Education Outlook: Where are we headed?

“Wild West” Leadership Conference

June 18, 2010

Today’s Goals

• To provide you with an overview of:– The National Message– The Reauthorization of ESEA– Common Core Standards– State Issues– Items of Interest

What we are NOT going to talk about today…

FUNDING!

The National Agenda

So why do we care?

• Referenced in ALL competitive grants

• States were required to sign assurances they would address these areas to receive ARRA funding

Four Assurances

Raise standards and improve

assessments.

Recruit, retain & support effective educators, andensure equitable

distribution.

Build robust data systems

that track student progress

and improve practice.

Turn around low-performing schools, focusing on dropout factories and their

feeder schools.

Our Theory of Action for Reform

Rigorous Standards & Assessments

Rigorous Standards & Assessments

Great Teachers & Leaders

Great Teachers & Leaders

Effective Use of DataEffective Use of Data

Turning Around Low Achieving Schools

Turning Around Low Achieving Schools

College- and Career-Ready Students

College- and Career-Ready Students

Great Teachers and Great Leaders

Great Teachers and Great Leaders

Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

A Complete Education

A Complete Education

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students

Fostering Innovation & Excellence

Fostering Innovation & Excellence

Effective Teaching &

Learning

Effective Teaching &

Learning

ESEA ReauthorizationOverarching Principles

• Raise the bar for all students. Close the gap.

• Tight on goals. Loose on means.

• Foster innovation and reward success.

Summary of Reauthorization

• Blueprint was issued March 13.

• This is just the Administration’s proposal; no bill yet.

Core Areas for ESEA Reauthorization

College- and Career-Ready Students

A Complete Education

Great Teachers and Great Leaders

Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

Successful, Safe and Healthy Students

Fostering Innovation and Excellence

College and Career Readiness

• Plan would require states to adopt standards in English language arts and math that prepare students for college and career readiness.

• --States would have two options to meet this requirement: 1) coordinating with their public university systems or 2) collaborating with other states to develop common

standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative)

New Accountability System

--State accountability systems would recognize progress and reward success.

There would also be consequences for schools, districts and states not making progress.

--Plan refers to “performance targets” based on student growth and graduation rates, not the categories of proficiency currently used for accountability.

“Reward” Schools

• Those that are successful in reaching performance targets, closing achievement gaps and turning around low-performing schools would be recognized as “Reward” schools, districts and states. – Will be granted flexibility for local

improvement efforts– In other words, they will be “left alone”

Reward States, Districts, Schools

“Rewards may include financial rewards for the staff and students and development of and participation in “communities of practice” to share best practices and replicate successful strategies to assist lower-performing schools and districts. Rewards may also include flexibility in the use of ESEA funds and, as appropriate, competitive preference for Reward states, high-need Reward districts, and high-need Reward schools in some federal grant competitions. Reward districts will also be given flexibility in implementing interventions in their lowest-performing schools …”

“Challenge” Schools

• Those identified as “Challenge” schools, districtsand states would be required to make dramatic changes. Challenge schools are those that rankamong the state’s lowest-performing schools;however, there are several categories of challenge schools. – 1st category: Lowest 5% in student growth and

graduation– Required to use one of the four turn-around models

Challenge Schools

2nd category: The next five percent of low-performing schools will be identified in a warning category, and States and districts will implement research-based, locally-determined strategies to help them improve.

Challenge Schools

3rd Category: Schools that are not closing significant, persistent achievement gaps will constitute another category of Challenge schools.

In these schools, districts will be required to implement data-driven interventions to support those students who are farthest behind and close the achievement gap.

Data Systems

• Calls for comprehensive state and district data systems, including disaggregated data as we currently have.

• But it also calls for collecting information related to: 1) teaching and learning conditions; 2) school climate;3) student, teacher and school leader attendance; 4) disciplinary incidents;5) student, parent or school staff surveys.

Teacher & Principal Effectiveness

States would be required to develop definitions of what “effective” means.

--The plan also calls for state data systems that link information on teacher and principal preparation programs to job placement, as well as student growth and retention outcomes of their graduates.

--District-level evaluation systems would need to differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness, using at least three performance measures.

Concerns

• School Turn-Around – Provide for a 5th option which allows flexibility

• Competitive vs. Formula Funding– Maintain level of formula funding

• State Capacity – Increase state administration dollars

• College Ready Standards Implementation – Allow states to establish their own accountability

systems against the backdrop of certain core principles and by establishing a standing peer review process for proposed state systems

Common Core State Standards Initiative

• Initiative led by National Governors Association and the Council of State Chief School Officers

--While not a US Department of Ed initiative, the federal government is definitely pushing for the adoption of common standards.

Common Core

• Goal: To develop common standards in English-language arts and math. Standards are benchmarked to international standards to guarantee that the nation’s students are competitive in the global marketplace.

• Released June 2nd

What We Like About the Standards

1) Quality, or rigor, is there. --Standards are evidence-based--Informed by best models and state standards in country--Informed by experience of teachers, content experts, researchers--Aligned with college and work expectations

2) Allow for consistency across states3) Align well with our current states standards in

English-language arts, and those we were pursuing for math

What Are Our Concerns With Common Core

• Implementation!– Will require a new assessment system– Need time to infuse new standards– Will states be given a grace period from

accountability?

Next Steps

--Staff needs to review FINAL standards

--Need to get question of assessment answered before recommending adoption

--Need to determine timeline for adopting – one that takes into consideration all the work (PD) that needs to be done if we do adopt

--Take to Board of Education for public input

--Ultimately, believe DOE will recommend adoption once questions answered

State Initiatives

Teacher Pay and Evaluation• SB 24 requires a workgroup to develop

teaching standards and a voluntary evaluation instrument

• Discussions regarding measuring teacher performance through student growth– Lacking data system to link – Lacking appropriate assessments in all areas– Have been modeling through TIF grant

State Initiatives

• Importance of high school experience in today’s world: rigor and relevance--New graduation requirements (rigor and

flexibility)

--Personal Learning Plans

--More project-based learning (capstone experiences, service learning)

--Keeping kids in school until 18 – work that’s been done by schools to ramp up for this!

State Initiatives

• Teacher preparation --Time to change the way we train teachers?

--Bush Foundation grant – University of South Dakota

--If successful, could be a model for all SD teacher prep programs

State Initiatives

• Analyzing state assessment data and addressing specific concerns- NAEP and D-Step data show common low

performance in two specific reading standards- New PD opportunities will be created over the

next year to focus specifically on those areas that should help teachers to better prepare students specifically in higher order thinking skills

And you should know…

Changes to AYP

• Graduation rates increase to 85% (up from 80%) effective immediately this year OR to must improve by 2 percentage points to make AYP in other academic indicator

• Minimum N size has increased from 10 to 25

Common course numbering• Implementing into PRF system this fall and

into Infinite Campus January 2011• The new system will provide two key things:

– a common understanding of the content of courses

– consistency in student transcripts across the state.

• Teacher Leadership Conference– Merging with Systems Change – Will honor district Teachers of the Year and

will announce the new one– Will also invite other award winners– Hope to encourage districts to participate in a

yearly recognition of a Teacher of the Year

Questions?