Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NCLB Waiver for CORE Districts

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NCLB Waiver for CORE Districts"— Presentation transcript:

1 NCLB Waiver for CORE Districts
September 2013 Overview of the presentation: What is CORE (California Office to Reform Education)? Why did LAUSD, as part of CORE apply for an NCLB waiver? How is the waiver aligned and supportive of LAUSD’s strategies and current work? What flexibilities do we now have? What are the key components of the waiver? Which schools are identified by the new accountability system? What is next?

2 Who is CORE? California Office to Reform Education (CORE) is a collaboration among ten California school districts that are working together to significantly improve student outcomes Together CORE districts serve more than one million students and families Number of Students CORE Districts, SY -CORE stands for “California Office to Reform Education”. It is a group of California districts that got together to apply for a waiver to provide flexibilities related to certain elements of No Child Left Behind (the Federal Law that regulates how federal funds, such as Title I are used, and the law that holds districts accountable through Program Improvement). The waiver grants some flexibilities alongside the promise that we will gear up for Common Core, develop an accountability system in lieu of Program Improvement, and develop strong teacher and leader support and evaluation systems. Note: Garden Grove and Clovis are not participating in the ESEA waiver application

3 Current ESEA (NCLB) law demands 100% proficiency by 2014 and loss of funding and one-size-fits-all interventions for schools that do not meet the target Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Target for High School ELA, ESEA Authorization Expired Current School Year No Child Left Behind (NCLB), formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandates that all students are academically proficient by 2014 Schools, LEAs, and subgroups must meet these goals to make AYP targets and exit Program Improvement NCLB neglects subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education The penalty for missing AYP is loss of federal funding for schools serving low- income children ESEA expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it In 2011, the US Education Department told states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work"  This slide shows some of the background that has led to the opportunity to apply for the waiver and demonstrates how important it is that we changed the system. Prior to the waiver, No Child Left Behind law demanded that all schools reach 100% proficiency by 2014, with significant consequences. Hence, we were given the opportunity to apply, and propose a new system for accountability that met the US Dept. of Education’s criteria. California LEAs and schools must meet Participation Rate, ELA, Math, API, and Graduation Rate targets for all students and subgroups under NCLB to be considered making AYP Source: USED; CDE, NBC News

4 How does this support LAUSD, specifically?
Creates infrastructure to support collaboration across schools and districts to build knowledge and share practices in support of our students becoming college and career-ready Aligns with our district initiative to support the Common Core roll-out Aligns with our district initiatives to support Teacher and Leadership development and evaluation Creates a new accountability system that: recognizes performance growth over time will base evaluation of school performance on multiple measures, including academics, social/emotional factors and school culture and climate factors captures positive or negative changes in school achievement gaps invites shared responsibility of accountability across and within districts The waiver will require some transitions for schools and the district, but overall it supports the work we have already begun at the district, and improves upon the accountability design. [Review contents of slide] While the new accountability system will impact schools differently, it promises to be a more-robust system and the processes tied to accountability are grounded in support and collaboration rather than sanctions.

5 New System (effective 2013-14)
Previous System New System (effective ) PI Status Triggers Actions Notifications to families about PI status and subsequent sanctions No flexibility for SES and NCLB-PSC funds NCLB-PSC transportation- all families eligible who attend PI schools SES programs are offered by state- approved vendors Limited Accountability System Based on AYP and API, most Title I schools are identified as PI. PI Status is not actionable No requirement to release notifications and act based on PI status Flexibility in use of SES and NCLB-PSC funds Students accepted for transport this year will receive transportation Funding for academic supports will be re-directed to identified Title I schools to provide services for struggling students Structured professional development for identified schools Improved Accountability System Fewer schools identified. Over time, identification will include “non-cognitive” factors Public notification of school status under new accountability system. This slide provides a high-level comparison between the former system we have grown accustomed to, and the new system. It shows some of the ways in which the waiver provides flexibility and support to schools and the district. [Review contents of the slide]: the new accountability system (the School Quality Improvement System) identifies far fewer schools, and over time will include non-cognitive factors. If we continued with the old system, 532 schools in LAUSD would be in Program Improvement – with this new system, only 205 schools are identified, with only 141 requiring school improvement interventions. Each of the 205 schools has been given a classification as “reward” for high performance or progress, “focus” based on significant achievement gaps, and “priority” which are the lowest performing schools identified. We will get into that system and the implications in a little more detail later on in the presentation.

6 Three Principles of the Waiver
Principle I Principle II Principle III College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership The CORE waiver application is available on the Superintendent’s Page under “CORE Corner”– we also have an executive summary available on the same site. The waiver application is organized into 3 key principles: College and Career Ready Expectations Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership The next few slides will review some of the basic aspects of each of the three key principles.

7 Principle I: College- and Career-Ready Expectations
CORE CCSS Transition Timeline Complete In Progress Next Steps Principle I is about supporting College and Career-readiness and expectations for all students. The work we have been doing to support the Common Core transition will continue. The waiver asks us to adopt college and career-ready standards, transition to those standards and administer high-quality assessments to measure growth. To do that, the district will develop and provide professional development related to common core and the related assessments. Over this year Central Office will be working with other CORE districts to share our learnings and tools to prepare for Common Core Districts will prepare for full implementation of the CCSS in the school year through continued stakeholder engagement and district-led PD

8 Principle: II School Quality Improvement Index
Academic Social-Emotional Culture and Climate Performance measured against ELA, Math, API, and graduation rate targets Not included Not included NCLB Academic performance broadened to include other subjects (e.g., science, history, writing) and other metrics (e.g., growth, 5th and 6th year graduation rates) Non-Cognitive skills will be included, in addition to measuring absentee and suspension/expulsion rates Student, staff, and parent surveys included, in addition to Special Ed identification and ELL redesignation rates CORE Waiver Principle II is the longest part of the waiver application, as it outlines the new accountability system, called the “School Quality Improvement System”. When the School Quality Improvement System is fully-implemented, it will take into account three factors, or “domains”: academics, social-emotional factors and school culture and climate factors. To get to a place where we can apply these metrics uniformly across the CORE districts, we need to build the infrastructure to share these non-cognitive data points. This side-by-side shows how the new accountability system, when fully-implemented, will be more robust and based on multiple measures that contribute to student success. Research has demonstrated the importance of these factors not only for academic achievement but also life success (e.g., employment, wages, avoidance of risky behavior)

9 Principle II: Accountability System Measures
Elimination of Disparity and Disproportionality This slide gives some examples of the types of measures that will be used across the three domains. Of particular note is that the sub-group reporting threshold is now 20 students instead of This was an important tenet for CORE districts to ensure that we are “best serving our most vulnerable students”. (p. 74 of waiver)

10 Schools Identified by CORE
Reward (64 Schools) Focus (74 Schools) Priority (27 Schools) Support Other Title I that did not meet AMOs and bottom 30% API within CORE (40 Schools) 55 Elementary 30 Elementary 3 Elementary 21 Elementary 3 Middle 14 Middle 12 Middle 6 Middle 5 High 27 High 12 High 1 Span 3 Span 205 schools were identified in the waiver this year--this list only includes Title I schools. 64 reward schools- Title Schools that are high performance or high progress. 74 focus schools – schools with achievement gaps 27 priority schools including 19 SIG schools, which were automatically deemed priority. 40 Support Schools (Title I schools that did not meet AMOs and performed in the bottom 30% of CORE schools based on API.) We are going to refer to these schools as “Support” schools from now on. All of these 205 schools will be called upon to take on certain activities outlined in the waiver and Central Office will be providing more information and detail about how the activities will take shape. More than 400 Title I schools do not have a classification under the waiver– just as in the past, when there were schools that were not in Program Improvement, there will be schools that are not identified in the waiver.

11 Implementation Timeline
Transition to School Quality Improvement Index (SQII) Implementation Timeline Transition Accountability Score will be based on Academic Domain Begin collecting social-emotional and culture/climate in order to set a baseline for future measurement School Quality Improvement Index Partial Implementation Introduce Socio-Emotional & Cultural Factors Growth in academic performance excluded during 1st year of SBAC/PARCC implementation Full Implementation School Quality Improvement Index fully implemented with all factors fully measured and considered & Beyond This slide offers a quick overview of the transition to full-implementation related to the School Quality Improvement Index.

12 Implementation Timeline
PRINCIPLE III: Participating districts have flexibility to design an educator evaluation system in partnership with key stakeholders within the parameters of full implementation in Implementation Timeline Build Shared Knowledge and Understanding Building capacity for new educator evaluation systems Design Design new or modify educator evaluation systems aligned to local district contexts Pilot and Implementation Pilot and full implementation of educator evaluation systems / Complete In Progress Next Steps The final key element of the waiver is Principle III, which relates to supporting effective leadership and instruction. This principle is well-aligned with the teacher and leadership development cycles. The next two slides offer more depth. Beginning in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into a Peer Cycle of Review to ensure progress towards educator evaluation systems that meet School Quality Improvement System requirements and to promote continued collaboration and best practice sharing between LEAs

13 Principle III: Teacher and Leadership Effectiveness
CORE Waiver requirement LAUSD Status Design new or modify educator evaluation systems aligned to local district contexts in ; design elements include: Rubrics are aligned to the pedagogical shifts required by the Common Core State Standards and the six components of CORE’s Common Educator Effectiveness Guidelines Complete – The LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework and School Leadership Framework reflect both CCSS as well as the CORE guidelines Includes observation of teaching practice and examination of artifacts Complete – Observation of Practice measure has been designed, piloted, and is in full implementation Includes evidence of professional contributions by teachers In Progress – Included in the Teaching and Learning Framework; a “Contributions to School Community” measure being piloted Includes a student growth model for teacher growth and evaluation In Progress – Objectives include one based on student data; untested subjects still being refined Ensure data collection with sufficient frequency to provide a basis for evaluation Complete – TGDC includes at least two formal observations and three informals Employ ratings that meaningfully differentiate among teacher and leader effectiveness using at least four categories In Progress – Observation measure employs four performance levels for teachers and the final evaluation rating levels are being negotiated for teachers and leaders The key here is that we will move forward with what we have already been doing related to the teacher and school leader development cycles. The work is not only on track as is, but LAUSD is leading the CORE districts on this work, and central believes we will also learn through collaboration with the other districts.

14 Principle III: Teacher and Leadership Effectiveness
CORE Waiver requirement LAUSD Status Engage key stakeholders and bargaining units in dialogue around designing or revising educator evaluation systems Ongoing Pilot educator evaluation system by Complete – Initial Implementation Phase TGDC pilot in and additional training, practice, and program improvements in ; School Leader pilot in Track and report the aggregate distribution of teachers and principals by performance level data no later than the 2014–2015 school year. Complete – Human Resources and Talent Management track performance data; Human Capital Data Warehouse on track to further enhance tracking and reporting capacities Full implementation of educator evaluation systems by In Progress – Full implementation of TGDC observation measure in ; other measures and a School Leader Growth and Development Cycle to be added This slide is a continuation of the previous slide, and again shows how we are on track with the work.

15 The waiver and executive summary are available online:
We know this is a lot to take in, if you want to review the waiver application or the executive summary, both documents are available on the website. You can also send your questions to While there are a lot of changes, they are for the better. This waiver promises a new system that acknowledges aspects of our work that have not yet been captured, and is designed to support schools, leaders and teachers in serving students to be college- and career-ready. There will certainly be learning along the way for us all and we will need to have a feedback loop from all sides to continue to improve the system. As for now, let’s stay calm, and teach on. Stay tuned for more information. Send questions to

Download ppt "NCLB Waiver for CORE Districts"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google