1. Marin County Office of Education Overview of State and Federal Accountability March 2016 Presented By: Jannelle Kubinec

2. Timeline of Change 2010201620132011201220142015 Smarter Balanced/ CAASPP Updated state standards Local Control and Accountability Plans Local Control Funding Formula Every Student Succeeds Act 2017 Evaluation Rubrics New Accountability System 2018

3. Evolution of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) including some repairs to perceived NCLB problems A Few Words About the Every Student Succeeds Act SimilarDifferent States choose standards and assessmentsStates have far more authority Student achievement reported by subgroup and performance of subgroups used to hold schools and districts accountable Major Title I set-asides eliminated (say goodbye to AYP, HQT, SES…eventually) Funding flows from ED to states to districts to schools Far less control for ED Maintains major formula grant funding streams (and many competitive programs) Consolidates/eliminates a number of smaller grant programs Adapted from Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Presentation available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/jan16item01slides.pdf

4. The State Board of Education (SBE) and Superintendent of Public Instruction are submitting a waiver request to ED of Title I accountability requirements Request to suspend AYP, SES, and HQT requirements The California Department of Education is working to develop am integrated and coherent single accountability system Preparing for Changes

5. Integration of the Local Education Agency Plan (LEAP) and Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) with the LCAP Align federal accountability indicators to state priorities Align federal and state intervention and assistance to form a multi-level system of support Early Ideas from the State

6. Keep the course with LCAP and state priorities Weigh in CDE’s Community of Practitioners Comments to regulations Evaluation Rubrics design input opportunities Start from a place of logic Build based on what’s good for students Advice to Schools and Districts

7. State School District Classroo m Accountability for Student Outcomes, Including State Priorities Through… Accountability Question… Requires Knowledge Of… Establishing State-level Policies Allocating State and Federal Resources Providing Assistance & Intervention Transparency and Engagement Maintaining Overall System Productivity and Equity How does the state know how it performs best to support student outcomes, including state priorities? State, district, school, and subgroup level performance for key indicators and metrics related to state priorities; performance trends and comparisons Establishing Local Policies Allocating Resources from Local, State, and Federal Sources Providing Assistance & Intervention to Sites and Students Engagement of Local Stakeholders Effective Local Management and Administration Maintaining Organizational Productivity and Equity How does a district know how it performs best to support student outcomes, including state priorities? District, school, subgroup performance level performance for state- and locally-identified key indicators and metrics that relate to state priorities and local goals; performance trends, formative data Effective Instructional Practices Engagement of Students, Parents, and Other Stakeholders Effective Site Management and Administration Maintaining Site Productivity and Equity How does a school know how it performs best to support student outcomes, including state priorities? School and subgroup level formative and performance-oriented data; feedback loops that inform and improve practice; periodic review of summative data used by district and state Effective Instructional Practices, including Differentiation Engagement of Student, Parents, and Other Stakeholders Effective Classroom Management Maintaining Classroom as a Productive Learning Environment Evidencing Equity How does a classroom know how it performs best to support student outcomes, including state priorities? Student level needs and performance based on assessments, participation (including regular attendance), and feedback from peers and school leaders What’s Accountability?

8. Reforming Education Finance and Accountability Local Control Funding Formula Local Accountability Resources/ Funding Improve Student Outcomes Local Control and Accountability Plans Evaluation Rubrics CA Collaborative for Educational Excellence Local Control and Accountability Plans Evaluation Rubrics CA Collaborative for Educational Excellence State Priorities Flexibility Continuous Improvement Alignment

9. Metric Indicator

10. State Board of Education Policy Statements  All students are provided with access and opportunities that support learning  All students are college and career ready, exhibiting early and continuing signs of college and career readiness  All students graduate from high school

11. LCFF Every Student Succeeds Act Potential “Key Indicators” from LCFF Priorities Elementary and Middle School Indicators High School Indicators Pupil achievement (Priority 4) Student achievement scores (English language arts and mathematics; all relevant grade spans) Academic Achievement English language arts and mathematics in grades 3 through 8, inclusive Academic Achievement English language arts and mathematics assessed one time in grades 9 through 12 Pupil achievement (Priority 4) Percentage of English learners (ELs) making progress toward English proficiency English Proficiency Progress ELs in achieving English proficiency English Proficiency Progress of EL in achieving English proficiency Pupil engagement (Priority 5) High school graduation rate TBD (Priority will vary based on indicator selected) Other K-8 Additional Academic Another Academic Indicator Other academic factor that can be broken out by subgroup Another Academic Indicator 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (states can add extended rate) TBD (Priority will vary based on indicator selected)  At least one other indicator At Least One Other Indicator Additional indicator (e.g., student engagement and school climate/safety) At Least One Other Indicator Additional indicator (e.g., opportunity to learn and college/career readiness) Aligning ESSA to LCFF [1] [1] ESSA requires states to administer an assessment for science at least once each during grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12, see 20 USC 6311(b)(2)(B)(v)(II), as amended by ESSA, Section 1005, but does not require that states use the results of these assessments for purposes of identifying schools for support and assistance, see 20 USC 6311(c)(4)(B), as amended by ESSA, Section 1005. The Academic Performance Index currently includes scores for science and history-social science, in addition to English language arts and mathematics, but with minimal weight given to science and history-social science relative to the other two subjects. See, e.g., California Department of Education, Executive Summary Explaining the Academic Performance Index (API), available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/apiexecsummary.pdf.http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/apiexecsummary.pdf

12. Example of ESSA and LCFF Alignment

13. State Graduation Rate Analysis 13 2009-102010-112011-122012-132013-14 All Students74.7%77.1%78.9%80.4%81.0% Hispanic68.1%71.4%73.7%75.7%76.6% American Indian67.3%68.5%72.4%72.8%70.6% Asian89.0%90.3%91.1%91.6%92.4% Pacific Islander72.3%74.9%77.0%78.4%80.4% Filipino87.4%89.9%90.8%91.6%92.2% African American60.5%62.8%66.0%68.1%68.2% White83.5%85.7%86.6%87.7%87.6% Low Income68.0%71.1%73.0%74.8%75.6% English Learner56.4%61.5%62.0%63.1%65.4% Foster YouthN/A Student with Disability56.7%59.5%61.1%61.9%62.3%

14. Analysis to Inform Quality Standards: Graduation Rate Example 3 Dimensions of Outcome and Improvement/Growth Improvement Outcome Very HighHighIntermediateLowVery Low Improved Significantly ExcellentGood Emerging Improved ExcellentGood EmergingIssue Maintained ExcellentGoodEmergingIssueConcern Declined GoodEmergingIssue Concern Declined Significantly EmergingIssue Concern

15. Example: Graduation, Quality Standard

16. Example: Graduation, Quality Standards

17. District Graduation Rate Sample Data 17

18. School Graduation Rate Sample Data 18

19. Graduation Rate Standard Option 19 Outcome Very LowLowIntermediateHighVery High 78.6% or below 78.7 to 83.2%83.3 to 90.6%90.7 to 96.0% 96.1% or above Improvement Declined Significantly DeclinedMaintainedImproved Improved Significantly -2.9% or below -1.3 to -2.8% -1.2% to 1.3%1.4% to 6.4 6.5% or above Improvement Outcome Very HighHighIntermediateLowVery Low Improved Significantly ExcellentGood Emerging Improved ExcellentGood EmergingIssue Maintained ExcellentGoodEmergingIssueConcern Declined GoodEmergingIssue Concern Declined SignificantlyEmergingIssue Concern

20. Graduation Rate Standard Option 20 Outcome Very LowLowIntermediateHighVery High 78.6% or below 78.7 to 83.2%83.3 to 90.6%90.7 to 96.0% 96.1% or above Improvement Declined Significantly DeclinedMaintainedImproved Improved Significantly -2.9% or below -1.3 to -2.8% -1.2% to 1.3%1.4% to 6.4 6.5% or above Improvement Outcome Very HighHighIntermediateLowVery Low Improved Significantly ExcellentGood Emerging Improved ExcellentGood EmergingIssue Maintained ExcellentGoodEmergingIssueConcern Declined GoodEmergingIssue Concern Declined SignificantlyEmergingIssue Concern

21. Working to align with federal accountability Planned adoption by State Board of Education in September 2016 Prototype by early summer Work In Progress