Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

COMMISSIONER’S PRESENTATION JUNE 26, 2012 New Hampshire Department of Education.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "COMMISSIONER’S PRESENTATION JUNE 26, 2012 New Hampshire Department of Education."— Presentation transcript:

1 COMMISSIONER’S PRESENTATION JUNE 26, 2012 New Hampshire Department of Education

2 CONTEXT New Hampshire Department of Education

3 New Hampshire – like every state – stands at a critical inflection point. The world is changing much faster than our ability to prepare our students to be successful in it. We have choices. Each of us as individual leaders. And all of us together. But when we put kids in the center, the choices become clearer.

4 Learning Lab 1.0: The Industrial Age Classroom

5 Learning Lab 1.1?

6 Learning Lab 2.0

7 There are at least 100 obstacles that can and will get in our way – complexity, lack of resources, political uncertainty, staff readiness, etc. – but either we will build the future of learning in NH… or it will be built for us. This is our choice.

8 NOW NEXT FUTURE INNOVATE the System We Need IMPROVE the System We Have “Both, And” How can we work together to simultaneously improve the system we have right now AND build the system we need for the future? (Incremental = Diminishing Returns) (Cross the Chasm = Difficult, But Promising)

9 We Need A Single, Integrated Model Improve Innovate Crisis Stable Good Learn More Experiment (Existing) Prototype (New) Transform School Transform District Great Impact Time “Better for kids and families” is a continual process, not a destination

10 Catalyzing “Progress” Along the Innovation Growth Curve

11 Three Things We Want to Talk About Today 1.Beginning With Ourselves Transforming NHDOE from a compliance orientation to a support orientation much more responsive to your demand (needs & interests) 2. Pursuing the Accountability Waiver Why we think it makes sense, the work we’ve already done & what we need from you to get it right 3. How/Why #1 and #2 Fit Together Creating the flexibility to simultaneously improve AND innovate

12 WAIVER: KEY QUESTIONS New Hampshire Department of Education

13 Most of your (and our) questions fall into the following categories: Why does the waiver make sense? How will it make us better at serving our students and families? (RATIONALE) Why now? (TIMING) Why are we confident that we can execute? (FEASIBILITY) Resources Smart structure/strategy Quality team How will this effort be sustained, given various changes at state and federal levels? (SUSTAINABILITY) Key Questions Underpinning Our Work

14 Understanding the Waiver Four principles underpin the Federal Waiver. This offers states the opportunity to implement an alternative accountability system. 17 states have been granted waivers to date. Principle 1: College and Career Ready for All Students Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability & Support Principle 3: Effective Instruction & Leadership Principle 4: Reducing Duplication & Unnecessary Burden

15 Understanding The Forest for the Trees While there are four distinct principles as part of a comprehensive approach, only one of the segments of the waiver requires federal approval Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability

16 What You’ve Been Asking About the Waiver?

17 What You Say You Need From Us

18 Benefits of the Waiver (Brass Tacks) 18 In Actual Terms: NOW (NCLB)NEXT (STATE WAIVER) AccountabilityAYP ~ 73% identified and rising AMO ~ 15% will be Priority & Focus Schools Punishment/ Rewards “Name and Shame” Plan, implement, and report Priority/Focus/Reward; Networks of Improvement and Innovation Reporting73% ~ require plans and progress reports 15% will provide progress reports TestingNECAP ELA/Math, Writing, Science, Alt. SBAC ELA, Math, Performance Assessment

19 Benefits of the Waiver (Brass Tacks) 19 In Actual Terms: FLEXIBILITY LEA/School Improvement An LEA/school would: benefit from new AMOs instead of meeting 100 percent by no longer be required to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. no longer be required to implement the school improvement requirements associated with identifying schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. no longer have to reserve 10 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation for professional development. no longer be required to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation on providing SES and public school choice- related transportation to eligible students. be permitted to operate a schoolwide program in any of its priority and focus schools. TransferabilityAn LEA would be permitted to transfer up to 100 percent of funds that may be transferred to other ESEA programs into Title I, Part A.

20 Benefits of the Waiver (Brass Tacks) 20 In Actual Terms: FLEXIBILITY School Improvement Grants An LEA would be eligible to receive SIG funds to implement a school intervention model in its priority schools, even if those schools are not in improvement and therefore would not otherwise qualify the LEA to receive SIG funds. Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement Plan An LEA that has missed HQT targets for two years would no longer be required to develop an improvement plan under ESEA section 2141(a) or enter into an agreement with its SEA under ESEA section 2141(c). Updated Assessment System The waiver will support the state moving to the Smarter Balanced Assessment System, adding growth as an accountability measure, and allow for Performance Assessment as an indicator when these new systems are ready for implementation at the state and local level

21 Benefits of the Waiver (Brass Tacks) Implementation of Waivers by SEAs and LEAs R EQUIREMENT TO BE W AIVED SEA I MPLEMENTATION LEA I MPLEMENTATION Timeline for 100 percent proficiencySEA sets ambitious but achievable AMOs AYP determinations based on new AMOs Identification of schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring NoneLEA need not identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring Identification of LEAs for improvement or corrective action SEA need not identify LEAs for improvement or corrective action LEA no longer subject to improvement or corrective actions Requirements for SEA and LEAs to include on their respective report cards information regarding LEAs and schools in improvement status SEA need not include on its report card information on LEAs that are in improvement status LEA need not include on its report card information on schools within the LEA that are in improvement status Requirements for schools and LEAs in improvement status to take certain specified actions (e.g., offer public school choice and SES) SEA need not carry out its responsibilities for LEAs and schools within those LEAs (e.g., approve and monitor SES providers) LEA no longer subject to the school improvement requirements of section 1116(b), including public school choice and SES, or the LEA improvement requirements of section 1116(c) Poverty threshold for operation of a schoolwide program NoneLEA may operate a schoolwide program in a priority or focus school even if the school does not meet the poverty threshold

22 Benefits of the Waiver (Brass Tacks) Implementation of Waivers by SEAs and LEAs R EQUIREMENT TO BE W AIVED SEA I MPLEMENTATION LEA I MPLEMENTATION Requirement that LEAs not making progress toward meeting HQT requirements develop an improvement plan and SEA provides technical assistance SEA would no longer need to provide technical assistance to LEAs developing improvement plans to meet HQT requirements LEA that is not making progress toward meeting HQT requirements would no longer have to develop an improvement plan Requirement for SEA to enter into or enforce agreements with LEAs regarding HQT requirements SEA would not enter into or enforce existing agreements with LEAs LEA would not have to enter into agreement with the SEA, even if it has not met the applicable HQT requirements and has not met AYP for 3 consecutive years State reservation of Title I, Part A funds for school improvement activities SEA considers whether to distribute section 1003(a) reservation for use in priority and focus schools even if they are not in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring None State reservation of Title I, Part A funds for reward schools SEA considers whether to distribute section 1117(c) reservation for use in reward schools None Limits on transferability of fundsSEA would be permitted to exceed relevant transferability limits; SEA would not be required to report to Department prior to transferring funds LEA would be permitted to exceed relevant transferability limits; LEA would not be required to report to the SEA prior to transferring funds

23 . Workshop Key Waiver Elements We want your thoughts and questions on the waiver. There are a set of key questions that have surfaced repeatedly in our conversations. These include: Accountability What will the shift to AMO mean for me at the district level? What do we assess? What do we need for accountability to State/Feds? How do we build capacity? How will DOE support districts in communicating to Boards and families, so it is understood? When NCLB is reauthorized, what does that mean for this waiver?

24 Teacher/ Leader Effectiveness (Brass Tacks) 24 In Actual Terms:

25 Teacher/ Leader Effectiveness (Brass Tacks) 25 In Actual Terms: Learner and Learning Content Knowledge Instructional Practice Professional Responsibility

26 . Workshop Key Waiver Elements These questions have surfaced repeatedly in our conversations: Teacher/Leader Effectiveness What will it look like? What are the new measures for performance assessment? How will DOE support the roll out? On what timeline will districts implement? Common Core Implementation What does mastery of common core mean? How will DOE supporting the transition as it relates to curriculum planning & instructional practice of Common Core?

27 TRANSFORMING DOE STRUCTURE New Hampshire Department of Education

28 Benefits of This Push 28 All of this work will help accelerate our ability to build a new system to better meet your needs, which in turn removes obstacles and promotes better outcomes for kids FROMTOWARD ComplianceSupport PunishmentsRewards HierarchyFlexible Networks Test-based AccountabilityProfessional Responsibility StandardizedPersonalized ReactiveProactive StaticDynamic Supply “push”Demand “pull”

29 A Shifting Agency In order to realize this new strategy, the DOE will shift to be more efficient & effective, with regards to $$ and staff REORGANIZED DOE Shifting dollars Shifting staffing

30 NOW INNOVATE the System We Need IMPROVE the System We Have Building the Flexible Supports You Need Innovation Technical Assistance Knowledge FUTURE We want to build a system of supports that is both flexible to your needs and feasible from a resource perspective.

31 Design Thinking Read More

32 Because One Size Does Not Fit All NHDOE Technical Assistance Networks (IMPROVE) State-provided resources to help districts understand & implement aspects of the NH “Four Pillars” strategy. Mandatory for Priority/Focus schools; optional for others Knowledge Networks (LEARN) All districts have the opportunity to learn from industry- leading experts both in and beyond NH on critical topics of interest to the field (e.g., science of learning, early childhood education, blended learning, etc.…) Innovation Networks (BUILD) Selected districts receive targeted investment and support to begin/continue experimenting with new practices and strategies to improve learning systems (targeted prototyping- “chunking”, full school, whole district, etc.) Leveraging & Supporting Existing Regional Network Structure Investing in Networks to Simultaneously Improve AND Innovate on Multiple Levels

33 Seeding and Growing an Innovation Cycle NHDOE Growing Demand Based on Interest and Need within the Networks Continually Driving Alignment to NHDOE State Strategy

34 One Size Does Not Fit All NHDOE Technical Assistance Networks Knowledge Networks Innovation Networks Leveraging & Supporting Existing Regional Network Structure A Potential Menu of Options Common Core Implementation Data Use Teacher/Leader Evaluation & Effectiveness Authentic Assessment Competency-based Grading & Assessment Next Gen Learning Student Voice Early Childhood Education Personalization Technologies Key Dispositions of Successful Students Personalization/ RTTT Performance-based Data Management 3

35 One Size Does Not Fit All Technical Assistance Networks Knowledge Networks Innovation Networks An Example: Common Core Implementation Teacher/Leader Evaluation & Effectiveness Next Gen Learning Personalization Technologies Key Dispositions of Successful Students Personalization/ RTTT 3 High-achieving District I am the superintendent and we are interested in pushing our work on competency-based learning further by building a fully personalized approach. I am working with 4 other districts on technology solutions to drive the change further, faster in an Innovation Network. To support that work, we are also attending a few Knowledge Networks including a conference on Personalization Technologies and a webinar series on Next Gen Learning. I also send my CIA team to TA Networks to support Common Core Implementation & Teacher Effectiveness

36 One Size Does Not Fit All Technical Assistance Networks Knowledge Networks Innovation Networks An Example: Common Core Implementation Data Use Teacher/Leader Evaluation & Effectiveness Student Voice Early Childhood Education Key Dispositions of Successful Students Performance-based Data Management District with Priority & Focus Schools: I have been pushing for a number of years towards a more performance-based data management system. While we’re not there yet, the Innovation Network is an attractive way to get the support we need and prototype some solutions, building on our work to date. Because of shifting demographics, we need to better understand Early Childhood Education through the speaker series. I will also send my CIA and all school- based teams to TA Networks to better support Common Core Implementation, Data Use to drive Instruction, &Teacher Effectiveness

37 Re-thinking Networks ImprovementInnovation Time-limited/Rapid Prototype Traditional, Standing Network

38 Example of an Innovation Network Meeting 3 Reflect & Improve Knowledge Base Expert Supports Meeting 2 Refine initial prototype Meeting 1 Develop initial prototype E-Learning Community June 2012 Aug 2012 Dec and forward Future Cycles

39 Improving the Agency KnowledgeBase “Talent Cloud” E-Learning Platform SPED Ed Tech CIA Data High er Ed TE

40 Improving the Agency: Next Steps Questions Topics based on Your Need/ Interest Technical Assistance Networks Knowledge Networks Innovation Networks What would need to be true– strategies for this to work for you and your district

41 WRAP-UP & NEXT STEPS New Hampshire Department of Education

42 . Next Steps Show of Hands? Summer Strategy: Waiver Work Groups Prioritizing Network Topics Focus on the Future

43 “The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is now” – Chinese Proverb

44 "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.“ – Thomas Jefferson …or said another way… “Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it’s been” – Wayne Gretsky


Download ppt "COMMISSIONER’S PRESENTATION JUNE 26, 2012 New Hampshire Department of Education."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google