Presentation on theme: "ESEA FLEXIBILITY: C HANGES TO SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSISTANCE."— Presentation transcript:
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: C HANGES TO SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSISTANCE
Intended outcomes for today We hope you will leave this meeting with: 1.Increased understanding of changes to Arkansas school and district accountability and assistance system resulting from ESEA Flexibility. 2.Additional ideas about how your district might use federal and state resources to help support your low-performing schools. 3.Where to get more information.
What did NCLB require? 100% proficiency in literacy and math by 2013–14 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for all schools and districts – Schools and districts identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring – Required actions linked to NCLB status 20% reservation of Title I, Part A for school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) [ESEA § 1116(b)(10)(A)(i-iii)] 10% reservation of Title I, Part A for professional development [ESEA § 1116(b)(3)(A)(iii)]
What did ESEA Flexibility require? Adopt college- and career-ready standards and assessments Set new ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) toward specific goals – State, districts, schools, student groups Implement system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support – Identify high performance and/or growth, persistent subgroup issues, lowest performance, schools not meeting annual targets Implement educator evaluation system
Why seek ESEA Flexibility? Unify accountability and support system – Bring together state and federal requirements, and – Better differentiate between schools Maintain Arkansas’s track record in setting high standards and expectations – Goals that are ambitious and attainable Incentivize improved student growth, achievement and graduation rates in all schools Identify schools that need the most assistance in the aggregate and for student subgroups, and recognize high achieving and improving schools Focus more deliberately on college and career readiness by reducing proficiency, growth and graduation rate gaps Facilitate transition to CCSS and PARCC assessments
Foundation for Transition Do what is best for Arkansas’s children Reduce complexity Ensure fairness and sensitivity Measure what is important Honor history Remember fairness is not always simple Infuse incentives Ensure alignment to support college and career readiness Anticipate unintended consequences
What are the major changes? NCLB goal of 100 percent proficient replaced with ambitious and achievable goal AYP status labels eliminated Achieving or Needs Improvement based on new AMOs for schools and districts Exemplary, Focus and Priority Schools identified separately Remodeling technical assistance and support system
Some of your questions may be… Technical How will ADE measure school and district performance next year? How does ADE’s flexibility plan impact my district or school accountability status? How much of my Title I funding will I have to set aside and for what purposes? Will I have to implement SES and/or school choice? Can I continue to use my Title I funds as I have been? What does the flexibility plan mean for my Title II-A funds? How does this impact my ACSIP?
Some of your questions may be… Adaptive / Strategic How do I move from compliance to adaptive/strategic planning? How do I know if I have been using my Title I and NSLA funds effectively? What data should I collect in order to answer that question? How should I plan to use my set-aside funds? Should I think about using my total Title I allocation and/or my NSLA allocation differently to get better results for my low- performing students, especially those in my low- performing schools and my schools with large achievement gaps?
The Big Shift All students on a path to college and career readiness – Support transition to CCSS and PARCC Facilitate through accountability – New goals – New classifications
Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) Students at risk due to economic disadvantage, English Learner (EL) status or Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Why use the TAGG? Eliminates multiple counting of students who are in more than one subgroup Holds more schools accountable for economically disadvantaged students, EL and SWD – Only 9% of schools were accountable for ELs under AYP, – Only 16% of schools were accountable for SWD under AYP Appropriately differentiates risk within race/ethnicity groups Most schools and all districts will be placed in their accountability status based on meeting AMOs for All Students and the TAGG Exception: Needs Improvement Focus and Needs Improvement Priority Schools
Revised Goals Reduce proficiency, growth and graduation rate gaps by half by 2016–17 (Option C AMOs) Ambitious and achievable AMOs Goal is same for all, but AMOs are differentiated Focus on literacy, mathematics and graduation AMOs Flexibility to redirect resources to serve students with greatest needs Applies to state, districts, schools, and groups
Replaces the AMO chart under NCLB
Reduce Proficiency, Growth or Graduation Rate Gap by half by 2016–17 Individualized AMOs reduce the gap between students at risk and others not at risk. Reducing Gap between100% and 2011 baseline.
Sample calculation of school or district performance AMOs* All Students’ Proficiency AMOs**TAGG’s Proficiency AMOs** 76% Proficient 100% - 76% = 24 %age point Proficiency Gap 52% Proficient 100% - 52% = 48%age point Proficiency Gap 24 ÷ 2 = 12 %age points (Half of Proficiency Gap) 48 ÷ 2 = 24 %age points (Half of Proficiency Gap) Annual Increase = 2 Percentage Points (12%age points ÷ 6 = 2) Annual Increase = 4 Percentage Points (24%age points ÷ 6 = 4) 2012 AMO = = 78% Proficient 2013 AMO = = 80% Proficient 2014 AMO = = 82% Proficient 2015 AMO = = 84% Proficient 2016 AMO = = 86% Proficient 2017 AMO = = 88% Proficient 2012 AMO = = 56% Proficient 2013 AMO = = 60% Proficient 2014 AMO = = 64% Proficient 2015 AMO = = 68% Proficient 2016 AMO = = 72% Proficient 2017 AMO = = 76% Proficient * Actual calculations are rounded to the nearest hundredth (two places to right of decimal). **Growth and/or graduation rate AMOs will also be calculated for schools and districts.
What is Arkansas’s framework for accountability?
Exemplary Schools Must identify reasonable number of Title I schools that are highest-performing and/or high-progress schools High performance, high TAGG & high performance, high progress, high TAGG & high progress High TAGG-66.67% or higher TAGG students tested Looked at highest ranking schools in 3 grade ranges (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) for performance and progress. Methods on pages Recognition/Rewards on pages
Exemplary Schools High performance/High TAGG high performance schools were at or above the 99 th percentile (K-5) or the 95 th percentile (6-8, 9-12) of the state distribution of school performance (3-yr. wt. average math and literacy) High progress/High TAGG progress schools were at the top of distribution for change in scores comparing yr. wt. average to yr. wt. average Conditional on… – Removed schools whose within-school achievement gaps or TAGG/Sontag within-school gap larger than the gap of schools at or below the 25 th percentile (lowest quartile) of state distribution of school achievement gap size – Removed schools whose graduation rate < lower bound of median (83.78%)
Exemplary Schools High Performance All schools (8 schools) – 3-yr. percent Proficient ranged from to – % TAGG ranged from 0% to 52.3% of students tested High TAGG schools (6 schools) – 3-yr. percent Proficient ranged from to – % TAGG ranged from 70.7% to 80.5% High Progress All schools (2 schools) – Gain ranged from 5.56% to 11.06% – % TAGG ranged from 67.2% to 100% of students tested High TAGG schools (3 schools) – Gain ranged from 11.45% to 19.85% – % TAGG ranged from 98.7% to 100%
Needs Improvement Priority Schools 48 Schools: had to include at least 5% Title I schools (at least 40) Among lowest 5% of schools based on proficiency and lack of progress of “All Students” group Title I participating or Title I eligible high schools with graduation rates < 60% over several years Tier I or Tier II SIG schools
Needs Improvement Priority Schools Added ranks method used (same method for Persistently Low Achieving schools for SIG) through 2011 post appeals results used. Non-mobile students only. See pages Three year average percent at or above Proficient for all math and literacy scores ranged from 7.9% to 47.7%. Interventions detailed on pages Exit criteria detailed on page 97.
Needs Improvement Focus Schools 109 schools: Had to include at least 10% Title I schools (at least 80 Title I) Largest within-school gaps between highest- achieving subgroup or subgroups and lowest- achieving subgroup or subgroups, or At high school level largest within-school gaps in graduation rate, or All Title I participating high schools with graduation rates < 60% over several years not identified as Priority Schools
Needs Improvement Focus Schools Compared Non-TAGG to TAGG performance within school to identify largest achievement gaps over three most recent years through 2011 post appeals results used. Non-mobile students only. See pages If Non-TAGG < 25 students, used median Non-TAGG performance (88.8%) from state distribution of schools’ Non-TAGG performance. Three year Non-TAGG to TAGG gap ranged from 28.5% to 47.7%. Interventions detailed on pages Exit Criteria detailed on page 108.
Broad Classification of Schools Achieving – If meet AMOs for All Students and TAGG for performance and growth (math and literacy) and for graduation rate (where applicable) then 3 year ACSIP cycle – If meet AMOs for All Students and TAGG for performance but not growth or growth but not performance and for graduation rate (where applicable) then 1 year ACSIP cycle – Must address needs of students in any ESEA subgroup(s) (N >=25) that did not meet AMOs within ACSIP interventions – Report all groups and ESEA subgroups N >=10 and AMOs Needs Improvement – If fail to meet AMOs for All Students and TAGG for performance/growth or graduation rate – Must address needs of students in any group(s) or ESEA subgroup(s) (N >=25) that did not meet AMOs within ACSIP interventions – Report all groups and ESEA subgroups N >=10 and AMOs
What might a school or district report card look like? Accountability Status (Achieving/Needs Improvement*) based on All Students and TAGG meeting AMOs for math, literacy and/or graduation rate. ACSIP must address needs of all ESEA subgroups that do not meet AMOs, even in Achieving schools. *Needs Improvement Focus and Needs Improvement Priority Schools identified as such until they meet exit criteria.
Sample high school report with graduation rate ACSIP must address needs of all ESEA subgroups that do not meet AMOs, even in Achieving schools. Accountability Status (Achieving/Needs Improvement) based on All Students and TAGG meeting AMOs for math, literacy and/or graduation rate.
Performance, Growth and/or Graduation Rate AMOs All schools will have performance AMOs for math and literacy. Schools serving grades 4 through 8 students will have growth AMOs. High schools will have graduation rate AMOs. Depending on configuration, some high schools will have performance, growth and graduation rate AMOs (6-12 schools).
How will 2012 accountability be calculated? Performance and growth AMOs were calculated based on 2011 test results. – Baseline for AMOs may not include FLEPY1, FLEPY2, or exited SWD 2012 results will be compared to 2012 AMOs. – FLEPY1, FLEPY2 and exited SWD may be included in annual results to meet AMOs for these groups on appeal.
Graduation Rate Arkansas uses a lagging graduation rate for accountability. – Graduation rate AMOs were calculated using 2010 four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates. – 2011 graduation rates will be compared to AMOs that were calculated using 2010 graduation rates.
Who is included? Every full academic year student! Which student groups are included for determining accountability status? All Students Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) – Economically disadvantaged, – English Learners (EL), and/or – Students with Disabilities (SWD). Which student groups are included for ACSIP interventions and reporting ? African American Hispanic White Economically disadvantaged EL SWD
Classifying districts Districts will be classified as Achieving or Needs Improvement ADE engagement and district autonomy determined by extent of needs based on number of district AMOs not met for performance, growth and graduation rate Academic Distress under revision.
Accountability StatusDescription ADE Engagement/District Autonomy Exemplary High performance High progress High TAGG high performance High TAGG high progress Very low ADE engagement/Very high district autonomy Achieving 3-yr ACSIP—meet all performance, graduation rate and growth AMOs for All Students and TAGG 1-yr ACSIP—meet all performance and graduation rate AMOs for All Students and TAGG, but miss growth AMOs for All Students or TAGG Very low ADE engagement/High district autonomy Needs Improvement Does not meet performance, graduation rate or growth AMOs for All Students and TAGG Low to Moderate ADE engagement /Moderate district autonomy Needs Improvement Focus Schools with largest, persistent gaps between Non-TAGG and TAGG students High ADE engagement/Low district autonomy Needs Improvement Priority Schools with persistently lowest achievement in math and literacy over three years for All Students Very High ADE engagement/Low district autonomy*
Strategic use of Title I funds Districts can use the flexibility granted in ESEA Flexibility to help your lowest performing schools make their targets by… – Serving lowest performing schools with Title I and/or NSLA funding using most appropriate methods aligned to identified student and adult learning needs – Designating any Focus or Priority School as a Title I schoolwide program school, even if the school does not have a poverty percentage of 40% or more – Transferring up to 100% of your Title II-A funds into Title I and using them for Title I purposes
What are my continuing obligations for allocating Title I, Part A funds? Prioritize your lowest achieving students in your lowest performing schools. Allocate Title I, Part A funds sufficiently to address the scope of the problem. Schools and districts must demonstrate alignment of federal and NSLA fund allocations sufficient to support implementation of interventions.
How do I align my use of funds with the scope of my problems? Self-assess schools’ identified needs using a school effectiveness rubric such as the Scholastic Audit self- assessment*. – Assessment includes performance descriptors and indicators for the school improvement process for districts and schools to gauge their level of effectiveness in seven key areas. – Scan all performance descriptors, but focus on a few – those closest to the instructional core. Link to analysis of student achievement data and other evidence of impact. Identify strengths and areas for improvement. Use high leverage strategies to guide plan development.
Key continuous improvement performance areas Efficiency: – Leadership – Organization, Structure and Resources – Comprehensive and Effective Planning Academic Performance: – Curriculum – Instruction – Classroom Assessment/Evaluation Learning Environment: – School Culture – Student, Family and Community Support – Professional Growth, Development and Evaluation
High leverage strategies… Target your lowest achieving students in your lowest performing schools Aggressively address school performance and student achievement Provide a strong instructional core within a response to intervention framework: – Regular structures/systems for collecting and analyzing data that directly inform instructional practice – Frequent teacher teaming and teacher-specific coaching linked to instructional practice – Responsive systems of tiered instruction, especially Tier II and Tier III interventions Are monitored for efficacy and impact
In proposing use of prior set aside funds in your ACSIP… Your ACSIP should demonstrate how you will use the opportunities granted by ESEA Flexibility to provide maximum support to lowest-achieving students in your lowest-performing schools. Your ACSIP should include description of your findings from self-assessment and data analysis. What problems/weak areas do your interventions address? Include in your interventions the high-leverage strategies you will use to aggressively address school performance and student achievement, and how you will know if they are working.
Next Steps for Achieving Schools Achieving Schools engage in self-assessment to determine what is working to continue these strategies. – If some ESEA subgroups didn’t meet AMOs, Achieving Schools investigate the factors contributing to lower performance for these subgroups to determine interventions to support improved performance for these students. Access regional and ADE resources to support plans.
Next Steps for Needs Improvement Schools Needs Improvement Schools engage in self- assessment to identify areas of concern to address through ACSIP interventions. Focus and Priority Schools engage with ADE School Improvement Specialist to conduct needs assessment and develop Targeted or Priority Improvement Plans (within ACSIP). Districts and schools access regional and Statewide System of Support resources as needed to meet ACSIP, TIP and PIP. – Focus and Priority Schools have priority access to support as outlined in the ESEA Flexibility proposal.
Federal SES/Choice: What comes next? School Year : Districts choosing not to continue offering SES or school choice in must provide parents with information to explain why and describe the interventions, incentives and supports that will replace those options – A template will be provided to assist you in this effort. Any student who has transferred into a school through NCLB choice must be allowed to remain in that school through the highest grade served by the school
State SES/Choice: What comes next? School Year : – ADE will work to address this in the 2013 Legislative Session
Tentative Timeline ADE will post tentative timeline and information at AMOs posted for schools and districts Preliminary Accountability Reports Corrections Process ACSIP timelines FAQs to be posted on ADE website
Technical Content Adaptive / Strategic Content John Hoy, Academic Dr. Laura Bednar, Learning Dr. Karen Cushman, HR and