ESEA Waiver Presentation to LIASCD PPTX

Report
NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Office of Accountability
Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner
for Long Island Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
October 05, 2012
OVERVIEW
2

Big Picture

Highlights of Changes to Institutional Accountability

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)

Computation of Performance Index

Growth Models

Institutional Accountability Metrics

College- and Career-Readiness

2012-13 School and District Accountability Summary

Identification of Reward Schools

Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness

Accountability Going Forward

What Districts Need to be Thinking About
ESEA WAIVER INITIATIVE
“Regulatory Flexibility”
On September 23, 2011, President Obama announced an Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) regulatory flexibility initiative to revise No Child Left Behind (NCLB). On May 29th,
the NYS waiver request was approved. On June19th, the Board of Regents adopted emergency
regulations to carry out the provisions of the waiver.
Flexibility in the following areas
was requested:
In exchange for flexibility, states
were required to:
•2013-14
•Set
Timeline for All Students Becoming Proficient
•School
and District Improvement Requirements
•Highly
Qualified Teacher Improvement Plans
•School-wide
Programs
•Transferability
•Rural
of Funds
Century Community Learning Centers program
(optional)
Systems of Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability and Support.
•Support
Effective Teaching and Leadership, including the
implementation of Teacher and Principal Evaluation in
which student growth is a significant factor.
of School Improvement Grant Funds
•Rewards
for Schools
•Determining
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for each school and
district (optional)
3
•Develop
Schools
•Twenty-First
•Use
College- and Career-Ready Standards for All Students
and Develop and Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned,
High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth.
•Rank
Order Funding Allocation for districts (optional)
•Reduce
Duplication and Unnecessary Burden.
ESEA Flexibility Request
Big Picture Overview of ESEA Waiver
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sunset Prior Designations and Interventions.
Revise the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) and use of AYP.
Use School and District Accountability Standards that are Better Aligned to
College- and Career- Readiness.
Use Proficiency and Growth Measures to Make Accountability
Determinations for Elementary and Middle Schools.
Replace Identification of Districts for Improvement and Corrective Action with
Identification of Focus Districts.
Replace Identification of Schools for Improvement, Corrective Action and
Restructuring with Identification of Priority and Focus Schools.
Replace Identification of Schools As High Performing/Rapidly Improving With
Identification of Reward Schools.
Create a Single Diagnostic Tool ("The Diagnostic Tool for School and District
Effectiveness") to Drive Improvement; Reframe the District Comprehensive
Education Plan, Comprehensive Education Plan, and Consolidated Application
to align with the tool.
Reframe the Existing Set-Asides in ESEA and provide additional flexibility in
use of Title funds.
Implement existing plans pertaining to Common Core Learning Standards
and Assessments and Teacher and Principal Evaluation.
Highlights of Changes to
Institutional Accountability
5
NCLB (old)
• 100% Proficient by 2013-14 in ELA and
Overall Target (AMO)
Elementary/Middle
School Performance
Index Calculation
High School
Performance Index
Calculation
Subgroups
School and District
Accountability
Categorization
mathematics
• Science Fixed Target of a Performance
Index of 100
ESEA Waiver (new)
• Cut gap to in ELA, mathematics and science in
goal of Performance Index of 200 (i.e., 100%
proficient by 2016-17)
• Separate targets for ESEA Accountability Groups
• Cut gap to 100% in Science
• PI based on achievement (Levels 1-4)
• PI Revised to include achievement and growth to
• Full credit for achieving Regents diploma
• Full credit for meeting College- and Career-
requirements and partial credit for local
diploma requirements
Ready Graduation Standards and partial credit
for meeting Regents diploma requirements
• All students and racial/ethnic groups,
• All students and racial/ethnic groups,
economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities, and English
language learners student subgroups
economically disadvantaged students, students with
disabilities, and English language learners student
subgroups
• Schools – In Good Standing, Improvement,
Corrective Action, Restructuring (includes
PLA/SURR)
• Districts – In Good Standing, Improvement,
Corrective Action
proficiency
• Schools – In Good Standing, Focus and Priority
(includes PLA/SURR)
• Districts – Focus Districts
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Determinations
6



What happens to AYP?

No longer determined for schools and districts, just for subgroups.

Determined in a similar manner as currently required under NCLB, with a focus on the
academic achievement of the current NCLB subgroups.
How will AYP be used going forward?

One of the indicators in determining Reward Schools; and

Determining whether districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan for specific
schools.

Also, no Longer primary determinant of accountability status.

It must be publicly reported each year.
Does Safe Harbor still apply?

Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the third academic
indicator requirement, i.e., science and graduation rate.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
7
Revised:
1.
2.
To reflect the rigor required of college- and careerreadiness standards, while at the same time making
them realistic and attainable for schools and
districts.
To increase them in annual equal increments toward
the goal of reducing by half, within six years, the
gap between the PI for each accountability group
and a PI of 200 (Baseline = 2010-11 school year
results).
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
8
Targets by Year
2010 2011
Baseline
2011 2012
2012 2013
2013 2014
2014 2015
All Students
Students with
Disabilities
American
Indian/Native
American
Asian or Pacific
Islander
146
150
155
159
164
168
173
92
101
110
119
128
137
146
132
137
143
149
154
160
166
162
165
169
172
175
178
181
Black (not Hispanic)
Hispanic
White
English Language
Learners
Economically
Disadvantaged
Mixed Race
123
126
160
130
132
164
136
138
167
143
144
170
149
151
174
155
157
177
162
163
180
102
110
118
126
134
143
151
128
154
134
158
140
162
146
166
152
170
158
173
164
177
Measure
Group
Subject and Grade Level
Accountable Group
Grades 3-8 ELA
2015 2016
NOTE: The subgroup with the lowest PI in 2010-11, in this case students with disabilities
(SWD), must meet the All Students PI from 2010-11 in 2016-17.
2016 2017
Computation of Performance Index
for Grades 3-8 ELA Results
9
Performance Level
On Track to
Proficiency?
Number of
Students
Multiplier
Total Points
1 (Below Standards)
No
30
0
0
1 (Below Standards)
Yes
10
200
2,000
2 (Meeting Basic
Standards)
No
40
100
4,000
2 (Meeting Basic
Standards)
Yes
40
200
8,000
3 (Meeting
Proficiency
Standards)
NA
60
200
12,000
4 (Exceeding
Proficiency
Standards)
NA
20
200
4,000
Total
PI = 150 or 30,000/200
200
30,000
Computation of Performance Index
for High School Mathematics Results
10
Performance Level
Regents Score
Number of
Students
Multiplier
Total Points
1 (Below Standards)
0 – 64
30
0
0
2 (Meeting Basic
Standards)
65 - 79
40
100
4,000
3 (Meeting
Proficiency
Standards)
80 – 89
60
200
12,000
4 (Exceeding
Proficiency
Standards)
90 -100
20
200
4,000
Total
PI = 133 or 20,000/150
150
20,000
Growth Models
Elementary & Middle Levels
11


Growth towards proficiency & growth compared to
state median growth are used in the process of
making accountability determinations for elementary
and middle schools.
Schools and districts will get “full credit” for students
who are either proficient or on track to become
proficient within three years or by grade 8, using a
“proficiency plus” model (with grades 4-8 ELA and
math results).
Institutional Accountability Metrics
12

Performance Index
 Achievement is still a majority component.
 Growth to proficiency can improve a school’s PI.
 New PIs affect a school’s categorization as priority,
focus or rewards.

Normative Growth
 Growth vs. similar students.
 Schools showing high growth may be removed
from priority or focus status; schools must
demonstrate above average for rewards.
College- and Career-Readiness
13
STANDARDS
 Defined as the knowledge and skills a student should have to
pursue college or career successfully upon graduation from high
school.
 For the purpose of computing the High School Performance
Index that is used as part of the process of determining Focus
Districts and Focus, Priority and Reward Schools, “full credit” for
students performance required students to score 75 of higher on
the ELA Regents or 80 or higher on a Math Regents.
 One of the criteria for Reward School status is that the school
must have either its percentage of students graduating with a
Regents diploma with advanced designation or its percentage
of students graduating with a Regents diploma with Career and
Technical Education (CTE) endorsement exceed the State
average.
ESEA Waiver
Accountability Designations
14
Category
How Identified
Data Used for Identification
Reward Schools
High Performance or High Progress
Annual
Good Standing
Not Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan School
Annual
Annual
Local Assistance
Plan Schools
School that is not a Priority of Focus School that:
a)Has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students
or
b)Has failed to make AYP for three consecutive years with same
subgroup on same measure or
c)Is located in a non-Focus district but is among the lowest in the state
for the performance of one or more subgroups and for which the
school is not showing progress.
Focus Districts
Districts and charter schools that are among the lowest performing for
a subgroup of students and that fail to show progress, or that have
one or more priority schools
Identified once based on 10-11 data; districts
and charter schools that improves performance
may be removed from Focus status
Focus Schools
(10% of schools
in the state)
Schools that are in Focus Districts and have either the greatest
numbers or greatest percentage of not proficient or non graduation
results in the group(s) for which their district is identified as Focus
Identified by Districts based on lists provided
by Commissioner. District may request to modify
annually the list of Focus Schools in the District.
Priority Schools
(5% of State
Schools)
Schools that were awarded a SIG grant in 11-12; have had
graduation rates below 60% for the past three years; or are the
lowest performing in ELA and math combined and have failed to show
progress.
Identified once based on 10-11 data; schools
that improve performance may be removed
from Priority status
2012-13 School and District
Accountability Summary
15
ESEA Waiver Category
Statewide,
including NYC
NYC Only
Focus Districts
70
31*
Focus Schools
496
232
Priority Schools
221
122
Total Focus and Priority Schools
717
354
Reward Schools
250
55
Focus Charter Schools
8
2
Priority Charter Schools
2
1
Reward Charter Schools
2
1
* The New York City School District is one of the 70 that has been identified as a Focus District. Under the ESEA
waiver, each of the 32 community school districts is then analyzed to determine if it will be subject to the Focus
District requirements. All community school districts, except for Community School District 31 (Staten Island) were
determined to be subject to Focus District requirements.
Identification of Reward Schools
16




SED identified 250 schools in 164 districts as Reward Schools.
Reward Schools are either schools that have made the most
progress or schools that have the highest achievement in the
State and do not have significant gaps in student achievement
that are not being closed.
Reward Schools can either be:

among the top 10% of schools in the state in combined ELA and mathematics
Performance Index, or

among the top 10% in terms of improvement in the combined Performance Index.
Reward Schools are eligible to compete for a Commissioner's
Schools Dissemination Grant of up to $100,000, which is
currently funded through RTTT.
Identification of Reward Schools,
cont.
Highest Performing Elementary Schools





Made AYP for Two Academic Years

Made AYP for Two Academic Years
Gap in Performance Smaller than Three Years
Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest
Gap

Gap in Performance Smaller than Three Years Prior
for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

Graduation Rate Above 80% and Exceeded the
State Average for students graduating with
advanced designation or CTE for 2010-11

PI is in Top 20% of All Schools with High School PIs

Exceeded State Average of Graduating At-Risk
Students
PI is in Top 20% of All Schools with Elementary
School PIs
Above Average School Student Growth Percentile
in both ELA and Math
Above Average Bottom Quartile Student Growth
High Progress Elementary Schools





Highest Performing High Schools
High Progress High Schools
Made AYP for Two Academic Years

Made AYP for Two Academic Years
Gap in Performance Smaller than Three Years
Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest
Gap

Gap in Performance Smaller than Three Years Prior
for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

Above Average School Student Growth Percentile
in both ELA and Math
Graduation Rate Above 80% and Exceeded the
State Average for students graduating with
advanced designation or CTE for 2010-11

PI is in Top 10% in the State in Terms of Gains
Above Average Bottom Quartile Student Growth

Exceeded State Average of Graduating At-Risk
Students
PI is in Top 10% in the State in Terms of Gains
17
Diagnostic Tool for
School and District Effectiveness
18






Beginning in the 2012-13 school year, SED will implement the Diagnostic
Tool for School and District Effectiveness (DTSDE) for Priority and Focus
Districts and Schools.
Replaces current requirements for School Quality Reviews, Curriculum
Audits and Joint Intervention Team visits to schools.
Comprehensive diagnostic tool that provides clear, actionable
recommendations for improvement.
Used to determine district and school effectiveness in six areas: district
leadership and capacity; school leadership practices and decisions;
teacher practices and decisions; curriculum development and support;
student social and emotional developmental health; and family and
community engagement.
Serves as the starting point for all District Comprehensive Improvement
Plans, Comprehensive Education Plans, and all other funding plans.
Each Focus District will be assessed by an SED led Integrated Intervention
Team using the tool. Some schools in each Focus District will be visited by
the SED team; others will have a district led self-review using the tool.
SIX TENETS: BIG IDEAS
19
District
Leadership &
Capacity
1.1 Recruiting,
hiring and retaining
human capital
1.2 Fiscal, facility
and fiscal resources
1.3 District vision
1.4 Comprehensive
professional
development
1.5 Data-Driven
Culture
School
Leadership
Practices and
Decisions
Curriculum
Development
and Support
2.1 District support of
school leader
2.2 School leader’s
vision
2.3 Systems and
structures for school
development
2.4 School leader’s
use of resources
2.5 Use of data and
teacher and midmanagement
effectiveness
3.1 District support
concerning
curriculum
3.2 Enacted
curriculum
3.3 Units and lesson
plans
3.4 Teacher
collaboration
3.5 Use of data and
action planning
Teacher
Practices and
Decisions
Student Social
and Emotional
Developmental
Health
4.1 District support
of teachers
4.2 Instructional
Practices and
strategies
4.3 Comprehensive
plans for teaching
4.4 Classroom
environment and
culture
4.5 Use of data,
instructional
practices and student
learning
5.1 District support
of student growth
5.2 Systems and
partnerships
5.3 Vision for social
and emotional
developmental
health
5.4 Safety
5.5 Use of data and
student needs
DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS
Family and
Community
Engagement
6.1 District support of
family and community
engagement
6.2 Welcoming
environment
6.3 Reciprocal
communication
6.4 Partnerships and
responsibility
6.5 Use of data and
families
19
New York State Assessment Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics
As of March 12, 2012 (Subject to Revision)
Assessment –
Subject / Grade
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
ELA
Grades 3–8
Aligned to 2005 Standards
Grade 11 Regents
Aligned to 2005 Standards
PARCC1
Aligned to the Common Core
Regents Exam Aligned to the
Common Core2
Regents Exam Aligned to the
Common Core / PARCC1, 2
Math
Grades 3–8
Algebra I
Geometry
PARCC1
Aligned to the Common Core
Aligned to 2005 Standards
Aligned to 2005 Standards
Algebra II
Regents Exams Aligned to the
Common Core2,3
Regents Exams Aligned to the
Common Core / PARCC1, 2, 3
Aligned to the 2005 Standards
Additional State Assessments
NYSAA4
Aligned to 2005 Standards
NYSESLAT
Aligned to 1996 Standards

Aligned to the Common Core
Aligned to the Common Core
2012-13: the content of the grade 3-8 tests
will be aligned to the Common Core. Sample
Common Core questions are available:
http://engageny.org/news/common-core-samplequestions-are-now-available/

2013-14: some Regents Exams will be aligned
to the Common Core

2014-15: all ELA and math Regents will
be aligned to the Common Core
2014-15: transition to PARCC pending BOR
20 approval

NCSC5
1
The PARCC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the
New York State Board of Regents. The PARCC assessments are still in development. All PARCC
assessments will be aligned to the Common Core.
2
The PARCC consortium is developing ELA and mathematics assessments that will cover grades 3-11.
New York State will continue to monitor the development of these assessments to determine how the
PARCC assessments might intersect with the Regents Exams. Note that all new Regents Exams and
PARCC assessments will be implemented starting with the end-of-year administration, rather than the
winter or summer administrations.
3
The names of New York State’s Mathematics Regents Exams are expected to change to reflect the new
alignment of these assessments to the Common Core. For additional information about the upper-level
mathematics course sequence and related standards, see the “Traditional Pathway” section of Common
Core Mathematics Appendix A (http://engageny.org/news/traditional-course-pathway-for-high-schoolmathematics-courses-approved/).
4
5
This transition plan is specific to the NYSAA in ELA and mathematics.
New York State is a member of the NCSC national alternate assessment consortium that is engaged in
research and development of new alternate assessments for alternate achievement standards. The
NCSC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the New
York State Board of Regents.
State-Provided Value-Added
in 2012-13 for APPR
21



The State will move to a value-added model for educator
evaluation in 2012-13, upon the approval of the Board of
Regents, which will count for 25% of an evaluation.
Additional considerations may be made with the state’s
value-added model, and could include:
 Classroom and school-level characteristics, like percent
poverty or students with disabilities or average prior
achievement of the classroom.
Value-Added indicators will cover Grades 4-8 ELA and Math
teachers and their principals, and depending on findings of
feasibility analysis:
 High School Principals
 Teachers with students taking Regents exams
Accountability Going Forward
22



Whatever Adjustments are necessary as
assessments of proficiency standards or scales
change or evolve.
Seeking to maintain coherence between
institutional and individual accountability.
Determining whether and how to integrate new
metrics into the accountability system.
What Districts Need
to be Thinking About
23
Understand and turnkey accountability
metrics being used under the ESEA waiver.
 Take advantage as appropriate of new
flexibility.
 Diagnose, plan and resource, implement,
adjust.

For further information, contact:
24
Office of Accountability
Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner
(718) 722- 2797
or
For General Information about the
ESEA Waiver Please Email:
[email protected]

similar documents