Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability Overview of Michigan’s Proposed System SLIP 1/20/2017

Introduction

Clarification on Timelines 2015-16 accountability (Fall 2016) will still be governed by Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Federal Flexibility. That is it will have the last running of Scorecard and Top-to-Bottom. 2016-17 accountability (Fall 2017) will be a pilot run of the new proposed system but will NOT include federal designations. 2017-18 accountability (Fall 2018) will be an operational run of the new system including the first naming of new federal designations.

Clarification on Status of Proposed System As stated above, this is a PROPOSED system, it is not yet finalized. Many elements are required by law and therefore cannot change Some elements are more open to interpretation and therefore are still being discussed and are still subject to change

ESSA Title I Purpose ESSA SEC. 1001. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. The purpose of this title [Title I] is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.

NCLB Requirements Continued Under ESSA Annual assessment of all students grades 3-8 & 11 in math & ELA Annual accountability reporting Disaggregation of data by student groups Minimum size of student group before data is disaggregated Minimum time of enrollment before students’ results can be included

Summary of Major Changes Unification of tasks previously accomplished by separate systems Frequency of federal designations Addition of School Quality/ Student Success indicator Scorecard Top-to-Bottom (TTB) Greater flexibility in how states and district support designated schools Gap Ranking English Learner (EL) accountability (i.e., NCLB Title III AMAOs) Increases local control of, and local responsibility for, the improvement of designated schools Partial points based on the degree to which goals are met 1% cap moves to participation Only building-level accountability

Goals & Measures of Interim Progress

Long-Term Goals ESSA requires states to establish long-term goals MDE proposes to set long-term goals for each indicator at the value equal to the 80th percentile of that indicator as observed in 2016-17 Set using normative methods (80th percentile) to ensure goals are ambitious but achievable Become criterion referenced (i.e., would be locked) after the initial year. This will allow schools to make progress against stable goals.

Measure of Interim Progress ESSA also requires states to measure interim progress against their long-term goals MDE proposes to measure interim progress by the proportion of schools meeting the long-term goal each year Improvement of any degree and at any point on the scale is captured and credited to schools

ESSA Accountability Indicators

Indicators Explicitly Required in ESSA Proficiency Student growth Graduation rate English Learners’ (ELs’) progress in Acquiring English At least one indicator of school quality or student success

Indicator of School Quality Measures for this indicator are still being selected by another group That group is currently considering including three measures: Teacher/School Administrator Longevity Chronic Absenteeism Advanced Coursework (AP, IB, CTE, and Dual Enrollment)

Indicators Implicitly Required in ESSA Participation (on content area assessments) English Leaner (EL) Participation (on EL assessment; WIDA)

Indicator Indices Within individual indicators results are aggregated for each student group having the minimum n-count to get an Indicator Value The Indicator Value is then divided by the Indicator Goal to get a percent of goal met which is called the Indicator Index This process is done for each indicator so that each indicator has an Indicator Index on a scale of 0-100

Indicator Index Example School A Has an EL Progress Indicator Value of 35% (i.e., 35% of its EL students meet EL Progress) Statewide EL Progress Goal: 55% 35 / 55 = 63.64% Indicator Index = 63.64 School B Has an EL Progress Indicator Value of 60% (i.e., 60% of its EL students meet EL Progress) Statewide EL Progress Goal: 55% 60 / 55 = Greater than 100% Indicator Index = 100

Indicator Labels Indicator Label Definition (Percent of Goal Met) Near or Above 90% to 100% Approaching 75% to less than 90% Considerably Below 50% to less than 75% Critically Below Less than 50% Indicators are given an Indicator Label using the Indicator Index and the definitions in the table to the left.

Overall Indices & Labels

Weighting of Indicators in Overall Index Proficiency 29% Growth Graduation Rate 15% English Learner (EL) Progress 14% School Quality 10% Participation 2% English Learner (EL) Participation 1% Weights show the proportion of the overall label determined by an individual indicator Missing indicators will have their weights distributed proportionally to the remaining indicators

Overall Indices & Labels Individual Indicator Indices will be combined using the indicator weights to calculate an Overall Index for each building and each student group. Overall Index values will be used to give each building and each student group an Overall Label.

Overall Student Group Labels Definition (Percent of Goal Met) Near or Above 90% to 100% Approaching 75% to less than 90% Considerably Below 50% to less than 75% Critically Below Less than 50% Student groups having data for at least one indicator will receive a Student Group Label

Overall Building Labels Schools having Proficiency, Growth, Graduation Rate, or EL Progress indicator data will receive a Letter Grade Schools having only some combination of Participation, EL Participation, and/or School Quality indicator data will receive a Pass/Fail overall label Overall Label Definition (Percent of Goal Met) A 90% to 100% B 80% to less than 90% C 70% to less than 80% D 60% to less than 70% F Less than 60% Pass 75% to 100% Fail Less than 75%

MI-Access 1% Cap – New Requirements 1% cap changes from a proficiency cap to a participation cap State may not exceed 1% State must: Require districts going over 1% cap to submit information justifying the need of the district to assess more that 1% of its students on an alternate assessment Provide appropriate oversight of a district that exceeding the 1% cap Make district justifications public providing information does not reveal individual student information States are allowed to submit waivers good for one year Requires timeline for falling below the cap and other additional reporting

MI-Access 1% Cap – What Do the Changes Mean? Accountability will not be collecting waivers from districts Starting now Accountability will not be processing 1% cap appeals for accountability All MI-Access students with valid scores will be included in proficiency calculations MDE is still working out what districts will need to submit for justifying exceeding the 1% cap This will most likely not flow through the accountability office

Federal Designations

Overview of ESSA Designations of Support ESSA moves away from designating schools for sanctions to designating schools for additional supports ESSA increases local control, but also local responsibility, by moving away from federal-/state-determined plans/models of improvement to locally-developed plans for improvement ESSA introduces designations of Comprehensive Support, Targeted Support, and Additional Targeted Support

Quick Refresher on Acronyms Definition SEA State Educational Agency (i.e., MDE – Michigan Department of Education; SRO – School Reform Office, etc.) LEA Local Educational Agency (i.e., districts)

Comprehensive Support Designation What is it? Bottom 5% of schools OR Graduation rate below 67% OR an Additional Targeted Support School that did not exit that status in a State- determined timeframe How often is it given? At least once every 3 years, beginning with 2017-18

Comprehensive Support Designation (cont.) Who determines supports? LEA must develop and implement a plan for improvement that includes: evidence-based interventions based on a school-level needs assessment identification of resource inequities Approved by school, LEA, & SEA Monitored by SEA Who sets exit criteria & timeline? SEA sets exit criteria and timeline More rigorous SEA-determined action required if not exited in a SEA-determined number of years (not to exceed 4 years)

Targeted Support Designation What is it? Schools in which any student group is consistently underperforming How often is it given? Annually, beginning with 2017-18

Targeted Support Designation (continued) Who determines supports? School must develop and implement an improvement plan for identified student group(s) that includes evidence- based interventions Approved by LEA Monitored by LEA Who sets exit criteria & timeline? LEA sets exit criteria and timeline Results in additional action following unsuccessful implementation of such plan after an LEA-determined number of years

Additional Targeted Support Designation What is it? Schools having a student group performing like the bottom 5% of schools (i.e., like a Comprehensive Support school) How often is it given? At least once every three years, beginning with 2017-18

Additional Targeted Support Designation (cont.) Who determines supports? School must develop and implement an improvement plan for identified student group(s) that includes evidence- based interventions Approved by LEA Monitored by LEA Who sets exit criteria & timeline? SEA sets exit criteria & timeline The school becomes designated Comprehensive Support if not exited in SEA-determined number of years

Supports for LEAs with Significant Number of Support Schools

Required Supports for LEA with Significant Number of Support Schools For LEAs serving a significant number of Comprehensive Support, Targeted Support, or Additional Targeted Support schools SEAs are required to: Periodically review resource allocation to support improvement in these LEAs Provide technical assistance to each of these LEAs

Allowed Supports for LEA with Significant Number of Support Schools For LEAs serving a significant number of Comprehensive Support, Targeted Support, or Additional Targeted Support schools SEAs are allowed to: Take action to initiate additional improvement in these LEAs Consistent with State law, establish alternative evidence-based State determined strategies that can be used by LEAs to assist designated schools

Questions? Comments? Ask us today or contact: MDE-Accountability@Michigan.gov -OR- (877) 560-8378