I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 768 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 

the establishment of teacher evaluation programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2013 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr. POLIS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require the establishment of teacher evaluation programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Teacher Ef5 fectiveness, Leadership, Learning, And Results Act of 

6 2013’’ or the ‘‘STELLAR Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 768 IH

1 (1) Effective teachers and principals are the 

2 backbone of our schools and the key to successful 

3 students. 

4 (2) Teachers and principals deserve our full 

5 support as they take on one of the most important 

6 and most challenging responsibilities—educating our 

7 children. 

8 (3) High-quality evaluations that provide mean9 ingful feedback are a crucial element to giving edu10 cators the support they need to successfully achieve 

11 at high levels. 

12 (4) Teachers and principals also deserve access 

13 to professional development opportunities so they 

14 can continue to learn and grow as educators. 

15 (5) Research shows that high-quality and effec16 tive teaching is the single most important school17 based factor impacting student learning. 

18 (6) In formal studies, including research high19 lighted in ‘‘The Widget Effect’’, nearly 75 percent of 

20 teachers reported that they have not received specific 

21 suggestions on how to improve classroom practices 

22 in annual evaluations. 

23 (7) Across all local educational agencies, only 

24 43 percent of teachers, including novice teachers 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 768 IH

1 who may benefit the most from feedback, report that 

2 current evaluations systems are helpful. 

3 (8) Research also shows that school leadership 

4 quality is second only to teacher quality among 

5 school-related factors in its impact on student learn6 ing. 

7 (9) Strong school leadership is a key deter8 minant of whether schools can attract and retain ef9 fective teachers particularly in high poverty schools, 

10 as research has found teachers’ satisfaction to be 

11 more influenced by the culture of the school than by 

12 the demographics of the school’s students. 

13 (10) Principals set the direction and vision for 

14 a school, and studies find that strong instructional 

15 leadership and a focus on building a shared mission 

16 focused on student achievement can create a positive 

17 teaching and learning environment. 

18 (11) Constructive feedback specifying areas for 

19 improvement could be useful to both teachers and 

20 principals who are dedicated to growing profes21 sionally. 

22 (12) The most effective way to turn around a 

23 struggling school is through talented teachers and 

24 an inspirational principal. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 768 IH

1 (13) Effective teachers and principals also de2 serve to be recognized for excellence and to receive 

3 commendations in areas of strong performance and 

4 improvement. 

5 (14) Evaluations should give teachers and prin6 cipals the opportunity to foster mutually beneficial 

7 professional relationships. 

8 (15) Teachers and principals should provide 

9 input and contribute directly to designing, imple10 menting, and improving evaluation systems in their 

11 school districts. 

12 (16) High-quality teacher and principal evalua13 tions have the potential to be a powerful tool and 

14 should play a significant role in building a talented 

15 force of educators. 

16 (17) The goal of evaluation systems is to im17 prove individual, as well as whole school and district, 

18 teaching and leadership practices to benefit stu19 dents. 

20 SEC. 3. ROBUST TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1111(b) of the Elemen22 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

23 6311(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(11) ROBUST TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVAL25 UATIONS.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years 

2 after the date of enactment of the STELLAR 

3 Act, each State plan shall include the following: 

4 ‘‘(i) The statewide definitions of 

5 teacher and principal effectiveness that the 

6 State has established and not less than 4 

7 levels of performance ratings for teachers 

8 and for principals, including an effective 

9 rating and a highly effective rating, based 

10 on such definitions. 

11 ‘‘(ii) A demonstration that the State 

12 has developed, after taking input from and 

13 collaborating with, teachers and principals, 

14 a model teacher and principal evaluation 

15 program under which— 

16 ‘‘(I) individuals in charge of ad17 ministering teacher and principal eval18 uations within each local educational 

19 agency in the State are provided rig20 orous training on how to conduct the 

21 teacher and principal evaluations, in22 cluding— 

23 ‘‘(aa) how to identify areas 

24 for improvement and provide spe25 cific feedback about improving 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 768 IH

1 teaching and principal practice 

2 based on evaluation results; 

3 ‘‘(bb) how to evaluate teach4 ers and principals using the per5 formance ratings described in 

6 clause (i) and established under 

7 subparagraphs (B)(iii) and 

8 (C)(viii); 

9 ‘‘(cc) a measure of student 

10 academic growth with respect to 

11 the State’s academic standards of 

12 the school’s students, including 

13 students in each of the subgroups 

14 described in paragraph 

15 (2)(C)(v)(II), and training on 

16 how to interpret such measure; 

17 and 

18 ‘‘(dd) how to reliably and 

19 accurately rate teachers using the 

20 State’s rigorous rubric that 

21 meets the requirements of sub22 paragraph (B)(ii)(II)(aa); 

23 ‘‘(II) a teacher or principal who 

24 is evaluated is provided, based on the 

25 evaluation results, professional develVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
7 

•HR 768 IH

1 opment opportunities that meet the 

2 specific needs identified for the teach3 er or principal, including mentorship 

4 programs that use highly effective 

5 teachers or principals as leaders or 

6 coaches; 

7 ‘‘(III) measures are taken to en8 sure that the results of personally 

9 identifiable teacher and principal eval10 uations are not publicly disclosed, ex11 cept as required under subsection (h); 

12 ‘‘(IV) regular monitoring and as13 sessment of the quality, reliability, va14 lidity, fairness, consistency, and objec15 tivity of the evaluation program and 

16 the evaluators’ judgments takes place 

17 within and across local educational 

18 agencies in the State; 

19 ‘‘(V) each teacher’s performance 

20 is annually evaluated in accordance 

21 with subparagraph (B); 

22 ‘‘(VI) each principal’s perform23 ance is annually evaluated in accord24 ance with subparagraph (C); 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
8 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(VII) on the basis of the evalua2 tion, each teacher or principal re3 ceives— 

4 ‘‘(aa) a performance rating, 

5 as described in clause (i), that is 

6 based on multiple measures; 

7 ‘‘(bb) in the case of a teach8 er, in addition to the measures 

9 required under subparagraph 

10 (B)— 

11 ‘‘(AA) in a grade level 

12 and subject area with a 

13 statewide assessment, a 

14 measure of student learning 

15 gains that is comparable 

16 across the State for all 

17 teachers in grade levels and 

18 subject areas with a state19 wide assessment; or 

20 ‘‘(BB) in a grade level 

21 and subject area without a 

22 statewide assessment, a 

23 measure of student learning 

24 comparable across the local 

25 educational agency for all 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
9 

•HR 768 IH

1 teachers in the same grade 

2 without a statewide assess3 ment for elementary schools 

4 and for all teachers in the 

5 same grade and subject area 

6 without a statewide assess7 ment in secondary schools; 

8 ‘‘(cc) ongoing formative 

9 feedback and specific rec10 ommendations on areas for pro11 fessional improvement, which in12 cludes an identification of areas 

13 in which the teacher or principal 

14 can strengthen practices to im15 prove student learning; 

16 ‘‘(dd) commendations for ex17 cellence in areas of strong per18 formance and in areas of signifi19 cant improvement; and 

20 ‘‘(ee) in the case of a teach21 er or principal who is identified 

22 as being in 1 of the lowest 2 per23 formance ratings described in 

24 clause (i), a comprehensive remeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
10 

•HR 768 IH

1 diation plan within set time pa2 rameters not to exceed 1 year; 

3 ‘‘(VIII) evaluation results are 

4 clearly communicated to each teacher 

5 and principal, and the steps, goals, 

6 and requirements of a professional de7 velopment or remediation plan are 

8 clearly communicated to the teacher 

9 or principal; 

10 ‘‘(IX) evaluation results are the 

11 primary factor used in determining 

12 layoffs during any reduction in force; 

13 ‘‘(X) evaluation results are used 

14 to ensure that low-income students 

15 and minority students are not as16 signed at higher rates than other stu17 dents to classes in core academic sub18 jects taught by teachers who have re19 ceived one of the two lowest evalua20 tion rates in their most recent evalua21 tion; 

22 ‘‘(XI) evaluation results are used 

23 as the principal factor in informing all 

24 key personnel and staffing decisions, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
11 

•HR 768 IH

1 including decisions with respect to 

2 tenure, promotion, and retention; 

3 ‘‘(XII) any teacher or principal 

4 who receives the lowest evaluation 

5 performance rating for 2 consecutive 

6 years is subject to dismissal; 

7 ‘‘(XIII) any teacher or principal 

8 who receives the lowest performance 

9 rating and does not successfully im10 prove performance on an evaluation 

11 after completing the comprehensive 

12 remediation plan as required under 

13 subclause (VII)(ee) is prohibited from 

14 working in any elementary school or 

15 secondary school served under this 

16 part; 

17 ‘‘(XIV) any teacher or principal 

18 who receives the second lowest per19 formance rating and does not success20 fully improve performance on an eval21 uation after completing such com22 prehensive remediation plan is prohib23 ited from working in any elementary 

24 school or secondary school— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
12 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(aa) in a State-defined 

2 turnaround status; or 

3 ‘‘(bb) in the lowest 5 percent 

4 of schools based on its perform5 ance against State-defined stu6 dent achievement goals. 

7 ‘‘(iii) A demonstration that each local 

8 educational agency in the State has adopt9 ed a local educational agency-wide teacher 

10 and principal evaluation program that— 

11 ‘‘(I) was developed after seeking 

12 input from and collaborating with 

13 teachers and principals; 

14 ‘‘(II) meets the standards for va15 lidity and reliability developed by the 

16 State; and 

17 ‘‘(III) meets the minimum re18 quirements set forth in clause (ii). 

19 ‘‘(iv) A demonstration that each local 

20 educational agency in the State is seeking 

21 input from and collaborating with teachers 

22 and principals to make improvements to 

23 the evaluation program on an annual basis. 

24 ‘‘(v) An assurance that the State will, 

25 on a regular basis— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
13 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(I) review the teacher and prin2 cipal evaluation systems used by the 

3 local educational agencies in the 

4 State, including— 

5 ‘‘(aa) comparing the teacher 

6 and principal evaluation results, 

7 for each agency and each agen8 cy’s schools, against the student 

9 academic achievement and stu10 dent growth in the agency and 

11 each agency’s schools; 

12 ‘‘(bb) assessing the extent to 

13 which each local educational 

14 agency’s existing system dem15 onstrates meaningful differentia16 tion among teacher performance 

17 levels and among principal per18 formance levels; 

19 ‘‘(cc) comparing implemen20 tation and results across the 

21 evaluation systems of local edu22 cational agencies in the State to 

23 ensure— 

24 ‘‘(AA) comparability 

25 across the State in impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
14 

•HR 768 IH

1 mentation of such systems; 

2 and 

3 ‘‘(BB) that such sys4 tems meet the State’s cri5 teria or definitions for each 

6 of the terms described in 

7 clause (i); and 

8 ‘‘(dd) assessing the extent to 

9 which each local educational 

10 agency is using its evaluation 

11 system to inform major human 

12 resource systems; and 

13 ‘‘(II) provide technical assistance 

14 to improve an agency’s teacher and 

15 principal evaluation system so that 

16 the system provides meaningful dif17 ferentiation and is aligned with stu18 dent academic achievement and stu19 dent growth results in the agency and 

20 in each of the agency’s schools. 

21 ‘‘(vi) An assurance that beginning 1 

22 year after the date of enactment of the 

23 STELLAR Act, the State educational 

24 agency will submit to the Secretary an anVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:38 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
15 

•HR 768 IH

1 nual report on implementation of the 

2 State’s evaluation programs. 

3 ‘‘(vii) An assurance that the State will 

4 publish a report each year showing the av5 erage estimate of teacher impact on stu6 dent growth for each of the performance 

7 categories. 

8 ‘‘(viii) An assurance that the State is 

9 seeking input from teachers and principals 

10 on the effectiveness of methods measuring 

11 student growth and how to improve such 

12 methods. 

13 ‘‘(ix) An assurance that processes and 

14 procedures are established to ensure fair15 ness for nonprobationary teachers and 

16 principals facing loss of employment due to 

17 an ineffective rating in an evaluation pro18 gram. 

19 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHER EVAL20 UATIONS.—The evaluation of a teacher’s per21 formance shall comply with the following min22 imum requirements: 

23 ‘‘(i) STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH.— 

24 A significant factor of the evaluation is 

25 based on student academic growth with reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
16 

•HR 768 IH

1 spect to the State’s academic standards, as 

2 measured by— 

3 ‘‘(I) in predominant part, student 

4 learning gains on the State’s academic 

5 assessments established under para6 graph (3) or, for grades and subjects 

7 not covered by the State’s academic 

8 assessments, another valid and reli9 able assessment of student academic 

10 achievement as long as the assessment 

11 is used consistently by the local edu12 cational agency in which the teacher 

13 is employed for the grade or subject 

14 area for which the assessment is ad15 ministered; 

16 ‘‘(II) at least one other valid and 

17 reliable measure of student academic 

18 achievement that is used consistently 

19 across the local educational agency in 

20 which the teacher is employed for the 

21 grade or subject area being measured; 

22 and 

23 ‘‘(III) if available, value-added 

24 measures that track individual stuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
17 

•HR 768 IH

1 dent academic growth while under the 

2 instruction of the teacher. 

3 ‘‘(ii) OBSERVATIONS OF TEACHER

4 PERFORMANCE.—A portion of the evalua5 tion is based on observations of the teach6 er’s performance in the classroom by more 

7 than 1 trained and objective observer— 

8 ‘‘(I) that take place on several 

9 occasions during the school year in 

10 which the teacher is being evaluated; 

11 and 

12 ‘‘(II) under which— 

13 ‘‘(aa) a teacher is evaluated 

14 against a rigorous rubric that de15 fines multiple performance cat16 egories in alignment with the 

17 State’s professional standards for 

18 teachers and definition of teacher 

19 and principal effectiveness as 

20 specified in clause (i); and 

21 ‘‘(bb) observation ratings 

22 meaningfully differentiate among 

23 teachers’ performance and bear a 

24 relationship to evidence of stu25 dent academic growth with reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
18 

•HR 768 IH

1 spect to the State’s academic 

2 standards. 

3 ‘‘(iii) MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIA4 TION.—The evaluation provides perform5 ance ratings that meaningfully differen6 tiate among teacher performance using the 

7 performance ratings and levels described in 

8 subparagraph (A)(i). 

9 ‘‘(iv) COMPARABILITY OF STUDENT

10 GAINS.—The evaluation provides a meas11 ure of student learning gains that is com12 parable across the State for all teachers in 

13 grade levels and subject areas with a state14 wide assessment. 

15 ‘‘(v) COMPARABILITY OF RESULTS.— 

16 The evaluation provides results that are 

17 comparable, at a minimum, across all 

18 teachers within a grade level or, for sec19 ondary schools, for all teachers within a 

20 grade level and subject area in the local 

21 educational agency in which the teacher is 

22 employed. 

23 ‘‘(C) REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL

24 EVALUATIONS.—The evaluation of the performVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H768.IH H768

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
19 

•HR 768 IH

1 ance of a principal of a school shall comply with 

2 the following minimum requirements: 

3 ‘‘(i) STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH.— 

4 A significant factor of the evaluation is 

5 based on student academic growth attain6 ment with respect to the State’s academic 

7 standards of the school’s students, includ8 ing students in each of the subgroups de9 scribed in paragraph (2)(C)(v)(II). 

10 ‘‘(ii) GRADUATION RATES.—For a 

11 principal of a secondary school, a portion 

12 of the evaluation is based on improvements 

13 in the school’s graduation rate as defined 

14 in section 200.19(b) of title 34, Code of 

15 Federal Regulations as in effect on the 

16 date of enactment of this paragraph, when 

17 applicable, or in the case of a secondary 

18 school with a graduation rate of more than 

19 90 percent, the success of the principal in 

20 maintaining such graduation rate. 

21 ‘‘(iii) SUPPORT OF EFFECTIVE TEACH22 ERS.—A portion of the evaluation is based 

23 on the recruitment, development, evalua24 tion, and retention of effective teachers. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
20 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) LEADERSHIP ABILITIES.—A por2 tion of the evaluation is based on the lead3 ership abilities of the principal, as meas4 ured by observations of the principal and 

5 other relevant data evaluated against a rig6 orous rubric that defines multiple perform7 ance categories in alignment with the 

8 State’s professional standards for prin9 cipals. 

10 ‘‘(v) CONTENT OF OBSERVATION RAT11 INGS.—The observations described in 

12 clause (iv) provide observation ratings 

13 that— 

14 ‘‘(I) meaningfully differentiate 

15 among principals’ performance; and 

16 ‘‘(II) bear a strong relationship 

17 to evidence of student academic 

18 growth with respect to the State’s 

19 academic standards. 

20 ‘‘(vi) MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIA21 TION.—The evaluation provides perform22 ance ratings that meaningfully differen23 tiate among principal performance using 

24 the performance ratings and levels de25 scribed in subparagraph (A)(i). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
21 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(vii) COMPARABILITY OF RESULTS.— 

2 The evaluation provides results that are 

3 comparable across all principals within the 

4 local educational agency in which the prin5 cipal is employed.’’. 

6 (b) ADDITIONAL STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.— 

7 Section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(8)(C)) is 

9 amended by inserting ‘‘or teachers who received a per10 formance rating under the evaluation system described in 

11 paragraph (11) that is in the bottom 2 performance lev12 els’’ after ‘‘teachers’’. 

13 SEC. 4. PUBLIC REPORTING. 

14 Section 1111(h) of the Elementary and Secondary 

15 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)) is amended— 

16 (1) in paragraph (1)(C)— 

17 (A) in clause (vii), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

18 the semicolon; 

19 (B) in clause (viii), by striking the period 

20 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

21 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(ix) for each performance rating es23 tablished under clause (i), the number and 

24 percentage of teachers, and the number 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
22 

•HR 768 IH

1 and percentage of principals, who received 

2 such performance rating, for— 

3 ‘‘(I) the State overall; 

4 ‘‘(II) the highest poverty and 

5 lowest poverty local educational agen6 cies; and 

7 ‘‘(III) the highest minority and 

8 lowest minority local educational 

9 agencies.’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

11 (A) in clause (i)— 

12 (i) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

13 after the semicolon; and 

14 (ii) by adding at the end the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(III) for each performance rat17 ing established under clause (i), the 

18 number and percentage of teachers, 

19 and the number and percentage of 

20 principals, who received such perform21 ance rating, for— 

22 ‘‘(aa) the local educational 

23 agency overall; 

24 ‘‘(bb) the highest poverty 

25 and lowest poverty schools; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
23 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(cc) the highest minority 

2 and lowest minority schools; 

3 and’’; and 

4 (B) in clause (ii)— 

5 (i) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

6 after the semicolon; 

7 (ii) in subclause (II), by striking the 

8 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

9 and 

10 (iii) by adding at the end the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(III) for each performance rat13 ing established under clause (i), the 

14 number and percentage of teachers at 

15 the school that received such perform16 ance rating.’’; 

17 (3) in paragraph (4)— 

18 (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking 

19 ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

20 (B) in subparagraph (G), by striking the 

21 period at the end and inserting a semicolon; 

22 and 

23 (C) by adding at the end the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
24 

•HR 768 IH

1 ‘‘(H) the information required to be re2 ported under paragraphs (1)(C)(ix) and 

3 (2)(B)(i)(III); and 

4 ‘‘(I) the overall student attendance rates, 

5 including truancy, graduation, and dropout 

6 rates, disaggregated by each school and each in7 dividual teacher and individual principal at each 

8 school under the jurisdiction of— 

9 ‘‘(i) the State educational agency; 

10 ‘‘(ii) the highest poverty and lowest 

11 poverty local educational agencies; 

12 ‘‘(iii) the highest minority and lowest 

13 minority local educational agencies; and 

14 ‘‘(iv) each local education agency, in15 cluding the highest and lowest poverty 

16 schools and the highest minority and low17 est minority schools under the jurisdiction 

18 of the agency.’’; and 

19 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(7) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub21 section: 

22 ‘‘(A) HIGHEST MINORITY.—The term 

23 ‘highest minority’ when used in relation to a 

24 school or local educational agency means a 

25 school or local educational agency that is in the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
25 

•HR 768 IH

1 highest quartile of schools or local educational 

2 agencies statewide in terms of the percentage of 

3 minority students served. 

4 ‘‘(B) HIGHEST POVERTY.—The term ‘high5 est poverty’ when used in relation to a school 

6 or local educational agency means a school or 

7 local educational agency that is in the highest 

8 quartile of schools or local educational agencies 

9 statewide in terms of the percentage of students 

10 who are certified as eligible for free or reduced 

11 price lunch under the Richard B. Russell Na12 tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 

13 seq.). 

14 ‘‘(C) LOWEST MINORITY.—The term ‘low15 est minority’ when used in relation to a school 

16 or local educational agency means a school or 

17 local educational agency that is in the lowest 

18 quartile of schools or local educational agencies 

19 statewide in terms of the percentage of minority 

20 students served. 

21 ‘‘(D) LOWEST POVERTY.—The term ‘low22 est poverty’ when used in relation to a school 

23 or local educational agency means a school or 

24 local educational agency that is in the lowest 

25 quartile of schools or local educational agencies 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
26 

•HR 768 IH

1 statewide in terms of the percentage of students 

2 who are certified as eligible for free or reduced 

3 price lunch under the Richard B. Russell Na4 tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 

5 seq.). 

6 ‘‘(E) STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH.—The 

7 term ‘student academic growth’ means the 

8 change in a student’s achievement between 2 or 

9 more points in time, as measured through an 

10 approach that is statistically rigorous and ap11 propriate for the knowledge and skills being 

12 measured.’’. 

13 SEC. 5. RECOGNITION OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES. 

14 The Secretary of Education shall, based on the infor15 mation received from each local educational agency report 

16 card under section 1111(h)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the Elemen17 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

18 6311(h)(2)(B)(i)(III))— 

19 (1) recognize and provide commendations to 

20 each local educational agency that implements or 

21 has implemented innovative, high-quality, and effec22 tive teacher or principal evaluation programs that 

23 lead to professional development and improved stu24 dent performance; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
27 

•HR 768 IH

1 (2) establish a clearinghouse in the Department 

2 of Education to share the best practices of such pro3 grams with educators. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS