Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request

Background: Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request 2001 – No Child Left Behind Act – Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Landmark legislation aimed at equality of access to education for all students Adequate Yearly Progress – accountability requirements for schools, districts, states Chief AYP Measure = State assessments based on state achievement standards Goal: 100% of students proficient on state assessments by School Year

Background: Nevada’s ESEA Waiver 2011 – Adequate Yearly Progress “Timing Out” as a Useful Accountability Model Nationwide, Schools and Districts on trajectory to fail AYP Limited utility of information on schools/districts One special population group failure results in failure of school Congress stalled on Reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB Secretary of Education Duncan offers states flexibility from certain ESEA/NCLB requirements

Background: Nevada’s Waiver Approved August 8, 2012 All “Waiver” States’ Agree to Adopt College & Career Ready (CCR) Standards for Math & English (Nevada Academic Content Standards) Adopt CCR Assessments for Math & English (Smarter, ACT, End of Course Exams) Design State-specific Accountability Systems, including Growth (Nevada School Performance Framework) Provide State-Wide System of Support for Schools, Districts Design & Implement Educator Evaluation Frameworks (Nevada Educator Performance Framework)

Background: Nevada’s ESEA Waiver – Nevada Successfully Maintains ESEA Waiver Flexibility Approval Periodic Monitoring & Review by USDOE Several Renewal and Extension Applications Link on Nevada Department of Education Website to ESEA Waiver Information:

Purpose of Renewal Application Extend Nevada’s ESEA Waiver through School Year Minimal Changes Requested More Extensive Amendments Anticipated for

Status of Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Renewal Request Application submitted March 31, 2015 Currently under review by U.S. Department of Education, Office of State Support As of April 21, Nevada still awaiting feedback for USDOE Approval expected by June 2015 Nevada continues under ESEA Waiver Flex through 2018

Requirements for Renewal: All States Reaffirm Requests, Assurances in Previous Waiver Provide Updates on Progress towards Agreements to  Adopt & Implement Rigorous CCR Standards and Assessments  Implement Statewide Systems of Accountability & Support, Assure Continued Support to All Students  Continue to Ensure LEAs Implement Educator Evaluation Systems (Multiple Measures Including Student Achievement & Growth)

Requirements for Renewal: All States Stakeholder Input (ESEA Waiver Survey) Evidence of Continuous Improvement Continued Focus on Equity for All Students Increased Support & Rigor of Interventions for Priority, Focus, Other Title 1 Schools Not Closing Achievement Gaps, Improving Graduation Rate Over Time Require Schools May Not Receive the Highest Rating if Achievement Gaps Not Closing, Graduation Rate Not Improving

Specific Nevada Requests/ Flexibilities Pause NSPF school ratings for (Schools receive same NSPF rating as for ) Double Testing Flexibility - Middle School Students taking End of Course Math examinations not required to take Smarter assessment for Math Flexibility in District Use of 1003(a) Funds for Other Underperforming Title I schools if needs of Priority & Focus Schools are met Revision of Priority & Focus School Exit Criteria Flexibility to Implement new Nevada Alternate Assessment for 1% IEP Students during

Stakeholder Input – Survey Posted February 06, 2015 – March 25, 2015) Advocacy Groups, Business Leaders, Education Association Leaders, Superintendents & Other Central Office Administrators, Parents/Guardians, Principals & Site Based Administrators, School Board Members, Teachers, Title I Directors 82% believe ESEA Waiver requirements beneficial to students, schools, educators & districts 57% favored Double Testing Flex for Middle School 74% favored Pausing Accountability for % favored flexibility to focus Title 1 funds on “Other Title 1 Schools” where Achievement Gaps not closing, Grad Rate not Improving

Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement Accountability Advisory Committee (AAC) What Who When Why How Technical Advisory Group (TAG) A group of district level accountability staff that advise and inform NDE about the technical operation of the school accountability framework This group usually meets virtually as needed They will be asked to advise NDE this summer based on AAC recommendation

Stakeholder Survey Stakeholders Solicited through District Leaders & State Public Charter School Director Members of Title I Community of Practitioners Accountability Advisory Committee Native American Tribal leaders Survey Availability & Uses On NDE website February 6 - March 25 Feedback taken for March 31, 2015 application & to inform the further improvements & amendment requests

Long-Term Planning for NSPF Improvement Ongoing evaluation of what is working/ what needs to be improved in the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) Internal (NDE) and external sources of information ESEA Waiver Survey Responses Input from Accountability Advisory Committee (AAC)

Accountability Advisory Committee Group represents a broad range of Nevada stakeholders: Business Community & Non-Profits Educator Organizations Parent Organizations Districts & Schools Higher Education, Students, including Special Populations Design recommendations will inform NDE’s operational changes to NSPF

Accountability Advisory Committee Purpose of AAC work: to determine recommendations for improving the NSPF Series of meetings January 2015 through September 2015 Facilitated by National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment Recommendations will inform NDE operational changes to NSPF & Waiver improvements for long-term

Progress of AAC to Date AAC has reviewed the current NSPF model for these questions: Is current NSPF achieving the goals & purposes of Nevada Ready! Is there alignment of goals and purposes of the accountability system? Are the uses of the results (NSPF reports) supportive of the goals and purposes? Are the right indicators being used? Are the measures based on those indicators weighted correctly?