Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OSPI UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2013 WSSDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 22, 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OSPI UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2013 WSSDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 22, 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent."— Presentation transcript:

1 OSPI UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2013 WSSDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 22, 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

2 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FLEXIBILITY WAIVER OVERVIEW ESEA original authorization in 1965 Lyndon Johnson / Great Society A Nation at Risk (1983) George HW Bush / America 2000 Bill Clinton / Goals 2000 Reauthorization every 5 years, but… Reauthorization = NCLB Reauthorization still has not occurred U.S. Dept of Ed established waiver program 2

3 WHERE WE WERE BEGINNING IN 2002 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR 3

4 MIDDLE SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR 4

5 HIGH SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR 5

6 School Improvement Plan Continue: Public School Choice Continue: Public School Choice Supplemental Continue: Public School Choice Supplemental Services Public School Choice Supplemental Services Corrective Action Plan for Alternative Governance AYP Step Implement Plan For Alternative Governance Step 5 12 AYP AYP TIMELINE FOR SCHOOLS (Consequences apply only to schools receiving Title I funds) Sanctions are a District Responsibility Identified for School Improvement WASL Results WASL Results 6

7 Implementation of School Improvement Requirements – Flexibility from requirement for school districts to identify or take improvement actions for schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring – Eliminates Public School Choice (PSC) as a mandate – Eliminates Supplemental Educational Services (SES) as a mandate – Eliminates the 20% district Title I set aside to fund PSC and SES – Eliminates the 10% set aside for professional development for schools FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND INCREASE THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION 7

8 WHAT DOES ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE FROM STATES? 1.Ensure college- and career-ready expectations for all students in Washington – Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) 2.Implement state-developed system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 3.Support effective instruction and leadership in Washington— Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) 4.Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on school districts by the state 8

9 PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS To support States in continuing the work of transitioning students, teachers, and schools to higher standards Adopt college- and career-ready (CCR) standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics Transition to and implement CCR standards Develop and administer Statewide, aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth Adopt English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards corresponding to the State’s new CCR standards and develop aligned assessments 9

10 PRINCIPLE 2: STATE-DEVELOPED DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT To support states’ efforts to move forward with next-generation accountability systems Set ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Reward schools: Provide incentives and recognition for high-progress and highest performing Title I schools Priority schools: Identify lowest performing schools and implement interventions aligned with the turnaround principles Focus schools: Close achievement gaps by identifying and implementing interventions in schools with the greatest achievement gaps or low graduation rates Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools (Emerging Schools) Build State Education Agency (SEA), Local Education Agency (LEA), and school capacity to improve student learning in all schools 10

11 STATES MUST: Set ambitious, but achievable, Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Identify: – Reward schools: Provide incentives and recognition for high- progress and highest performing Title I schools – Priority schools: Identify lowest performing schools and implement interventions aligned with the turnaround principles – Focus schools: Identify and implement meaningful interventions (e.g., turnaround principles) in schools with the lowest performing subgroups – Other low-performing Title I schools (Emerging schools): Provide incentives and support Build state, district, and school capacity 11

12 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM BASED ON ESEA REQUEST ESEA Request Accountability System Used to identify Reward, Priority, Focus, and Emerging schools Washington State’s New Accountability System Used to identify Reward, Priority, Focus, and Emerging schools for Title I and non- Title I schools School Improvement Uses AYP calculations to identify schools and districts in a step of improvement (Title I) Uses PLA Methodology based on AYP calculations to generate list of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools (PLAs) SBE/OSPI Achievement Index Used to identify Award Schools AYP Determinations Sanctions for schools and districts “in improvement” Set-asides required for Public School Choice and Supplemental Education Services Up to and and beyond AMO Calculations Annual targets intended to close proficiency gaps by half by 2017; uses 2011 as baseline and adds equal annual increments (1/6 of proficiency gap) to get to 2017 target; each subgroup, school, district, and state have unique annual targets. Calculations reported on Report Card No AYP sanctions based on identification of schools and districts “in improvement” Requires districts to set aside up to 20% for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools 12

13 OPTION A: SET AMBITIOUS BUT ACHIEVABLE ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES (AMOs) NEW AMOs (Targets): Cut Proficiency Gap by Half by 2017 Sample High School - 10 th Grade Reading Our goal for all Students remains 100% meeting standard! Proficiency Gap Decrease of 50% 13

14 Priority : Based on “All Students” Performance Priority (lowest 5%) Focus (lowest 10% ) Emerging Focus ( Next 10%) Emerging Priority ( Next 5%) Next 5% Focus : Based on “Subgroup” Performance Next 10% Thresholds: Priority: <38.1% Emerging-P: <42.3% Focus: <13.5% Emerging-F: <19.8% HOW IS A SCHOOL IDENTIFIED? (Emerging = Other Title I Schools) 14

15 PROPOSED STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Priority: Lowest 5% based on Index + High Schools w/Grad Rates < 60% State SystemFederal Definitions Focus: Subgroup Performance – Lowest 10% on Assessments + Grad Rates < 60% “Emerging”: Next 5% based on Index Reward – Highest Performing Reward – High-Progress 15

16 PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP To support SEA and LEA development of evaluation systems that go beyond NCLB’s minimum HQT standards Develop and adopt SEA guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation and support systems Ensure LEAs implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that are consistent with SEA guidelines 16

17 PRINCIPLE 3 - NEXT STEPS ActionTimeline Principle 3 amendment submittedJuly 19, 2013 Response from U.S. Dept. of ED (high-risk status) August 14, 2013 WA State response to “high-risk” status September 12, 2013 Legislation request/change January-March

18 USE OF STUDENT GROWTH DATA USING STATE-BASED TOOLS Upshot: State-based tools have limited applicability. Only teachers in Grades 4–8 with ELA or math courses can use summative testing as part of their evaluation. (HS math teachers with students in 9 th grade Algebra or 10 th grade Geometry could be included) – Since evaluations are due in early May and SGP ratings aren’t available until Sept. 1, analysis will always be one year behind. – Teacher attribution is challenging at all levels: Middle school students are reported by individual classes in CEDARS Elementary school students are reported by homeroom teacher in CEDARS – Transition to a new set of standards and a new exam system will take time. 18

19 STUDENT GROWTH PERCENTILES WHERE WE ARE March 2013: SGPs from 2011 & 2012 have been provided to districts for Grades 4–8 and high school (reading and math MSP, HSPE, and EOC) * October 2013: SGPs from 2013 provided to districts October 2014: ? October 2015: SGPs from 2015 (Smarter Balanced) provided to districts October 2016: SGPs from 2016 (Smarter Balanced) provided to districts (could use in 2016–17 evaluations) *High school SGPs will be available for consecutive year tests (e.g., 8 th MSP, 9 th Algebra 1, 10 th Geometry) 19

20 EXAMPLE FROM A DISTRICT IN A STATE WITH A 50% STUDENT GROWTH RULE 20

21 Multiple Measurement Tools This chart represents data collected from TPEP districts and a sample of the strengths and limitations of implementing measures. Measure % of teachers= assessment* ExamplesStrengthsLimitations Classroom- Based Tools 100%  Student work  Graphic organizers  Performance tasks  Unit assessments  Art/PE performance assessments  Capture authentic student work and learning  Relevant to teachers to inform practice in a timely way  Difficult to compare across classrooms  May lack validity  More time involved to assess students School-Based Tools 79%  Common formative assessments  7th grade writing samples  Kindergarten readiness  Encourage team goal setting  Relevant to both teacher/principal evaluations  May not be comparable between districts  Training for principals key to implementation District-Based Tools 30.8%  District-developed benchmark exams  MAP assessments  DIBELS (literacy)  Can compare across schools/districts  Useful in district-wide PLC and vertical teaming  May not have district capacity to support timely use of data  May lack reliability in administration of assessments State-Based Tools 16.2%  MSP  HSPE  SAT  ACT  AP exams  Higher likelihood of validity for assessing student performance  Widely available and public  Only relevant to a small percentage of teachers  Data is not quickly accessible to quickly inform teaching practice AVAILABLE STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES TPEP PILOT SITE DATA 21

22 STATE An SEA is responsible for ensuring that an LEA develops and implements evaluation and support systems consistent with the guidelines the SEA has developed under principle 3 (as described in the document titled ESEA Flexibility). This includes ensuring that LEA evaluation and support systems take into account data on student growth in significant part in determining teacher and principal performance levels…. For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3), an SEA must define a statewide approach for measuring student growth based on such assessments. Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter must be a factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state- based tools. Student growth means the change in student achievement between two points in time. E2SSB 6696 contains language around student growth including: ESEA Flexibility -- Frequently Asked Questions (C-53): What are an SEA’s responsibilities with regard to ensuring that an LEA’s evaluation and support systems consider student growth? 22 FEDERAL

23 USED requires state test scores in tested grades and subjects to be a significant part of teacher evaluation Waiver requires change from “can be used” to “must be used” regarding state tests Supt. Dorn will seek request legislation to change ESSB 5895 language from can to must. It will also include a statement that will delay the implementation of using state test scores in teacher evaluations to Smarter Balanced assessment system will have an effect on timeline for implementation Waiver decision expected May % of Title 1 funds return to mandated use without a waiver: – $44M total available to Supplemental Educational Service (SES) providers and to support School Choice – $18M used three years ago – $2.6M in Seattle PRINCIPLE 3: ESEA WAIVER 23

24 FOR MORE INFORMATION: ESEA Flexibility Web Site – Questions? – 24

25 TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION PROJECT (TPEP)

26  ESSB 5895 ESEA Flexibility Waiver TPEP Pilot Sites & Steering Committee Instruction al and Leadership Framework Authors Research and Best Practice E2SSB 6696 & Race to the Top Washington State Evaluation and Professional Growth System 2010 – 12 INFLUENCES ON TPEP DEVELOPMENT 26

27 First change educator evaluation since the 70s New criteria for teachers and for principals Emphasis on instructional improvement for all educators Established Steering Committee with designated functions Gave OSPI rule-making authority E2SSB 6696 (2010) ESSB 5895 (2012) Implementation timelines Instructional Framework details Role of the pilots Reports to the Legislature 27

28 TPEP STEERING COMMITTEE 28

29 CHANGES IN TEACHER & PRINCIPAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria 1.Instructional skill 2.Classroom management 3.Professional preparation and scholarship 4.Effort toward improvement when needed 5.Handling of student discipline and attendant problems 6.Interest in teaching pupils 7.Knowledge of subject matter 1.Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 2.Demonstrating effective teaching practices 3.Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 4.Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 5.Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 6.Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 7.Communicating with parents and school community 8.Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional practice and student learning Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria 1.Knowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development 2.School administration and management 3.School finance 4.Professional preparation and scholarship 5.Effort toward improvement when needed 6.Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school 7.Leadership 8.Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel 1.Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff 2.Providing for school safety 3.Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements 4.Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local district learning goals 5.Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices 6.Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities 7.Partnering with the school community to promote student learning 8.Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap 29

30 30

31 TRANSITION / IMPLEMENTATION (Suggested Timeline) Provisional and Probationary Teachers (RCW 28A ) Required: Comprehensive Evaluation Required: Comprehensive Evaluation Required: Comprehensive Evaluation Required: Comprehensive Evaluation Certificated Classroom Teachers * 25% Comprehensive Evaluation and 75% PGO New Criteria Goals tied to Frameworks OR Focused Evaluation 25% Comprehensive Evaluation OR Focused Evaluation 25% Comprehensive Evaluation OR Focused Evaluation * In order to go on the focused a certificated classroom teacher must have 4 years of satisfactory evaluation (RCW 28A ). 31

32 EVALUATION SUMMATIVE SCORING PROCESS Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory 32

33 THE RAW SCORE MODEL Teaching Criteria * Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics Overall Criterion Scores Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement3 Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices4 *Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3 Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum2 Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment3 *Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning2 Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community3 *Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning 2 Total Summative Score22 Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a preliminary overall summative rating of Proficient. OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished 33

34 34

35 35

36 STUDENT GROWTH TEACHER RUBRIC LANGUAGE Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. Student Growth 3.1: Establish Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Does not establish student growth goals or establishes inappropriate goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals identify multiple, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full potential in collaboration with students, parents, and other school staff. Goals identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Growth or achievement data from at least two points in time shows no evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show some evidence of growth for some students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show clear evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show evidence of high growth for all or nearly all students. 36

37 USING DISTRICT, SCHOOL, AND CLASSROOM-BASED DATA (TEACHERS) Five Student Growth Criteria – 3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) – 3.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) – 6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data Elements Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals – 6.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals – 8.1 Establish Team Student Growth Goals Re: Teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school/district team 37

38 STUDENT GROWTH RUBRIC AND RATING (TEACHERS ONLY) Student GrowthGoal-Setting Score Based on Rubric Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric Overall Student Growth Criterion Score Criterion 332**5 Criterion 622**4 Criterion 82 N/A 2 Student Growth Score7411 Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating. * Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (e.g., state-, district-, school-, and classroom-based measures). **A student growth score of 1 in any of the student growth rubrics will result in a Low growth rating. *** For teachers on a focused evaluation, any cell with a score of 1 will result in a low rating; a rating above 1 in all cells will result in an adequate rate. OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band LowAverageHigh 38

39 STUDENT GROWTH INQUIRY CONSEQUENCES Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, whichever is later, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: Triangulate student growth measure with other evidence (including observation, artifacts and student evidence) and additional levels of student growth based on classroom, school, district and state-based tools; Examine extenuating circumstances possibly including: goal setting process/expectations, student attendance, and curriculum/assessment alignment; Schedule monthly conferences with the teacher to discuss/revise goals, progress toward meeting goals, and best practices; and/or Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. 39

40 TRANSITION TO NEW ASSESSMENTS AND

41 Balanced Assessment Coverage of full breadth/depth of Common Core Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) Precise assessment of all students More engaging assessment experience Performance Tasks – real world problems Summative Assessments for Accountability Optional for district, school or classroom use Fully aligned with Common Core – same item pool Focus on set of standards or clone summative test Teachers can review and score responses Interim Assessments to Signal Improvement Digital library gives access to high-quality resources Tools/materials for classroom-based assessments Professional social networking (Web-based PLCs) Useful for in-service and pre-service development Formative Tools and Resources for Improved Instruction ✔ 41 ✔ ✔

42 A Balanced Assessment System School Year Last 12 weeks of the year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE OF FORMATIVE TOOLS, PROCESSES AND EXEMPLARS Released items and tasks; Model curriculum units; Educator training; Professional development tools and resources; Scorer training modules; Teacher collaboration tools; Evaluation of publishers’ assessments. English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Scope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined *Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. PERFORMANCE TASKS ELA/Literacy Mathematics Re-take option COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTS ELA/Literacy Mathematics Optional Interim Assessment Optional Interim Assessment 42

43 Major Milestones in Development of Summative Assessments Cognitive Labs Apr – Aug 2012 Small Scale Trials Mar – Nov 2012 Pilot Testing Feb – May 2013 Field Test Mar – June 2014 Deploy For Operational Use Fall 2014 ✔ ✔ ✔ Early Q.C. of items & software; no student results Full system run-through; Establish performance standards 43

44 Technology Requirements: Responding to School Needs Smarter states have established standards for new and existing hardware Online “Readiness Tool” –Schools and districts can evaluate technology readiness Schools do NOT need one-to-one computers –Illustrative example: A 600-student school can be supported by a single 30-computer lab –Smarter Balanced Readiness Calculator at: Pencil-and-paper option available for three-year transition period 44

45 Accommodations 45 The Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines are available at content/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_ pdfhttp://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_ pdf

46 Learn More and Stay Engaged 46 Visit us at: SmarterBalanced.org SmarterBalanced.org Sign up for the e-newsletter Follow on

47 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Evolution to Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments in Washington Reading (end ) Writing (end ) English/LA (begin ) Math (end ) Math (begin ) Science (no change) Grade 3MSPSBACMSPSBAC Grade 4MSP SBACMSPSBAC Grade 5MSPSBACMSPSBACMSP Grade 6MSPSBACMSPSBAC Grade 7MSP SBACMSPSBAC Grade 8MSPSBACMSPSBACMSP High School See next slide Biology EOC MSP = Measurements of Student Progress HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams EOC = End of Course exams SBAC = Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium 47

48 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION With Summative High School Assessments in 2014–15 and beyond English/LAMathematicsScience (no change) Grade 3SBAC Grade 4SBAC Grade 5SBAC MSP Grade 6SBAC Grade 7SBAC Grade 8SBAC MSP Grades10 (until Class of 2019) Comprehensive ELA exit exam Year 1or Year 2 EOC exit exam EOC Biology exit exam (until NGSS) Grade 11SBAC – College and Career Ready SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium MSP= Measurements of Student Progress EOC= End of Course exams 48

49 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION HS Testing for Graduation (new June 30) Graduation Assessment Requirements  Classes of 2013 and 2014  HSPE Reading, HSPE Writing; 1 EOC Math  Classes of 2015 – 2018  ELA exit exam; 1 EOC Math exit exam; EOC Biology  Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests taken in 11 th for school accountability  Class of 2019 and beyond  Smarter Balanced tests in ELA and Math; Biology or NGSS 49

50 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Smarter Balanced Field Testing  US Dept of Ed is allowing states to participate in the Smarter Balanced field test in (pending ESEA Waiver approval):  Washington has opted for the blended model (grades 3-8 only) where some schools take current tests and some schools take field tests  If only giving field tests, school accountability is carried over from 2013 MSP  Waiver will be submitted at end of November– approval likely in December  High schools need to administer all current state tests due to graduation requirements 50

51 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION What’s Happening This Year, ?  Exit exams remain the same (HSPE, EOC)  CAA options remain the same  Class of 2013 had some relaxation of Collection of Evidence rules that had been newly implemented – these will not continue ( COE is limited to one submission per content area throughout HS, and requires two attempts on general assessment before submitting )  Some schools will administer Smarter Balanced field test 51

52 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Smarter Balanced Field Testing  March - June 2014  Purpose: Evaluate items and tasks for Smarter Balanced pool… Statistical data analysis of 22,000+ items Divide items/tasks into secure (summative) pool and open (interim) pool Conduct standard setting for different performance levels (“cut scores”)  Sampling requires about 10% of each state’s students for ELA and about 10% for math  Washington has about 33% participating in grades 3-8, and 10% in 11 th 52

53 EFFECTS OF RECENT LEGISLATION 1080 / 1000 Hour Requirement ESSB 5946 – Educational Outcomes E2SSB 5329 – K-12 Education – Failing Schools ESSB 5491 – K-12 Schools – Educational System Health 53

54 2009 law; 2013 budget authority For , Grade hour requirement – RCW 28A allows passing time “intermissions” and early dismissals for parent conferences but not professional development releases – Most middle and high schools employ a 6-hour student instructional day – 6 x 180 = 1080 – Every 5 minute extension = 15 hours All K-6 grades are required to offer 1000 hours 1080 HOURS 54

55 K-4 report cards include whether a student is reading on grade level Beginning in , interventions are required for below grade level readers beginning with 3 rd grade. Beginning in , districts must implement an intensive reading improvement strategy from an OSPI menu. Focus of LAP program changes: Needs of K-4 students with reading deficiencies are highest priority. Current LAP plans are replaced with entrance and exit performance data. Student Discipline Task Force must set up standards definitions for disciplinary events. Expulsions are limited to one year and emergency expulsions must end after 10 days. The ALE 80% funding regulations is repealed. ESSB 5946 – EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 55

56 The State Board of Education (SBE) and OSPI must establish rules for “challenged schools in need of improvement” A required action district (RAD) designation is further divided between RAD I and RAD II, the later subject to increasing attention from OSPI E2SSB 5329 – K-12 EDUCATION – FAILING SCHOOLS 56

57 The SBE must establish six statewide indicators of educational system health: – The six characteristics measured in WaKIDS – Fourth Grade Reading – Eighth Grade Math – Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate – Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in college training programs or employed within nine months – College remediation rates All indicators must be disaggregated ESSB 5491 – K-12 SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM HEALTH 57

58 QUESTIONS?

59 59 Thank you!


Download ppt "OSPI UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2013 WSSDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 22, 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google