1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) PROGRAM UPDATES REVISED AUGUST 4, 2015 Veronica Tate, Director Office of Program Administration and Accountability Virginia Department of Education 2015 Coordinators’ Academy

2. Updates Regarding: - ESEA Reauthorization - ESEA Flexibility - Title I Annual Measurable Objectives - Federal Program Monitoring Updates - Title II Teacher Equity Plan - Title III Statewide Consortium

3. REAUTHORIZATION

4. ESEA Reauthorization – As of July Two bills approved in respective chambers:  House: H.R. 5 – Student Success Act of 2015  Senate: S. 1177 – Every Child Achieves Act of 2015  Contentious issues up for debate in conference committee:  Governance – federal, SEA, Governor?  Assessment – same as NCLB or flexible?  Accountability for school improvement  Title I funding formula and portability  Parent opt-out

5. ESEA FLEXIBILITY

6. ESEA Flexibility Plan – 2015 Renewal  January 2015 – Virginia submits 4-year renewal application  March 2015 – Plan is approved through 2018- 2019 school year  Changes:  Revision to focus school exit criteria  Replacement of Student Growth Percentiles with Value Tables

7. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) MATHEMATICS AMOs (Percent Passing) Year 1 AMOYear 2 AMOYear 3 AMOYear 4 AMOYear 5 AMOYear 6 AMOGap Points Closed Accountability Year2012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-20172017-2018 Assessment Year2011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-2017 All Students6164666870 73 12 Gap Group 1 (Combined)4752576368 73 26 Gap Group 2 (Black)455156626728 Gap Group 3 (Hispanic)525660656921 Students with Disabilities334149576540 English Language Learners394653596634 Economically Disadvantaged475257636826 White68697071725 Asian82Continuous progress AMOs Remain the Same

8. READING AMOs (Percent Passing) Year 1 AMOYear 2 AMOYear 3 AMOYear 4 AMOYear 5 AMOYear 6 AMOGap Points Closed Accountability Year2012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-20172017-2018 Assessment Year2011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-2017 All Students8566697275 78 12 Gap Group 1 (Combined)7652596572 78 26 Gap Group 2 (Black)764957647129 Gap Group 3 (Hispanic)805360667225 Students with Disabilities593042546648 English Language Learners764452616934 Economically Disadvantaged765259657226 White90747576774 Asian9280Continuous progress ESEA Flexibility Plan – AMOs AMOs Remain the Same

9. A subgroup can meet an AMO by achieving a pass rate: In the current year equal to or higher than the current year’s target; Using a three-year average equal to or higher than the current year’s target; or That reduces the failure rate 10% or more as compared to the prior year. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Meeting AMOs

10. Continuous Improvement (CI) Provision Subgroups with a higher Year 1 AMO target than the Year 6 target that: Then… Subgroups with a higher Year 1 AMO target than the Year 6 target that: Then… Receive a status of Yes – CI. Meet the Year 1 AMO target Make continuous improvement

11. Maintain Progress (MP) Provision - “No Backslide” Meet or exceed the prior year’s pass rate Stay within five percent of the prior year’s pass rate Receive a status of Yes – MP.

12. ESEA Flexibility Plan – School Status Preliminary reports for 2015-2016 available in the Single Sign-On for Web Systems (SSWS) in the Federal Annual Measurable Objectives (FAMO) application Schools designated as: Met All Federal AMOs; or Met All Federal AMOs – HE*; or Did Not Meet All Federal AMOs * All subgroups meet the AMOs and at least one subgroup meets the continuous improvement or maintain progress provision (known as the Higher Expectations as approved in the 2014 ESEA Flexibility Plan Submission)

13. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria Amendment A focus school may exit the status after two years if:  The proficiency gap group(s)for which the school was originally identified meet(s) the AMOs for two consecutive years; and  The school no longer falls into the bottom 10 percent of Title I schools for the subsequent school year based on proficiency gap points. ELIMINATE KEEP

14. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria Amendment U.S. Department of Education Request: At least one measure of academic progress must be included in the criteria to exit

15. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria Virginia’s Response to U.S. Department of Education Request:  The school has made academic progress by decreasing the overall proficiency gap points at the end of the second year of identification; and  The school no longer falls into the bottom 10 percent of Title I schools for the subsequent school year based on proficiency gap points.

16. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Student Growth Data SGPs measure norm-referenced growth by comparing individual student performance to that of other students with similar score histories.  Must be calculated annually  Cannot be prepared until all statewide data are available  Data not available until the early fall of the year following assessments  Cannot be calculated for alternate assessments Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) Discontinued

17. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Student Growth Data Value tables measure growth based the number of sublevels an individual student moves on state assessments from one year to the next.  Easier to understand and explain than SGPs  Available earlier than SGP data  Account for each student who is closing the achievement gap by moving one step closer to demonstrating proficiency  Can be applied to alternate assessments Value Tables Available in 2015-2016

18. ESEA Flexibility Plan – Student Growth Data Example of Value Table Gray – No Movement Green – Moved one level Yellow – Moved two levels Blue – Moved three levels

19. FEDERAL PROGRAM MONITORING

20. Federal Program Monitoring Updates Beginning with the 2014-2015 monitoring year:  Title I, III, and Homeless – 3-year cycle  Title II – 5-year cycle Risk factors used to determine schedule. Examples:  Improvement status of schools  Previous monitoring findings  Date of last monitoring  Failure to spend down funds in a timely fashion  Number of denied reimbursement requests Risk-Based Monitoring Schedule

21. Federal Program Monitoring Updates  47 Divisions monitored for Title I, III, and Homeless  24 Divisions had one or more findings, such as:  Failure to submit funding applications, revisions, or amendments in a timely fashion Initial submission deadline – July 1 Reallocation amendments, as necessary  Title I Teachers not highly-qualified 2014-2015 Frequent Findings

22. TEACHER EQUITY PLAN

23. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan  ESEA required all students to be taught by highly qualified teachers by 2006.  States were required to create plans to ensure that students from low-income families and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by underqualified, inexperienced, or out-of-field teachers. Historical Background

24. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan New plans due to USED by June 1, 2015, with the following components: Analysis of state data to identify equity gaps Consideration of root causes of equity gaps Identification of strategies linked to root causes Engagement of stakeholders Process for ongoing monitoring and reporting Historical Background

25. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Since 2006, Virginia school divisions have reduced the gap of highly qualified teachers between high- poverty and low poverty…  Elementary schools by 1.3%  Secondary schools by 3.3% Encouraging Progress since 2006 1.9% to.6% 4.6% to 1.3%

26. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Since 2006, Virginia school divisions have reduced the gap of highly qualified teachers between high- minority and low minority schools by 2% Encouraging Progress since 2006 2.2% to.2%

27. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan  Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) by School, Division, State  Free/Reduced Lunch Data  Student Enrollment by Ethnicity  Title I Schools – Focus/Priority  School and division level performance: Meeting Federal AMOs State Accreditation  Special Education Enrollment by School/Division  English Learner Enrollment by School/Division Data Elements Analyzed

28. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results Percent Inexperienced All Schools4.8 High-poverty school divisions5.8 Low-poverty school divisions4.5 Gap1.3 High-minority school divisions5.8 Low-minority school divisions3.8 Gap2.0 Experienced Teachers by Poverty and Minority Quartiles

29. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results In 2013-2014:  Sixteen divisions served English Language Learners (ELLs), but had zero teachers with ESL endorsement  Number of ELL students ranged from 1-84; Mean of 19.8  ELL population growth (1 year) in these divisions ranged up to 76%  Fourteen other divisions had at least one endorsed ESL teacher, yet still had some classes taught by non-endorsed teachers

30. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results Endorsed teachers on staff, but some ELLs taught by unendorsed teachers Zero endorsed ESL teachers

31. Percent Divisions With Unendorsed ESL Teachers - 2013-2014 All School Divisions21.9 High-poverty school divisions24.2 Low-poverty school divisions18.2 Gap6.0 High-minority school divisions21.2 Low-minority school divisions18.2 Gap3.0 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results ESL-Endorsed Teachers by Poverty and Minority Quartiles

32. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results Highly Qualified Teachers According to Content Area and LEA Poverty Quartile ArtElementaryEnglishForeign Language History/ Social Science MathematicsMusicScienceSpecial Education State 99.499.398.999.198.797.899.997.899.1 High- Poverty LEAs 99.0 98.997.398.698.999.796.097.3 Low- Poverty LEAs 99.599.699.299.698.898.199.898.799.7 Gap.5.6.32.3.2-.8.1.72.4

33. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Data Analysis Results ArtElementaryEnglishForeign Language History/ Social Science MathematicsMusicScienceSpecial Education State 99.499.398.999.198.797.899.997.899.1 High- Minority LEAs 99.399.098.898.998.396.599.797.298.2 Low- Minority LEAs 99.6 98.998.099.097.899.796.1100 Gap.3.6.1-.9.71.30-1.11.8 Highly Qualified Teachers According to Content Area and LEA Minority Quartile

34. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan FOCUS AREAS Experience:  Inexperienced teachers in high-minority divisions Out of Field:  ESL endorsed teachers in high-poverty divisions  Foreign language teachers in high-poverty divisions  Special education teachers in high-poverty and high-minority divisions  Mathematics teachers in high-minority divisions

35. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Root Cause Analysis External Stakeholder Meeting – Friday, April 24  Facilitated by the national Center for Great Teachers and Leaders  59 attendees:  Division administrators, specialists, teachers, and support personnel  Higher education representatives  Professional and parent organizations  State staff Purpose: To determine…  Likely root causes of teacher equity gaps; and  Possible strategies to address gaps

36. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Common Root Causes: Categories Teacher Preparation Programs Recruitment Challenges Working Conditions Professional Development Offerings

37. 2015 Teacher Equity Plan Potential Strategies to Address Common Root Causes: Highlights Teacher Preparation Programs: Strengthen prep programs Strengthen regulatory oversight Teacher Preparation Programs: Strengthen prep programs Strengthen regulatory oversight Recruitment Challenges: Public service campaign and recruitment tools Diversify hiring practices Working Conditions: Strengthen leadership at high- needs schools Identify sources of stress Professional Development Offerings: Strengthen pre- and in-service support Collaborate with regionally- based IHE to enhance offerings

38. TITLE III STATEWIDE CONSORTIUM

39. Title III Statewide Consortium Title III Consortium Rule Any division receiving less than $10,000 in Title III funds must join a consortium with other divisions Member funds must total or exceed $10,000 One division must serve as the fiscal lead

40. Title III Statewide Consortium 2014-2015 Participation: FIRST YEAR 8 divisions remained in independent consortia 5 divisions had: No ELLs in 2013-2014 – no Title III allocation; or Rejected funding for 2014-2015 62 divisions joined statewide consortium Virginia Tech is the fiscal lead Total Allocation = Approx. $267,000

41. Title III Statewide Consortium 2015-2016 Participation: Second Year 4 divisions remained in independent consortia 13 divisions had: No ELLs in 2014-2015 – no Title III allocation; or Rejected funding for 2015-2016 63 divisions joined statewide consortium Virginia Tech remains the fiscal lead

42. CONTACT INFORMATION Office of Program Administration and Accountability VERONICA TATE - Director (804) 225-2870 or veronica.tate@doe.virginia.govveronica.tate@doe.virginia.gov DIANE JAY - Associate Director (804) 225-2905 or diane.jay@doe.virginia.govdiane.jay@doe.virginia.gov