student needs.
Read 180/Systems 44.
SREB Turnaround Training.
School $195,296.00 Teachers used timely standards aligned formative assessments to measure
20 students’ progress.
Teachers' planning time is prioritized in master schedule to allow for
collaborative planning and data analysis using student work and other
resources.
Regular monitoring and evaluation of intervention/instructional focus based on
benchmark data to meet student needs.
Concentrated focus was placed on school level leadership teams. Team
members conducted regular classroom observations and provided feedback
and support to teachers. Team held weekly meetings using a meeting protocol
provided by the district.

School $294,536.00 Instructional Coach, 1 Interventionist, 2 full-time substitutes for Professional

21 Learning, Studer PD, Read 180, Dreambox Learning
School $323,193.00 Instructional Coach, Interventionists, 2 full-time substitutes for professional
22 learning, Studer PD, Read 180, Dreambox Learning
School $60,499.00 Principal Coach, Formative Assessments, Strategic Teaching, Stipends, and
23 Substitutes for PD.
School $159,739.00 Sonday System professional learning for staff and administration. Provided
24 professional learning for staff and leadership team on quality Tier II and III
instruction in reading and math. Improve the Problem-Solving Team process.
Implement attendance plan that celebrates students with perfect attendance
with incentives.
School $152,840.00 Walk to Enrichment, Strategic Data Meetings, Elevation for ELs, Co-
25 Teaching/Co-Planning, Attendance Task Force.
School $171,414.00 Explicit and Intensive Small Groups, Walk to Enrichment, Strategic Data
26 Meetings, Elevation for ELs, Co-Teaching/Co-Planning.
27 Meetings, Elevation for ELs, Co-Teaching/Co-Planning, Attendance Team.
28 Meetings, Elevation for ELs, Co-Teaching/Co-Planning.
School $142,757.00 Small Group, Walk to Enrichment, Strategic Data Meetings, Elevation for ELs,
29 Co-Teaching/Co-Planning, Attendance Task Force.
School $142,226.00 Professional development opportunities,
30 Consultant (Dr. Nottingham – ICLE) to provide rigor and relevance training for
teachers,
Teacher Stipends, Materials and Resources, classroom library sets for
teachers.
School $289,760.00 Purchased Capturing Kids Heart training. Summer PD (and follow-up) focusing
31 on Reading & Differentiated Instruction. Computers were also purchased.
School $241,466.00 Academic interventionist to support intervention and professional development.
32 Additional teachers to reduce class size. Professional development for teachers
with emphasis on engagement and rigor. Concentrated focus was placed on
school level leadership teams through classroom observations, feedback and
support to teachers.
School $276,492.00 Academic Interventionist and 4 instructional aides were hired to provide
33 instructional support. Instructional programs also purchased to support core
and intervention instruction. Technology for additional individualize academic
support.
School $258,979.00 Chrome books purchased, instructional materials for use in classrooms,
34 Professional development for teachers, Program to address students reading
below grade level, PBIS structure developed and implemented.
School $219,708.00 Hired accountability Interventionist and Class Size Reduction Unit, Sonday
35 System to support core and intervention instruction. Chromebooks for additional
individualize academic support. Purchased Instructional materials to support
academic intervention and Professional Development to improve teacher
practice.
School $241,997.00 Technology to support and enhance academic achievement.
36
School $210,686.00 Academic Interventionist and instructional aids (2) to provide instructional
37 support (core and intervention). Additional teacher to reduce class size.
School $145,941.00 Materials to support students below grade level.
38

School $57,846.00 Academic Interventionist, 1/2 librarian, and 2 instructional aides to provide
39 additional academic support (core and intervention).
School $196,888.00 District level administrator to monitor and support CSI interventions.
40 Professional development for teachers. Technology and programs to address
students' reading difficulties.
School $535,471.00 District administrator hired to ensure CSI schools receive the professional
41 development needed to improve the level of instruction students receive.
Academic Interventionist hired to provide teachers with EBP to increase
achievement; GTS utilized to better track students; Incentives to address
student & teacher attendance.
School $193,704.00 Academic Interventionist to support intervention and professional development.
42 Instructional program to support core and intervention instruction.
School $360,342.00 Additional teachers hired to reduce class size and provide more focused
43 targeted instruction. District admin hired to ensure CSI school receive PD
needed to improve level of instruction.
School $508,937.00 District admin. hired to ensure CSI schools receive PD needed to improve
44 instruction students receive. Student incentives to address graduation rate; trip
to visit colleges/career opportunities; Additional teachers to reduce class sizes.
School $192,642.00 Technology to support academic achievement. Professional Development.
45
School $207,502.00 Academic interventionist to support intervention and professional development.
46 Additional teachers to reduce class size. Instructional program to support core
and intervention instruction.
School $175,129.00 Academic Interventionist hired to conduct intervention throughout the day.
47 Computers were also purchased to be used during intervention.
School $169,292.00 Sonday System intervention instruction during IGNITE (30-45 minutes) of
48 intervention per day. Adopted school theme- Ironman STRONG. Use theme in
social emotional. Created "Castles" PBIS including Class Dojo. Initiated
Parental/community programs. Partnership with volunteer programs for reading,
ELL and "buddies". Classroom observation with feedback with the expectation
of immediate adjustments to instruction. Identified ELL students on Imagine
Learning daily. Summer school - Camp Lit, and improved technology.
School $182,559.00 Hired ELL interventionist, Social Worker, Principal attended Transformation
49 Academy and increased time in classrooms, peer observations, Instituted
Parent and Community opportunities (AL's Pals, Indian River Journeys, ESL
Tutors, Reading Carnival, Grandparents lunch). Began using Hope Institute
PBIS, Summer School Lit Camp, Purchased StemScopes for Science and
Reflex math. Teacher Professional Learning on Writing and Mastery connect.
G. CSI Schools and Academic Target Attainment

Bottom
Met 5% of
11/2019 Met Met ESSA Met ESSA Title
Failing 2019 ESSA ESSA Target Target Schools SES
Reading Growth School Letter Target Target Reading/ Graduation 2018- SSIP
School Proficiency % List Grade Reading Math Math Rate 2019 Schools
AM
Windham
36% 2% No 78:C No No No N/A No No
Elementary
School
Adams
Elementary 27% -6% No 76:C Yes No No N/A No No
School

Barbour
County
19% 1% Yes 59:F No No No N/A Yes No
Intermediate
School
Bellingrath
Middle No N/A Yes 57:F No No No N/A Yes No
School
Bessemer
City High No Yes 57:F No No No No Yes No
School
Brewbaker
Intermediate 19% -1% No 67:D No No No N/A No No
School
Bush Hills
13% Yes 62:D No No No N/A Yes No
Academy
Capital
Heights
No N/A Yes 57:F No No No N/A Yes Cohort III
Middle
School
Chapman
Elementary 25% -28% No 69:D Yes No No N/A No No
school
Charles A
Brown 14% -3% Yes 67:D No No No N/A No No
Elementary
School
Chastang-
Fournier
15% -9% Yes 60:D No No No N/A Yes No
Middle
School
Chisholm
Elementary 17% -1% No 61:D No No No N/A Yes No
School
Dannelly
Elementary 18% -1% No 63:D No No No N/A Yes No
School
Davis
Elementary 14% 2% Yes 57:F No No No N/A Yes No
School
Dozier
Elementary 22% -8% No 59:F No No No N/A Yes No
School
Dunbar-
Ramer 22% -1% Yes 67:D Yes No No N/A No No
School
Erwin
Middle
School No N/A No 68:D No No No N/A No No
Eufaula
Elementary 28% 0% No 73:C No No No N/A No No
School
George
Washington
Carver 29% 0% No 73:C Yes No Yes N/A No No
Elementary
School

Green Acres
Middle No N/a Yes 57:F No No No N/A Yes No
School
Greene
County High No Yes 68:D No Yes Yes Yes No No
School
Greenville
Middle No N/A No 68:D No No No N/A No No
School
Hayes K-8 10% -1% Yes 55:F No No No N/A Yes No
Hemphill
Elementary 18% 2% Yes 63:D Yes No No N/A Yes No
School
Highland
Gardens
13% -2% Yes 63:D No No No N/A Yes No
Elementary
School
Holt
Elementary 19% 0% No 67:D No No No N/A No Cohort III
School
Hudson K-
Eight 18% Yes 69:D No No No N/A No No
School
Huffman
Academy 20% -1% No 61:D No No No N/A Yes No
Huffman
High
School-
Magnet No Yes 66:D No No No No No No
Jefferson
Davis High No Yes 61:D No Yes No No Yes No
School
Johnson
Elementary 16% 1% No 66:D No No No N/A No No
School
Lakewood
Elementary 24% -13% No 71:C Yes No Yes N/A No No
School
Lanier
Senior High No Yes 70:C No Yes No No No No
School
Lee High
No Yes 59:F No Yes No Yes Yes No
School
Martin
Luther King
Jr. 20% 7% Yes 58:F No No No N/A Yes No
Elementary
School
Matthews
Elementary 17% 4% No 67:D No No No N/A No No
School
Minor
Middle No N/A No 65:D No No No N/A No No
School
Montview
Elementary 29% -18% No 77:C Yes No Yes N/A No No
School

Morningvie
w
22% 5% No 63:D No No No N/A Yes No
Elementary
School
Nixon
Elementary 12% -1% Yes 64:D No No No N/A No No
School
R A
Hubbard No Yes 83:B No No No Yes No No
High School
Rolling Hills
Elementary 21% -11% No 65:D Yes No Yes N/A No No
School
Ronald
No N/A Yes 63:D No No No N/A Yes No
McNair 7-8
Salem
Elementary 20% -7% No 77:C Yes Yes Yes N/A No No
School
South
Hampton K- 26% -13% No 73:C Yes No No N/A No No
8
Southside
No Yes 65:D No No No Yes No No
High School
Sumter
Central High No No 70:C Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
School
Tipton
Durant
No Yes 57:F No No No N/A Yes No
Middle
School
WE Putnam
Middle
No N/A Yes 64:D No No No N/A No No
School-
Magnet

H. Department Merit-Based Pay Position Descriptions

Title FTE Description Qualifications
Account Clerk 8 This is moderately difficult clerical High school diploma or GED and one year
accounting work involving varied of experience in clerical or office work,
work methods and problems. which includes bookkeeping responsibility.
Accountant 5 This is beginning professional Bachelor’s degree from an accredited
level accounting work in the college or university with a major in
application of accounting and Accounting. College seniors who are in
auditing principles, methods, and their last semester or quarter may submit
procedures in the establishment, an application but will not be certified for
analysis, and maintenance of appointment until they receive their
fiscal records. degrees.
Accounting 1 No description.
Director I
Director III
Manager
Accounting 2 This is responsible para- High School Diploma/GED and completion
Technician professional accounting work. of five (5) college-level accounting courses
and two years of work experience
performing accounting, bookkeeping, or
fiscal clerical work.
ASA I 5 This is entry level office support High school diploma or GED and 6 months
work involving a variety of clerical of clerical work experience.
duties. Note: Typing skills are required for some
but not all jobs in this classification. To be
considered (selectively certified) for
positions that require typing, we must
receive a Certificate of Proficiency which
describes your skill level.
ASA II 15 This is advanced and/or High school diploma or GED and at least
supervisory office support work three years of responsible clerical work
involving a variety of tasks and experience.
work methods. Note: Typing skills are required for some
but not all jobs in this classification. If you
wish to be considered (selectively certified)
for positions that require typing, we must
receive a Certificate of Proficiency which
describes your skill level.
ASA III 34 No description.
Audiovisual 1 Listed as Audiovisual Specialist II. High school diploma or GED, with three
Specialist III This is professional level work of years of progressively responsible
moderate complexity in all phases experience in audiovisual communication
of audio, visual, and video and production work.
production.
Clerical Aide 1 This is temporary and routine Completion of 10th grade and enrollment in
clerical work. high school or graduation from a standard
senior high school/GED equivalency.
Clerk 8 The Clerk is a permanent full-time High School diploma or a GED certificate.
position used by various agencies
throughout the state. Employees
in this class may perform a variety
of clerical duties.


Clerk Steno IV 2 No description.
Data Processing 1 No description.
Specialist
Departmental 1 No description.
Marketing
Specialist
Departmental 2 No description.
Operations
Specialist
Docket Clerk 1 This is responsible legal clerical High school diploma or GED supplemented
work processing a large volume of by a Certificate of Proficiency in typing of at
criminal and civil case documents least 50 net words per minute with 10 or
and records, and related typing less errors and two years of experience in
duties. responsible legal clerical work such as
court clerk, paralegal, or legal secretary.
Education 73 Listed as Education Administrator Master’s degree from an accredited college
Administrator I General Option. This is highly or university in an approved subject matter
responsible professional and or education specialty area and six years of
administrative work in directing experience in teaching, education
and managing Alabama administration, or a related assignment
Department of Education including four years of experience in one of
programs. the specialty areas.
Education 9 No description.
Administrator II
Education 161 Listed as Education Specialist in Master’s degree from an accredited college
Specialist I the Merit Pay Guide. This is or university in an approved subject matter
specialized professional work in or education specialty area and five years
promoting, developing, and of experience in teaching, education
supervising statewide educational administration, or a related assignment
programs. including three years of experience in one
of the specialty areas.
Note: Advanced graduate study in
approved coursework may be substituted
for the required experience on the basis of
one year of post master’s education for one
year of experience up to two years.
Advanced graduate study is considered
coursework towards a Doctorate in
Education (Ed.D.) or a Doctorate of
Philosophy (Ph.D.).
Executive 1 No description.
Assistant III
Executive 1 No description.
Secretary
General Services 1 This is responsible work Graduation from an accredited four-year
Supervisor supervising a variety of support college or university with a degree in any
services in a major state major
department. Two years of progressively, responsible
experience in a support services function
such as shipping/receiving, motor pool
operations, property management/control,
supply room operations, purchasing,
records retention, office machine
maintenance/control, and mail processing,
including two years of supervisory
experience


Graphic Arts 1 This is advanced and skilled High School Diploma or GED and one year
Technician technical graphic arts work in the of experience in the skilled operation of
operation of varied equipment in composition, press, pre-press, and/or
the performance of the more bindery equipment or a production printer
complex technical processes used OR Associate's Degree from an approved
in the areas of copying, technical or trade school in graphic
duplicating, and printing. arts/compositions technology.
Human Services 1 This is highly responsible public Bachelor’s degree from an accredited
Program relations and community college or university with a major in child
Coordinator mobilization work in facilitating the development, early childhood education, or
objectives of public programs a closely related field and two years of
concerning school readiness. responsible experience in preschool/pre-k-
administration and training or teaching
preschool, pre-k, or kindergarten children.
IT Manager II 1 No description.
IT Operations 1 This is entry through full (Computer option) - High school diploma or
Technician performance operations support GED plus six months experience working
for data and voice with computers for a business, organization
communications equipment, or government. (Telecommunications
mainframe and client server option) - High school diploma or GED plus
operations, and network six months experience in
operations. telecommunications working with voice and
data communications equipment.
IT Systems 3 This is beginning through mid- An Associate’s Degree from an accredited
Specialist level applied and developmental college or technical school in Information
Associate technical work in voice and data Technology and two years of experience in
systems design and maintenance. telecommunications (voice) system design,
maintenance, or support.
IT Systems 3 No description.
Specialist Senior
IT Systems 1 This is advanced applied technical One year of credit from an accredited
Technician level and/or supervisory work in college or technical school in the field of
Senior data systems and installation. Information Systems and two years of
Employees are responsible for the experience in troubleshooting and installing
planning, coordination, Business and/or Government applications
installation, and maintenance of software and/or hardware.
varied and complex personal
computer systems and equipment.
Laborer 3 No description.
Legal Research 1 This is legal work of a paralegal Graduation from an accredited legal
Assistant level in conducting research into assistant or paralegal program and
legal problems arising in possession of a legal assistant or paralegal
connection with the operation of certificate and one year of experience in
state departments and agencies, legal research work; or graduation from a
in the preparation and recognized school of law and eligibility for
interpretation of basic legal admission to the Alabama State Bar
documents, and in the handling of examination.
routine administrative duties.
Nurse 1 No description.
Administrator
Nurse Manager 1 No description.


Nutritionist 2 This is professional work in Bachelor’s degree from an accredited
providing nutritional services college or university in Nutrition, Foods and
including assessment, counseling, Nutrition, Dietetics or Community Nutrition.
and education as a part of a public
health program in an assigned
area, a rehabilitation service
program, or a senior services
program.
Nutritionist 1 This is advanced professional Bachelor’s degree from an accredited
Senior consultative work in one or more college or university in Nutrition, Foods and
specialized programs of nutrition Nutrition, Dietetics, or Community Nutrition
services covering multiple and two years of professional nutrition
programs in a multiple clinic experience.
setting. OR
Master’s degree from an accredited college
or university in Nutrition, Foods and
Nutrition, Dietetics, or Community Nutrition
and one year of professional nutrition
experience.
Paralegal 1 This is paraprofessional legal Graduation from an American Bar
work conducting research for legal Association (ABA) accredited paralegal
issues arising in connection with program in paralegal studies or a closely
the operation of state departments related field, or graduation from an
and agencies, and in the accredited college or university with a four-
preparation and interpretation of year degree in paralegal studies or a
legal documents.
closely related field
One year of experience conducting
paralegal research work
OR
Graduation from an ABA accredited school
of law with eligibility to be admitted to the
Alabama State Bar Examination or a
current member in good standing with the
ABA
Personnel 3 Only Personnel Assistant I is High school diploma or GED and two years
Assistant III listed in the Merit Pay Guide. This of clerical experience including one year of
is entry level technical work of experience in personnel administration.
average difficulty performing a
variety of duties in the
maintenance of personnel records
and processing personnel
transactions.
Procurement 1 This is responsible purchasing High school diploma or GED and one year
Officer I work involving a general of work experience in purchasing to include
knowledge of various commodity performing duties such as writing
groups within an agency of state specifications, processing bids and
government. requisitions, comparing quality of products,
and word processing.
Program Director 2 No description.

Program Analyst 4 No description.
Associate
Senior


Public 3 This is advanced public relations Bachelor’s degree with major coursework
Information and informational work in an in journalism, public relations,
Specialist agency. communications, English or a closely
related field.
School Bus 4 This is technical fieldwork in the Eight years of experience as an auto or
Equipment inspection of school buses for truck mechanic OR six years of experience
Inspector compliance with construction, as a school bus mechanic’s helper OR
maintenance, and safety Completion of technical school training in
standards as required by state automotive mechanics.
and federal laws and regulations.
School Bus 1 No description.
Inspector
Supervisor
Senior 13 No description.
Accountant
Special 1 This is special investigative work Bachelor’s degree with major coursework
Investigator in providing assistance in in Criminal Justice, Business or Public
preparation for prosecuting cases Administration, or a Social Science and
and for performing highly one year of law enforcement experience
confidential assignments. conducting complex criminal investigations.
Staff Accountant 18 This is professional accounting Bachelor’s degree from an accredited

work performed according to college or university with a major in
established procedures and Accounting, and two years of experience
regulations. performing professional-level accounting,
financial auditing, and/or compliance
auditing work.
Stock Clerk I 1 This is routine manual and clerical High school diploma or GED and six
work in the operation of a small months of experience performing
departmental supply unit. stockroom duties such as shipping and
receiving inventory management; stocking,
locating and issuing supplies; completing
and filing documents; and operating
material handling equipment.
Surplus 4 No description. Listed as code 50282.
Commodity
Administrator

I. List of Reviewed Documents

Below is a comprehensive collection of documents reviewed for the ALSDE Organizational Analysis and
Study. While great effort was taken to fully capture all materials that informed the development of this report,
given the quantity of documents received, it is possible not all documents reviewed have been included.
• 2018 State Appropriations Bill

• 2018 State Appropriations Comparison Sheet
• 2019 State Appropriations Comparison Sheet
• Additional FY21 Budget ARI State Funding, Draft (December 2019)
• Alabama Achieves Confidential Draft #1 (November 1, 2019)
• Alabama Achieves Edited Brochure with Strategies (Draft, December 30, 2019)
• Alabama Educator Evaluation Taskforce Members (November 2019)
• Alabama ESSA Plan, November 15, 2019
• Alabama Literacy Act: Journey to Success Implementation Guide (2019)
• Alabama Math Timeline (January 2020)
• Alabama Reading Initiative
• Alabama Reading Initiative Timeline, 1997-2020
• Alabama Science in Motion (ASIM) Act (Chapter 61C)
• Alabama State Department of Education 2019-2020 Compliance Monitoring On-Site Schedule
• Alabama State Department of Education Property Management Guidelines for Regional ARI Staff
(March 14, 2017)
• Alabama State Department of Education Property Management Guidelines for ALSDE ARI Staff
(October 2, 2017)
• Alabama State Motor Pool Online Vehicle Request System User’s Guide, Version 1.0 (May 2004)
• Alabama State Personnel Department 2019 Merit System Employment Guide (Revised
December 2018)
• Alabama Teacher Quantity and Quality Round Table Meeting #1 Agenda (September 30, 2019)
• Alabama Teacher Shortage Task Force Report (September 2019)
• Alabama’s Draft MTSS Definition for Department Feedback (November 4, 2019)
• Alabama’s Roadmap to STEM Success: A Strategic Plan for STEM Education (November 2019)
• ALSBE Work Session: ALSDE Reorganization Plan Update (April 12, 2018)
• ALSDE 2018-2019 Comprehensive Compliance Monitoring On-Site Manual (Revised June 28,
2018)
• ALSDE Compliance Monitoring Review 2018-2019 (Eufaula City Board of Education)
• ALSDE Educator Certification Processing – Assessment (November 2019)
• ALSDE FY19 Schedule of Federal Awards
• ALSDE Organization Effectiveness Study (December 15, 2017)
• ALSDE Reading Initiative
• AMSTI Three-Year Strategic Plan (Modified November 12, 2019)
• AMSTI Waitlist, Spreadsheet of LORs and MOAs (2017)
• ARI FY20 Budget/ARI State Funding Draft (October 2019)
• ARI Property/Inventory Procedures
• ARI Reading Coaches Description from Karen Porter (January 9, 2020)
• Budgeted Position Profile FY2020
• Certification Responsibilities and Duties

• Code of Alabama – Title 16: Education – Section 16-2-7 – Appointment, compensation, benefits,
etc., of assistant state superintendents of education and division directors in State Department of
Education; filling of vacancies
• CSI Allocations & Supports for Districts & Schools, Comprehensive (January 2, 2020)
• Curriculum and Instruction Meeting Briefing (January 2020)
• Department Level Budget Analysis Report by Cost Center, FY19, Period 12 (Preliminary)
• Department Level Budget Analysis Report by Fund Source, FY19, Period 12 (Preliminary)
• Description of the Mega Conference Committee 2020
• ECS Request: 3rd Grade Literacy Law Components, Comparison with other states
• Educator Evaluation PowerPoint (October 22, 2019)
• Efficacy of the Alabama Math, Science, Technology Initiative (AMSTI)
• ELL FY21 Budget State Funding Request, Draft (December 2019)
• ESSA Overview, Including Amendments PowerPoint (December 2019)
• Funding for Math Coaches, FY21 Budget Request (December 16, 2019)
• Funding Request for 2020 Math Coach Pilot
• Grants Update from Susan McKim (November 2019)
• Human Resources Notes
• Instructional Services Staff Organization and Task Structure (September 2019)
• Introduction to Regional In-Service Centers (November 2019)
• Key Responsibilities of Telena Madison, Professional Learning
• Legislative Report: 2019 Alabama National Board-Certified Teachers (NBCT) Report (September
2019)
• Legislative Report: Alabama Digital Tools for Teachers Initiative (September 2019)
• Legislative Report: Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) (October 2019)
• Legislative Report: Alabama Science in Motion (ASIM) (October 2019)
• Legislative Report: AMSTI FY20 (October 2019)
• Legislative Report: Charter Schools (November 2019)
• Legislative Report: Provisions Regarding Compensation for Earned Advanced Degrees
(September 2019)
• Math ACOS PD Rollout Plan Draft #8, Phases I-V
• Memorandum: Exception of Overnight Per Diem for Trip Less than 100 miles One Way (July 8,
2019)
• Memorandum: Justification for In-State Travel (June 24, 2019)
• Memorandum: School Safety: Getting Back to the Basics Regional Trainings (September 25,
2019)
• Memorandum: Youth Mental Health First Aid Training (March 18, 2019)
• Mississippi Literacy Act Implementation Guide (Revised 2016)
• MTSS Framework Visual, Draft 3
• Organizational Charts
o ALSDE Accounting
o ALSDE Organizational Chart (August 22, 2017)
o ALSDE Organizational Chart (January 12, 2015)
o ALSDE Organizational Chart (June 25, 2015)
o ALSDE Organizational Chart (June 8, 2017)
o ALSDE Organizational Chart (September 2018)
o ALSDE Organizational Chart 2017 PowerPoint – Dr. Dee Fowler
o AMSTI
o Child Nutrition Programs
o Education Technology
o Educator Certification

o Evaluation, Accountability, and Support

o Human Resources
o Information Systems
o Instructional Services
o LEA Accounting and Reporting
o Procurement and Operations
o Professional Learning (November 2019)
o Proposed ALSDE Organizational Chart (April 2018)
o Pupil Transportation
o Special Education Services
o Student Learning
o Teaching and Leading
• Position Classification Questionnaire, Personnel Department, State of Alabama (Revised January
1995)
• PowerSchool Student Information System Trainings – Rhett Cutts
• Presentation to Joint Legislative Committee on Finance & Budgets, FY2021 (January 22, 2020)
• Process to Fill Vacancy
• Professional Learning Organizational Chart (November 2019)
• Quick Reference Guide: Selected Student Codes & Application Navigation
• Region 7 Comprehensive Center (R7CC) Draft Logic Models for 2020
• Regional In-Service Centers and ALSDE Survey
• Regional In-Service Centers Funding (2020)
• Remediation Data by LEA Senior Class of 2018
• SBOE Administrative Codes:
o Chapter 290-030-040
o Chapter 290-040-040
o Chapter 290-070-010
o Chapter 290-070-020
o Chapter 290-070-030
o Chapter 290-070-040
o Chapter 290-070-050
o Chapter 290-080-010
o Chapter 290-080-020
o Chapter 290-080-030
o Chapter 290-080-040
o Chapter 290-080-050
o Chapter 290-080-060
o Chapter 290-080-070
o Chapter 290-080-080
o Chapter 290-080-092
o Chapter 290-090-010
o Chapter 290-090-020
o Chapter 290-1-1
o Chapter 290-1-2
o Chapter 290-1-5
o Chapter 290-2-1
o Chapter 290-2-4
o Chapter 290-3-1
o Chapter 290-3-2
o Chapter 290-3-3
o Chapter 290-3-5
o Chapter 290-3-6

o Chapter 290-4-1
o Chapter 290-4-3
o Chapter 290-4-5
o Chapter 290-8-8
o Chapter 290-8-9
• School Safety Model
• Single Audit FY16
• Special Nutrition Programs, Management Evaluation Corrective Action Response FY18, National
School Lunch Program & School Breakfast Program (October 31, 2018)
• Special Nutrition Programs, Management Evaluation Report FY17, Child and Adult Care Food
Program (March 14, 2017)
• Special Nutrition Programs, Management Evaluation Report FY17, Summer Food Service
Program (June 25, 2018)
• Special Nutrition Programs, Management Evaluation Report FY19, The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (September 3, 2019)
• State Department of Education Review – Questions from Cynthia McCarty (shared on December
12, 2019)
• State of Alabama Department of Education Organization Effectiveness Study, Preliminary Report
(Kenning Consulting, December 15, 2017)
• State of Alabama Personnel Department Merit Semi-Monthly Compensation Plan (October 1,
2019)
• Strategic Planning Committee for Reading (2017 Report)
• Superintendent Survey (Fall 2018)
• Take 10 for Public Education Demographic Reports
• Teacher Evaluation Task Force, October 2019-March 2020
• The School Safety Platform: EOPs Analysis Materials
• Three-Tiered Model of Interventions for Mental Health (Draft)

Alabama Education Department Study & Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alabama Education Department Study & Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alabama Education Department Study & Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Operational Study and

March 13, 2020

Public Consulting Group, Inc.

Arlington Public Schools

Public Consulting Group, Inc.

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 1

II. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 9

III. Core Education Functions ......................................................................................................... 11

IV. Comparative Analysis with Top NAEP States .......................................................................... 34

V. Inventory and Review of Programs ............................................................................................ 56

VI. Staffing Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 80

VII. Priority Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 97

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 2

2. Develop and Implement a Strategy to Action Plan. ........................................................................ 97

VIII. Additional Recommendations ................................................................................................. 99

IX. Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 109

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 3

Exhibit 24. Teacher Attractiveness Rating .................................................................................................. 53

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 4

1. What are the core functions of the ALSDE?

Alabama’s Current Context

3. Proposed Changes to Governance Structures. The proposed creation of the Alabama

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 5

However, without a sense of urgency and an unrelenting commitment to implementing the

1. Take the lead.

2. Develop and implement a strategy to action plan.

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 6

3. Focus first on the priorities.

4. Hold schools and districts accountable.

5. Significantly reorganize the ALSDE internally.

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 7

Organization of the Report

Relevant documents and visuals are included in the Appendix.

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 8

Interviews and Focus Groups

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants

ALSDE Staff and Stakeholders 103

NAEP State Education Leaders 11

State Elected Officials and Staff 17

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 9

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants

Total Stakeholders 147

Documents and Data

• ALSDE Strategic Plan, mission/vision statement, goals, and objectives

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 10

III. Core Education Functions

1. Learning Standards for Students

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 11

Student Type Academic Achievement College and Career Readiness

Black or African American

Academic Achievement College & Career Readiness

Strategic Planning and Direction

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 12

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Student safety is a priority in my district. (n=5,808) 89% 9% 2%

The State Department of Education promotes safety

Agree Disagree Don’t Know

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 13

Exhibit 5. Take 10 Education Survey Resident Responses