New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver Presented by Walter Woodhouse December 7, 2012

Welcome & Introductions

Some paperwork is involved. Retired Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Walter Woodhouse

Brief Overview History & Purpose Elementary & Secondary Education Act

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on April 11, 1965

Goals of ESEA LBJ: Purpose of the law was to “bridge the gap between hopelessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.” Part of the“ War on Poverty.” Provided federal dollars to schools to help them educate low- income children. Achievement gaps did shrink —by a third to a half by the late 1980s. Progress on the achievement gaps stalled. Most of the War On Poverty programs were dismantled.

President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002.

President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy on signing of No Child Left Behind Act 2002

Goals of NCLB All students will attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013–2014. Highly qualified teachers will teach all students All students will be educated in schools and classrooms that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English. All students will graduate from high school.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 100% Proficiency for all student subgroups by

Obama Administration’s Plan for Reauthorizing ESEA

Goals of A Blueprint for Reform College and Career Readiness Great Teachers and Great Leaders Meeting the needs of English Language Learners and Other Divers Learners Fostering Innovation and Excellence – supporting charter schools and promoting public school choice A Complete Education – Literacy, STEM, College Pathways & Accelerated Learning Successful, Safe & Healthy Students

Two Percent Property Tax Cap

IS IT A RACE?

OR A TRAIN WRECK?

ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PLAN

BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM RACE TO THE TOP ESEA WAIVER Pieces of a Puzzle

13 Accountability Status Under ESEA Waiver 1.Changes in institutional accountability 2.New accountability designations 3.Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth

1. Changes in Institutional Accountability

1a. Changes to Institutional Accountability NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) Overall Target (AMO) Elementary/Middle School Performance Index Calculation High School Performance Index Calculation 100% Proficiency in ELA & Math by Performance Index of 100 in Science Performance Index based on achievement (level 1-4) Full credit for meeting regents diploma requirements and partial credit for local diploma requirements Cut gap in ELA, math & science Performance Index 200 (100% Proficiency) by PI revised to include both achievement and growth toward proficiency Full credit for meeting college and career readiness standards & partial credit for regents diploma requirements

1b. Changes to Institutional Accountability NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) Subgroups School & District Accountability Categories All students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learner subgroups. Schools – In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring Districts – In Good Standing, Improvement or Corrective Action No change Schools – In Good Standing, Local Assistance Plan, Focus or Priority Status Districts – Focus districts

13 Discuss Changes in Institutional Accountability 1.What are the changes in accountability? 2.What are their implications? 3.What potential impact could these changes have on your district or school?

2. New Accountability Designations

2a. Accountability Designations CategoryHow IdentifiedData Used for Identification Reward Schools In Good Standing Local Assistance Plan Schools High Performance or High Progress Not Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan School Not a Priority or Focus school that a) has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students or b) has failed to make APY 3 years in a row for the same subgroup on the same measure or c) is located in a non-focus district but is among the lowest in the state for the performance of one or more subgroups and for which the school is not showing progress. Annual

2b. Accountability Designations CategoryHow IdentifiedData Used for Identification Focus Districts Districts and Charter Schools that are among the lowest performing for a subgroup of students and that fail to show progress, or that have one or more priority schools. Identified once based on data; districts and charter school(s)that improve performance may be removed from Focus status. Focus Schools (10% of schools in the state) Schools that are in focus districts and have the greatest numbers or greatest percentage of not proficient or non graduation results in the group(s) for which their district is identified as a Focus District. Priority Schools (5% of schools in the state) Schools that were awarded a SIG grant in ; have had graduation rates below 60% for the past 3 years, or are the lowest performing in ELA and math combined & have failed to show progress. Identified once based on data; schools that improve performance may be removed from priority status.

NYS Model: On Track to Proficiency ELA Scale Score Future Absolute growth measures tell us if a student’s growth from is enough to get them to proficient in the future. Here, one student is on track to become proficient in future years. Proficiency

Computation of Performance Index for Grades 3-8 ELA Results Performance Level On Track to Proficiency? Number of Students MultiplierTotal Points Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total No Yes No Yes NA PI = 150 or 30,000/ ,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 4,000 30,000

Computation of Performance Index for High School Math Results Performance Level Regents ScoreNumber of Students MultiplierTotal Points Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total PI=133 or 20,000/ ,000 12,000 4,000 20,000

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) 1.AMOs reflect the rigor of college and career readiness standards, while they are at the same time realistic and attainable for schools and districts. 2.AMOs increase in annual increments toward the goal of reducing by half, within 6 years, the gap between the PI for each subgroup and a PI of 200 using baseline data from

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Measure Group GGroup Grade & Subject Accountability Group All Students Grades 3- 8 ELA SWD Native American Asian Black (not Hispanic) Hispanic White ELL Econ Dis Mixed Race

13 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations  Determined in a similar manner as currently required under NCLB, with a focus on the academic achievement of the current NCLB subgroups  No longer determined for schools and districts, just for subgroups  Use limited to being only one of the indicators in determining Reward Schools and in determining if districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan for specific schools.  Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the third academic indicator requirement – science (3-8) and graduation rate.

Priority School Identification The following three groups of schools were identified as Priority Schools: 1.Were awarded a School Improvement Grant in the school year. 2.Had graduation rates below 60% for the four year Graduation Cohorts of 2004, 2005 & Have met all of the conditions described on the following slide:

School Identification Based on Combined ELA & Math Performance For High SchoolFor Elementary-Middle Level In Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring for the school year. Combined PI of 106 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in Combined PI of 111 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in Made a four point gain or less in its combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its PI. Made a ten point gain or less in its combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its PI. Had a combined median SGP in ELA and mathematics for the and school years combined for the All Students group of 50% or below. Had less than 50% of the accountability groups in the school with median SGPs that exceeded the statewide median SGP for that accountability group.

Focus District Identification Districts are rank ordered on their combined elementary- middle and high school ELA and math Performance Index (PI) for each of the accountability groups and then the bottom 5% are identified. Districts are rank ordered on their 4-Year Graduation rates for each accountability group in the Cohort of 2006, and then the bottom 5% are identified. The PI and graduation rate cut points are determined for each accountability group.

Reminder: A district with a priority school automatically becomes a Focus District. Exception: Accountability groups that have made progress are removed from consideration.

Cut Points for Identification Accountability Group Performance Index for Grades 3-8 and high school ELA & math (at or below) Year Graduation Rate (at or below) Amer. Indian/Pacific Islander11254 Asian11254 Black11254 Hispanic11254 White11254 Multiracial11254 Students w/ Disabilities7026 Limited English Proficient7728 Low-Income12256

Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups Student Growth Percentile (SGP) State Median for 2 Years SWDAm. Ind.AsianBlackHispWhiteLEPED

Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups Year Graduation Rate State Average SWDAm. Ind.AsianBlackHispWhiteLEPEDMixed Race

Reward Schools Methodology Reward Schools – Highest Performing Elementary/MiddleHigh School Adequate Yearly Progress Gap Closing Performance IndexGraduation Rate GrowthPerformance Index Bottom Quartile Student GrowthGraduating At-Risk Students

Reward Schools Methodology Reward Schools – High Progress Elementary/MiddleHigh School Performance Index Gap ClosingGraduation Rate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)Gap Closing GrowthAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Bottom Quartile Student GrowthGraduating At-Risk Students

13 New Accountability Designations 1.What are the new accountability designations? 2.What are their implications? 3.What impact could these designations have on your district or school?

3. Institutional vs. Student Growth

CriteriaInstitutionalStudent Growth MetricStudent Growth Percentile (SGP) Assessments used in calculations Grades 3-8 ELA & Math School years used Max. # prior yrs. results3 years Min. Req. for Inclusion of student results in comp. Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive grades 3a. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student How is it reported? How is it used? Median Student Growth Percentile: To give schools and districts credit for students on track to proficiency To remove from consideration schools as Priority Schools & districts as Focus Districts To qualify schools as reward schools Adjusted Mean Growth Percentile: To assign a HEDI category and a score 0-20 to the growth component of the APPR composite score for teachers of ELA & math in grades 4-8 and their principals Are there demographic adjustments? No. But separate median SGPs are computed for each NCLB accountability subgroup. Yes. Adjustments for Students with Disabilities, English language learners, or Low Income Students 3b. Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth

CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student Are Confidence Intervals Used? No. Yes, as part of determining HEDI classification for growth in terms of distinguishing between ineffective and developing and effective and highly effective teachers. Minimum Group size/Critical Threshold Median SGP computed for ELA or math if there are 30 or more scores for continuously enrolled students. Combined and school years SGP for ELA & math combined that are at or above the state median for ESEA accountability subgroups. Mean adjusted SGP computed if there are 16 or more students results who are continuously enrolled in ELA & math combined. Mean adjusted growth percentile above 39 for teachers and above 42 for principals, in addition to a high level of statistical confidence. 3c. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

The Future... ·Data Roll out of Educational Data Portal New longitudinal data measures New leading indicator measures Value-added teacher and principal evaluation metrics More focus on Growth vs. Proficiency

The Future... ·Standards and Assessment ·Tests aligned to Common Core New Common Scales for ELA and Math assessments New Proficiency standards New test development and integrity procedures New tests for special populations

The Future... ·Accountability New school and district accountability designations New system of supports and interventions ·Graduation Rates Predictive High School Success Measures Multiple pathways to graduation- more diploma options.

The Future

13 Review 1.History of ESEA 2.Changes in institutional accountability 3.New accountability designations 4.Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth 5. Future Directions

Ira Schwatrz: Assistant Commissioner of Accountability For further information on these topics: For archived ESEA Waiver Webinars: For additional APPR and Regents Reform Agenda Resources visit: For further information contact: