EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ... · EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ... Joana Chacon-3rd year teacher ... Educational Opportunity

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE July 31, 2012

Educational Service District 113

6005 Tyee Dr SW

Tumwater, Washington 98512

8:30 am - 5:15 pm

8:30-8:45 Introductions and Updates

8:45-9:30 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver

Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent of Special Programs and Federal Accountability

Sue Cohn, Ed.D. School Improvement Specialist

9:30-10:15 Committee Participation Update

Compensation Technical Working Group-Frieda Takamura, Sili Savusa (15 min –

presentation & questions)

Quality Education Council-Adie Simmons (15 min – presentation & questions)

Data Governance Work Group-James Smith (15 min – presentation & questions)

10:15-10:55 State Board of Education Presentation on Graduation Requirements and Achievement Index

Sarah Rich, Policy Director

Linda Drake, Senior Policy Analyst

10:55-11:40 Legislative and Budget Update

Kelci Karl-Robinson, Director of Financial Policy and Research

11:40-12:00 Public Comment

12:00-1:15 Working Lunch-Continuance of morning conversations and EOGOAC Statutory Charge and

Policy Recommendations Review and Discussion

Maria Flores, Associate Director of Innovation, Research and Policy

1:15-2:00 The Parent’s Union

Mary Bergstrom, Director of Membership

Eddie Sumlin, Associate Director of Membership

2:00-2:45 Teach for America-Puget Sound

Lindsay Hill, Executive Director

2:45-3:30 The Martinez Foundation

Holli Martinez, Co-Founder and President

Evie Livingston, Program Director

Martinez Foundation Fellows: Anthony Longoria-3rd

year teacher at Garfield HS, Monico

DeLeon-4th year teacher at Selah School District, Joana Chacon-3

rd year teacher at

Mercer Middle School, Marina Pita-2nd

year teacher Concord Elementary

3:30-4:15 Washington Educator Skills Test-Basic and Endorsement

Patti Larriva, Director of Educator Assessments, Professional Educator Standards Board

David Brenna, Senior Policy Analyst, Professional Educator Standards Board

4:15-5:00 Recruiting Washington Teachers program

Mea Moore, Director of Educator Pathways, Professional Educator Standards Board

5:00-5:15 Public Comment

Meeting Notes Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee July 31, 2012 Committee Members and alternates in attendance: Adie Simmons, Office of the Education Ombudsman (OEO) Andrew Kelly, Alternate for Randy Dorn Ben Kodama, Alternate for Frieda Takamura Fiasili Savusa, Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs (Pacific American) Frieda Takamura, Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs (Asian American) Dr. James Smith, Alternate for Wanda Billingsly Lillian Ortiz-Self, Commission on Hispanic American Affairs Representative John McCoy, House of Representatives Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, House of Representatives Senator Steve Litzow, Senate Sharonne Navas, Alternate for Lillian Ortiz-Self Wanda Billingsly, Commission on African American Affairs Staff and Public in attendance: Anthony Longoria, the Martinez Foundation Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent of Special Programs and Federal Accountability Dave Powell, Stand for Children David Brenna, Senior Policy Analyst, PESB Donna Hanson, Executive Assistant- OSPI Ed Prince, Commission on African American Affairs Eddie Sumlin, Associate Director of Membership, The Parent’s Union Evie Livingston, the Martinez Foundation Holli Martinez, Co-Founder and President- the Martinez Foundation Jackie LeSage, Samoan National Nurses Association Joana Chacon, the Martinez Foundation Kelci Karl-Robinson, Director of Financial Policy and Research Lidia Mori, Senate Early Learning and K12 Community Linda Drake, Senior Policy Analyst State Board of Education Lindsay Hill, Executive Director, Teach for America-Puget Sound Maggie Wilkens, LEV Maria Flores, Associate Director, Innovation Research and Policy-OSPI Marina Pita, the Martinez Foundation Mary Bergstrom, Director of Membership-The Parent’s Union Mea Moore, Director of Educator Pathways, PESB Monica De Leon, the Martinez Foundation Patti Larriva, Director of Educator Assessments, PESB Rosalund Jenkins, League of Education Voters Sarah Rich, Policy Director- State Board of Education Sue Cohn, Ed.D School Improvement Specialist Committee Members not in attendance: Bernard Thomas, Tribal Nations Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs Superintendent Randy Dorn, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Representative Kevin Parker, House of Representatives

Meeting Notes Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee July 31, 2012 Senator Rosemary McAuliffe, Senate Senator Steve Hobbs, Senate Superintendent Randy Dorn, OSPI Introductions and Updates The meeting was called to order at 8:39 a.m. by the Committee Chairman, Representative Santos. Committee introductions were made. Presenters and public introductions were made. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Presenter: Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent of Special Programs and Federal Accountability Presenter: Sue Cohn, Ed.D. School Improvement Specialist

Inefficient to disaggregate data too broadly. Problematic not to have further disaggregated data for the Asian Pacific Islander population. Clarify which line represents the Hispanic population. Important to include disaggregated data of African American student populations as well.

Charter schools are on the horizon. We should mandate 100 percent success versus 50 percent success for student populations. What do I tell my community about what can be perceived as lower standards?

The committee and communities need to be provided a list of acronyms. The Department of Early Learning has a model that could serve as an example.

Was there an analyses conducted about the goal (50 percent vs. 100 percent). If you haven’t done the analyses to meet 100 percent by 2020, how do you know if it is doable?

Follow up on social/emotional learning and requests for PBIS and social/emotional services. OSPI has said that Title I funds are not to be used for these types of services.

It feels like we are moving the achievement gap to a different system. We need to understand how we incorporate the research and information from the various communities.

Committee Participation Update Presenter: Frieda Takamura, Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs (Asian American) Presenter: Fiasili Savusa, Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs (Pacific American)

Compensation Technical Work Group- A request was made for a full presentation of the findings of the Work Group to this committee in the future.

The final Report is posted on the OSPI Web site. Maria will send the link to the report to the committee members.

Presenter: Adie Simmons, Office of the Education Ombudsman (OEO) The council last met in December 2011, with the next meeting scheduled for August. They will connect

with the Compensation Technical Work Group at that time. There was a discussion of the QEC recommendations including Early Learning and Transitional Bilingual

Program. In addition, it was noted that the McCleary discussion has the possibility to change the dynamics.

Presenter: Dr. James Smith, Alternate for Wanda Billingsly This committee is definitely data driven. It is charged with ensuring the committee makes data

understandable, with an effort to eliminate the duplication of reporting requirements by the state and federal government.

We need people who can interpret the data and help communities understand the individual student’s needs.

Meeting Notes Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee July 31, 2012

What type of progress is the committee making in getting data from the districts? o There is a burden on schools/districts to generate data. Much of the data being generated is to

satisfy the state and the federal government requirements. We are striving to avoid some of the duplication and satisfy the need for the information.

It’s a mix on how much data the schools are providing. It depends on training and resources. Schools need a standardized system for reporting data; however, there is no funding source to meet this need.

We need data which shows the disciplinary impacts on different student groups particularly students of color and special education. Also, we need collection of data around the diversity of the work force in schools and what type of preparation they receive.

State Board of Education Presentation on Graduation Requirements and Achievement Index Presenter: Sarah Rich, Policy Director Presenter: Linda Drake, Senior Policy Analyst Sarah Rich, Policy Director, SBE. Washington Achievement Index

The comment was made that it would be helpful to see the data separated by elementary and high school. Another comment on the grace period provided for ELL students- The current index takes into account three years of data for ELL students. Federal laws states one year proficiency.

Are there provisions in place for students with other identified language deficiencies? Are there accommodations available?

o Growth Index is included in the accountability system. There are concerns about increasing the number of graduates without addressing the amount of

remediation. Raised concerns regarding the shortage of math teachers, and appreciated the comment of not marginalizing students. A frequent concern from parents is that graduation requirements are not aligned with the college admission standards.

Legislative and Budget Update Presenter: Kelci Karl-Robinson, Director of Financial Policy and Research

We need to identify areas where we should request full presentations to the committee. Request for a full presentation on Collaborative Schools and the Truancy Laws and a full presentation on the Educator Sign Language Interpreter Standards.

Request for a list of acronyms to share with the various communities.

Public Comment: The public was invited to provide comment. No members of the public asked to speak. Working Lunch-Continuance of morning conversations and EOGOAC Statutory Charge and Policy Recommendations Review and Discussion Presenter: Maria Flores, Associate Director of Innovation, Research and Policy

SBE chart needs to be disaggregated including higher education and community and technical colleges. We are not mandated to provide an interim report, but there is value in the report in sharing information

with our communities. We provided an interim report to members earlier this year. The annual report is a legislative mandate.


The committee needs to review what OSPI is using in terms of cultural competence and the standards we are asking teachers to use. How can the committee get this information? Each ethic committee group should have received a request to appoint a member to the Student Achievement Council.

Reminder that when we talk about cultural competent staff, we need to address retention of culturally competent staff.

Mandate to support and facilitate parent and community involvement and outreach. There is a lack of uniformity across the state about what this means.

We need cultural relevance for each group. Add the administrators/principals who also experience the same type of marginalization. What types of mentoring programs are put in place for teachers and administrators?

The Parent’s Union Presenter: Mary Bergstrom, Director of Membership Presenter: Eddie Sumlin, Associate Director of Membership

The Parents Union is a new nonprofit founded by Scott Oki. Scott Oki wrote Outrageous Learning. They are a values-based organization with a foundation of family value. The organization launched in January. Their web site will be available in September with parent resources. They serve as a navigator for parents directing them to resources.

Five essential ingredients for each student’s success: a great teacher, empowered school leaders, great curriculum, safe school environment and engaged and empowered parents and community.

One goal is uniting a diverse community of parents to help their students achieve in school while placing value in the parents’ contributions.

There were several questions submitted by members attempting to fully understand this organization and their purpose. Suggestions were made to the presenters that the organization needs to do their homework about how to approach the different communities, particularly non-English speaking communities.

You’re not a direct service organization or a political advocacy group. Still struggling with understanding what the organization does. Need to understand how you communicate with the communities. Need to do your homework about how to approach the different communities, particularly non-English speaking communities.

Teach for America-Puget Sound Presenter: Lindsay Hill, Executive Director

Teach for America is a 21 year old organization with 10,000 teachers this year. One-third of their teachers are identified as teachers of color. Teachers are located in schools in Seattle School District, Federal Way School District, and new this year to the Renton School District.

What is your retention rate of teachers of color vs. white teachers? o Seventy-eight percent stay after their first year, and ninety-two percent remain after their

second year. These numbers are based on national-level data. There are tensions around this program with teachers and teachers union. Can you talk a bit about this?

o All teachers are members of their teacher unions, and TFA works with the Washington Education Association (WEA) as well. TFA applicants go through the same hiring process as other candidates. Teachers work hard to collaborate with all the teachers. There are long term teachers from this program.


Educational system has a hard time recruiting diverse staff. What is your secret to recruiting a diverse staff? What other strategies do you use? o Partnering with colleges and student representatives in all fields since they are not just focusing on

the education field. The Martinez Foundation Presenter: Holli Martinez, Co-Founder and President Evie Livingston, Program Director Martinez Foundation Presenter: Anthony Longoria-3rd year teacher at Garfield HS Presenter: Monica DeLeon-4th year teacher at Selah School District Presenter: Joana Chacon-3rd year teacher at Mercer Middle School Presenter: Marina Pita-2nd year teacher Concord Elementary

Their organization is four years old, with 50 fellows currently teaching or in the pipeline to teach. You speak our passion. Can you speak to your secret to retention? What important components need to

be present? o Research has found inductive supports are the secret.

How do you keep from becoming assimilated by the system? o There is a certain level of assimilation necessary to achieve, but our Foundation provides a safe place.

In order to increase the diverse pool of educators, we have to address the money issue. It is important as educators of color to know who you are because that is how you bridge to your students of color. There is an authentication. Expect an invitation for future presentations to the legislature, etc.

Washington Educator Skills Test-Basic and Endorsement Presenter: Patti Larriva, Director of Educator Assessments, Professional Educator Standards Board Presenter: David Brenna, Senior Policy Analyst, Professional Educator Standards Board

PESB receives yearly updates on the West B and those who are having difficulty in passing the test. The dilemma is how to craft a policy that doesn’t lower the standards and yet still has a chance of

working. The West B was a biased test and hopes that it has been corrected. Have you done any research with

students to find out why they aren’t entering the teacher pool? o We have antidotal information about why this is happening; among the reasons is test fatigue.

There needs to be a MOU with the K12 system and higher education to identify strong candidates for teaching and help prepare students to take the West B. Many students were asked if they were recruited and most said no.

The testing parts can be taken at separate times, and this is helpful for some candidates to be more successful in passing the test. Sometimes the registration fee and test fee can be a barrier, as there are limited numbers of vouchers available at the college to assist with fees.

Recruiting Washington Teachers program Presenter: Mea Moore, Director of Educator Pathways, Professional Educator Standards Board

They are attempting to address the disparity between the diversity of teachers versus the student population.

Does Western Washington University fund its own program? o Funding is some CTE money and teachers are doing their work outside of the classroom without

stipends. Most of money goes to support summer college activities.


Why did North Seattle quit? o North Seattle had an incredibly ambitious program including four high schools. It became logistically

and financially impossible for North Seattle to manage the program. The best model seems to be focused in one high school.

Public Comment: The public was invited to provide comment. No members of the public asked to speak. With no further action, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee

July 31, 2012

McCleary Supreme Court Decision: “The State has not complied with its Article IX, Section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington”

Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over the case to “monitor implementation of the reforms under ESHB 2261”

8 legislators will assist legal counsel in the submittal of periodic reports summarizing the legislative actions taken towards implementing reforms

2

HB 2824 created a joint task force with 8 legislative members and 3 Governor appointees to: ◦ Recommend one preferred alternative for a

permanent funding mechanism to fund basic education

Should the funding option include no new revenues, the task force must identify what areas in the budget must be eliminated or reduced

Final Report due 12/31/12

3

ESSB 5895 clarifies requirements for new teacher and principal evaluation systems initiated through E2SSB 6696 in 2010:

• New evaluation system must start by 2013–14 school year and be fully operational by 2015-16 school year

• All provisional and probationary classroom teachers must receive comprehensive evaluation in 2013-14

• OSPI to create rules:

• Sept. 1, 2012 - Identification of three instructional and three leadership frameworks

• Dec. 1, 2012 - Prescribe a common method for calculating the comprehensive and focused evaluations

4

$5,767,000 appropriated for FY 13 to: • Provide evaluator training for all principals and

assistant principals through OSPI (Beginning August 2012)

• Provide additional regional implementation grants (RIG) for district collaboration and evaluation model development through ESDs (Beginning September 2012)

• Provide grants to pilot districts to continue studying specific aspects of evaluation design and implementation issues

5

ESHB 2799 creates the Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success Pilot for colleges of education and school districts to collaborate in implementing research-based models of instruction and professional development in one low achieving elementary school

Applications due to OSPI and PESB by July 1, 2012 – 6 applicants chosen by August 2012 and 3 receive $500,000 grant for 2012-13

6

ESHB 2586 made no significant policy changes: • All state funded full-day kindergarten classrooms

are required to administer the assessment unless a waiver is approved

• Did not ramp-up implementation faster as is assumed in the federal Race to the Top application

• Other districts may voluntarily participate

• New work group to address implementation issues

• $1 million additional state funding provided to assist school districts in administration

7

$250,000 for one-time start-up costs for 10 high schools to offer advanced project lead the way courses in the 2012-13 school year

$150,000 for one-time equipment and curriculum costs for 2 skill centers to implement aerospace and manufacturing programs

$300,000 for start-up costs for 12 high schools to implement an aerospace assembler training program by spring semester of 2012-13

8

New Grants FY13

Amount

Urban School Turnaround Initiative $2,000,000

AP/IB Exam Subsidies for Low-Income Students $100,000

CTE Student Leadership Organizations $100,000

Total $2,200,000

9

A new funding model that provides a scaled funding formula based on levels of English language proficiency and supplemental funding for students that exit TBIP will not be implemented in 2012-13

However, ◦ OSPI is required to submit a budget request for the

2013-15 biennium; and the

◦ Education funding taskforce is to provide recommendations for a revised model

10

PESB is provided $25,000 to develop standards and identify interpreter assessments that: ◦ Include both written and performance assessments,

◦ Is offered by a national organization

◦ Assess more than one sign system

PESB will make the standards and assessments available for school district use

11

ESB 5974 includes national STEM exams to the list that qualify for postsecondary credit

HB 2160 requires PESB to include the integration of STEM in the teacher certification standards, assessment and renewal requirements

SSB 6041 adds elementary schools to the potential STEM lighthouse designees

12

E2SHB 2337 directs OSPI to: ◦ Develop an easily accessible, free library of openly

licensed courseware aligned with the Common Core standards

◦ Advertise the availability of openly licensed courseware to school districts

◦ Provide professional development programs regarding the creation, use and continuous improvement of open courseware

13

E2SHB 2483 creates the Student Achievement Council as a state agency with nine voting members to: ◦ Propose statewide goals for increasing educational

attainment in Washington

◦ Propose improvements and innovations in higher education

◦ Identify solutions to transition issues for students

◦ Conduct research on educational attainment

◦ Connect the work of OSPI, SBE, PESB, SBCTC, WTECB, and institutions of higher education

14

Foster Youth are automatically enrolled in the College Bound scholarship program up to age 21

OSPI, in consultation with DSHS and OAC, shall submit an annual report regarding the implementation of the state’s plan for cross-system collaboration to promote educational stability and improve educational outcomes for foster children

School districts must waive courses required for graduation if similar coursework was completed in another school district or provide justification for denial

15

Mandatory truancy petition age requirement reduced from 17 to 16 year olds

Truancy petitions must include information on the child’s academic status

Court may not issue a bench warrant for a child who fails to appear at a hearing on an initial truancy petition

Once court assumes jurisdiction, the school district must periodically update the court about the child’s academic status

16

17

Final bills may be obtained at the State Legislature website at www.leg.wa.gov

Please email additional questions to: [email protected]

18

http://www.leg.wa.gov/

mailto:[email protected]



Washington State Board of Education 1

The Washington Achievement Index

Sarah Rich, Policy Director

Washington State Board of Education

July 2012


SBE Role

•ESHB 2261 (2009):

• Create an Index that would complement and

potentially replace to the federal accountability system.

• Provide Index data for recognition of schools and for

schools and districts to self-assess their progress.

•E2SSB 6696 (2010):

• Use the Index to recognize schools for closing

achievement gaps.

• Use the Index to identify schools in need of

improvement, including non-Title I schools.

• Create a Required Action Process for persistently low

achieving schools.

• Develop an accountability framework.


Opportunity to:

1. Replace federal accountability system with a coherent,

aligned state system to support continuous

improvement

2. Fulfill legislative expectations

3. Incorporate student growth data for a fairer

representation of school performance

4. Focus on achievement and opportunity gaps

Why Revise the Index?


Current Index

TIER INDEX RANGE

Exemplary 7.00-5.50

Very Good 5.49-5.00

Good 4.99-4.00

Fair 3.99-2.50

Struggling 2.49-1.00


Index Revisions

Will Include

• Percent of students who meet state standards in reading, math, writing, and science

• Graduation Rates

• Student growth

• AMOs by disaggregated subgroup

May Include

• Workforce and postsecondary readiness indicators

• English Language acquisition

• Improvement over time

Changes

• Peers

• English Language Learner data


Improving our Evaluation of School

Performance

• Our current accountability systems answer the question,

“How many students are proficient?”

• Adding student growth lets us answer the question,

“How much are the students growing?”

6


Student Growth Percentiles

7


Achievement and Accountability Workgroup

Association of WA School

Principals

WA Association of School

Administrators

WA State School Directors

Association

WA Education Association WA State Parent-Teacher

Association

Partnership for Learning

Governor’s Office on Indian

Affairs

WA State Commission on African

American Affairs

WA State Commission on

Hispanic Affairs

League of Education Voters Stand for Children Workforce Training and Education

Coordinating Board

State Board for Community and

Technical Colleges

Educational Service Districts WA Student Achievement Council

Bilingual Education Advisory

Committee

Educational Opportunity Gap

Oversight Accountability

Committee

Special Education Advisory

Committee

Department of Early Learning Governor’s Office WA State Commission on Asian

Pacific American Affairs

SBE and OSPI are seeking input from a broad group of stakeholders


AAW Input

Phase I: October 2012 – April 2013

• What performance indicators should be included in the

revised Index?

• How should the Index measure opportunity and achievement

gaps?

• How should performance indicators be weighted, and what

targets should be set?

Phase II: June 2013 – December 2013

• What should a state accountability framework include?

• What state and local models for intervention should be

employed?


AAW Input Process


July 2012:

AAW Charter and

Resolution

Nov 2012:

Performance

Indicators

Jan 2013:

Sub-Indicators and Prototype

Index

Mar- May 2013:

Targets, Weighting

July 2013: Approve Index

Sept 2013: Adopt Index

Fall 2013: new Index

launched

Timeline

11

ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST

Background

Highlights of Principle 2

School Identification

Requirements

Supports & Services

July 31, 2012

Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent, OSPI

Sue Cohn, School Improvement Specialist, OSPI

ESEA Flexibility

• Share background for ESEA Flexibility Request

• Describe highlights of Principle 2

• Outline criteria used for each classification of

schools identified through Principle 2

• Share requirements for identified schools and

their districts and support/services OSPI will

provide

• Respond to questions

GOALS FOR WEBINAR

2

ESEA Flexibility

BACKGROUND FOR

ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST

3

ESEA Flexibility

WHY DID WASHINGTON STATE APPLY?

This is the right decision for Washington State. Over 1176

schools and 113 districts across our state were identified as “in

improvement” based on 2010-11 state assessments. So we

know our current AYP system doesn’t work.

We need a new way to measure progress and provide resources

to support our work. This request gives us the opportunity to

set new annual learning targets and frees up to $58 million

across our state to address the needs of struggling students and

schools. It provides the flexibility Washington needs to ensure

ALL students graduate with college- and career-ready skills.

Randy Dorn

Superintendent of Public Instruction

4

ESEA Flexibility

WHAT DOES ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE

FROM STATES?

1. Ensure college- and career-ready expectations for all

students (Common Core State Standards [CCSS] and

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium [SBAC] in

Washington)

2. Implement state-developed system of differentiated

recognition, accountability, and support

3. Support effective instruction and leadership (Teacher and

Principal Evaluation Project [TPEP] in Washington)

4. Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on school

districts by the State

5

ESEA Flexibility

WHAT DOES ESEA FLEXIBILITY PROVIDE FOR

STATES?

Highlights:

1. Flexibility to determine new ambitious and achievable

annual targets for reading, mathematics, and graduation

rates.

2. Elimination of AYP determinations and associated

sanctions for schools in improvement, including 20% set-

aside of Title I, Part A funds for Public School Choice and

Supplemental Education Services and 10% set-aside for

professional development for schools.

3. Elimination of associated sanctions for districts in

improvement and the 10% set-aside for professional

development for districts.

6

ESEA Flexibility Package USED/OSPI

STAKEHOLDER INPUT COMPLETED – House Education Committee

– Title I Committee of Practitioners

– District Superintendents in Skagit

County and within Educational

Service Districts (ESD) 105, 113,

and 114

– ESEA Waivers Stakeholders

Group

– Tribal Leaders Congress

– OSPI Cabinet

– State Board of Education (SBE)

meeting

– Education Opportunity Gap

Oversight and Accountability

Committee (EOGOAC)

– CCSSO pre-review

– ESEA Flexibility Webinars

– ESD 101, ESD 113, and Puget

Sound ESD Title I Directors

– Special Education Advisory

Council (SEAC)

– The Affiliated Tribes of

Northwest Indians (ATNI)

– Bilingual Education Advisory

Committee (BEAC)

– Private School Advisory

Committee (PSAC)

7

ESEA Flexibility

UNPACKING PRINCIPLE 2

• Principle 2: Implement state-

developed system of differentiated

recognition, accountability, and

support.

8

ESEA Flexibility

STATES MUST:

• Set ambitious, but achievable, Annual Measurable Objectives

(AMOs)

• Identify:

– Reward schools: Provide incentives and recognition for high-

progress and highest performing Title I schools

– Priority schools: Identify lowest-performing schools and implement

interventions aligned with the turnaround principles

– Focus schools: Identify and implement meaningful interventions

(i.e., turnaround principles) in schools with the lowest performing

subgroups

– Emerging schools: Identify other low-performing Title I schools

and provide incentives and support

• Build state, district, and school capacity 9

ESEA Flexibility

STATE UNIFORM BAR GOALS UNDER OLD NCLB

REQUIREMENTS

10

ESEA Flexibility

Set Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable

Objectives (AMOs) NEW Annual Measurable Objectives (Targets): Cut Proficiency Gap by Half by 2017

Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading

11

Pro

fic

ien

cy G

ap

ESEA Flexibility

CRITERIA USED TO

IDENTIFY SCHOOLS

12

ESEA Flexibility

REWARD SCHOOLS

* The school cannot have significant gaps among subgroups, which means the

school is not on the list of Focus Schools or the list of Emerging Schools.

13

Category Description

HIGHEST

PERFORMING

TITLE I

SCHOOLS*

•Title I schools only

•Met AYP in all students group and/or in all subgroups for 3

years in both R and M; highest performing at each level over 3

years

HIGH-

PROGRESS

TITLE I

SCHOOLS*

•N = up to 92 (10%) Title I schools showing greatest

improvement and performance in R/M or graduation rates

over 3 years

•Ratio of current performance to improvement is 1:1

ESEA Flexibility

PRIORITY, FOCUS, & EMERGING SCHOOLS

14

Category Description

PRIORITY

• Lowest performing in all students group over 3 years

• N = at least 46 (5%) schools; includes 27 SIGs

• Remaining 19 chosen using PLA methodology for R/M (Title

I schools) and grad rates < 60% (Title I and Title I-eligible

secondary schools that graduate students)

FOCUS

• Lowest performing subgroups over 3 years

• N = 92 (10%) Title I schools only

• Uses PLA methodology for R/M and grad rates < 60%

• Identified from bottom of ranked list of all subgroups

• School could be identified for multiple subgroups

EMERGING

• N = 138

• Includes next 5% up from bottom of Priority Schools list (46

schools) and next 10% up from bottom of Focus Schools list

(92 schools)

ESEA Flexibility

Priority: Based

on “All Students”

Performance

PRIORITY, FOCUS, AND EMERGING

SCHOOLS

Lowest 5% (N=46) Lowest 10% (N = 92)

Next 10% (N=92)

Next 5% (N=46)

Next 5% (N=46)

Emerging:

Next 5% of

Priority and 10%

of Focus

Total N = 138

Focus:

Based on

“Subgroup”

Performance

Next 10% (N=92)

15

ESEA Flexibility

REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOLS

IDENTIFIED AS

PRIORITY, FOCUS, OR EMERGING

16

ESEA Flexibility

REQUIREMENT FOR

PRIORITY SCHOOLS

Implement SIP

aligned with Turnaround Principles/meaningful

interventions that address the unique needs of

the school and its students

and informed by Needs Assessment

17

ESEA Flexibility

PRIORITY, FOCUS, AND EMERGING SCHOOLS

18

Requirement Priority Focus Emerging

Engage in Needs Assessment or NA (Sept – Oct) √ √ √

Develop SIP using findings from NA; use OSPI’s 8-

step process and on-line planning tool; submit plan for

review and feedback (Oct – Nov)

√* √* √**

Implement SIP aligned with Turnaround Principles √ √***

Implement SIP aligned with meaningful interventions

that match unique needs of school and subgroups √ √ √

Engage in PD aligned with turnaround model and/or

meaningful interventions √ √ √

Develop 90-day benchmark plans to monitor progress √ √ √

District: Set-aside up to 20% of Title I, Part A funds;

ensure school(s) implements SIP as designed; build

capacity to sustain

√ √ √

*Use findings from external Needs Assessment (NA)

**Use findings from internal Needs Assessment (NA)

***If Emerging School is identified from Priority Schools list

ESEA Flexibility

• Provide strong leadership by:

– Reviewing the performance of the current principal and replacing if

necessary; and

– Providing the principal with operational flexibility (e.g., budget, staffing).

• Ensure that teachers are effective and able to improve

instruction by:

– Reviewing the quality of all staff and retain only those who are

determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the

turnaround effort;

– Preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools (e.g.,

through MOUs); and

– Providing job-embedded, ongoing professional development (e.g.,

coaching).

IMPLEMENT TURNAROUND PRINCIPLES

19

ESEA Flexibility

• Redesign the day or school year to provide additional time for student

learning (e.g., double-dose in mathematics) and teacher collaboration

(e.g., grade-level or content-area PLCs).

• Ensure instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned

with standards in order to meet the academic needs of all students (e.g.,

the school implements a tiered system of instruction and support such

as RTI or similar system aligned with CCSS).

• Use data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement (e.g.,

benchmark assessments) and provide time for collaboration on the use

of data.

• Improve school safety and discipline and other non-academic factors,

such as students’ social, emotional, and health needs (e.g., implement

PBIS or similar system).

• Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

IMPLEMENT TURNAROUND PRINCIPLES (CONT.)

20

ESEA Flexibility Package USED/OSPI

REQUIREMENT FOR

FOCUS SCHOOLS

Implement SIP

aligned with meaningful interventions that

address the unique needs of

the school and its students

and informed by Needs Assessment

21

ESEA Flexibility

Strategic actions may include the following:

• Implementation of the Turnaround Principles

• Implement tiered intervention system that is research-based,

rigorous, and aligned with standards (e.g., Response to

Intervention or similar system aligned with CCSS, SIOP, GLAD,

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports to improve

school safety and discipline and other non-academic factors,

such as students’ social, emotional, and health needs ).

• Use data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement

(e.g., benchmark assessments) and provide time for

collaboration on the use of data.

• Implement college/career readiness programs (e.g., AVID,

GEAR-UP!)

IMPLEMENT MEANINGFUL INTERVENTIONS

22

ESEA Flexibility

REQUIREMENT FOR

EMERGING SCHOOLS:

Implement SIP informed by Needs Assessment.

*Schools from Priority List must implement

Turnaround Principles

*Schools from Focus List must implement

meaningful interventions aligned with unique

needs of school and students

23

ESEA Flexibility

Schools identified for Priority or Focus status based on their mathematics

and reading (combined) performance must meet all three of the following

criteria: • Priority: Increase performance in reading and mathematics in the all students groups

and all subgroups so that for 3 consecutive years, the school (a) meets or exceeds its

AMOs, (b) has at least a 95% participation rate for each group, and (c) is no longer in

the bottom 5% of the state’s Priority list;

• Focus: Increase performance in reading and mathematics in the identified subgroup(s)

so that for 3 consecutive years, the school (a) meets or exceeds its AMOs, (b) has at least

a 95% participation rate for each group, and (c) is no longer in the bottom 10% of the

state’s Focus list;

• Decrease the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 or Level 2 on state assessments

in reading and mathematics over a 3-year period. The percentage shall be comparable to

the improvement that the top 30% of Title I schools make statewide for the same three-

year period; and

• The school is determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to have made

sufficient progress on the new accountability system.

HOW WE MEASURE SUCCESS: EXIT CRITERIA

24

ESEA Flexibility

Secondary schools that graduate students and are identified for Priority or

Focus status based on their graduation rates must meet all three of the

following criteria: • Priority: Increase graduation rates in the all students groups and for all subgroups so

that for 3 consecutive years, the school (a) meets or exceeds its AMOs and (b) is no

longer in the bottom 5% of the state’s Priority list;

• Focus: Increase graduation rates in the identified subgroup(s) so that for 3 consecutive

years, the school (a) meets or exceeds its AMOs and (b) is no longer in the bottom 10%

of the state’s Focus list;

• Decrease the percentage of students who drop out of school over a three-year period.

The percentage shall be comparable to the improvement that the top 30% of secondary

schools that graduate students make statewide for the same 3-year period; and

• The school is determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to have made

sufficient progress on the new accountability system.

HOW WE MEASURE SUCCESS (CONT.)

25

ESEA Flexibility

In addition, prior to removing any school from

Priority or Focus status, OSPI will review evidence

submitted by the district around the goals on its

redesign plan to ensure district has capacity and that

conditions are in place at both the district and school

levels to sustain that improvement.

HOW WE MEASURE SUCCESS (CONT.)

26

ESEA Flexibility

SUPPORTS AND SERVICES

27

ESEA Flexibility

PRIORITY, FOCUS, AND EMERGING SCHOOLS

28

Supports and Services Priority Focus Emerging

Student and School Success Coach – Leadership

Coaching, Technical Assistance, and Progress

Monitoring (Differentiated)

√ √ √

Needs Assessment √ √ Support to conduct

using web-based tools

Data Packages √* √**

Review of SIP by OSPI √ √ √

Access to OSPI and ESD PD and services √ √ √

Minimal iGrants to support engagement in PD and

services √ √

Access to “Mentor Schools” (Reward Schools, SIG

Schools with similar demographics) √ √ √

Additional funding for small schools/districts √ √

*Generated with support of Student & School Support Coach and external partners before Needs

Assessment

**Generated with support of Student & School Support Coach as part of Needs Assessment

process

ESEA Flexibility

CLOSURE…QUESTIONS

29

Updated February 28, 2012 | Page 1

ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST SUMMARY Overview Washington's ESEA Flexibility Request aligns with the State’s long-range education priorities and goals. It builds on recent statewide reform efforts that raise the bar beyond current requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability system, with the intended outcome of preparing all students with college- and career-ready skills and knowledge. The request outlines Washington’s system of setting clear, high expectations; collecting information to determine progress toward those expectations; and working with schools and districts to provide the necessary supports and interventions to improve outcomes. The request highlights Washington’s focus on the performance of individual students and subgroups, with a continued commitment to publicly report disaggregated data for all subgroups and to target supports to schools with subgroups that are not meeting their targets. Washington's system incentivizes continuous improvement for all schools and districts and is particularly focused on intensive supports and interventions to the most struggling schools. The process to develop a new accountability system, under the leadership of the State Board of Education (SBE) and Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and in collaboration with the Washington State Legislature’s Joint Select Committee on Educational Accountability, is also described. The request also outlines the strategies and timeline to ensure college-and career-ready standards and assessments for all students, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from historically underserved subgroups. In addition, the request describes Washington’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project and next steps as we move forward to full implementation of the leadership and instructional frameworks in 2014-15. A comprehensive summary of the ESEA Flexibility Request follows.

Summary of the ESEA Flexibility Request and Process 1. What is the ESEA flexibility opportunity?

Last September, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced guidelines for state educational agencies (OSPI in Washington State) to apply for flexibility that would allow relief from existing sanctions under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability system. 2. Why did ED choose this time to offer states flexibility opportunities?

NCLB refers to the 2002 iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was first passed by Congress in the mid-1960s and has been periodically reauthorized since then. NCLB was supposed to be reauthorized in 2007, but Congress has not been able to agree on a reauthorization package—meaning the existing law stayed in effect. ED and Education Secretary Arne Duncan offered the flexibility partly because of frustration with Congress over the delay, and partly because of the almost universal frustration among educators and many educational advocates regarding NCLB and its unwieldy and often unenforceable adequate yearly progress (AYP) regulations and sanctions. 3. What are the benefits of being granted this flexibility?

States receiving this flexibility are relieved of NCLB rules regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), including consequences for Title I schools and districts that do not meet the elementary, middle, and secondary proficiency levels in state testing for math and reading. This means that the roughly two-thirds of schools in Washington that did not make AYP in 2011 would not have to (a) send Public School Choice letters or (b) set aside 20% of their Title I allocation for Supplementary Educational Service (SES) providers and for supporting students who leave the district under Public School Choice. This flexibility will give other relief from certain rules, but most districts will benefit most from Public School Choice and SES flexibility. The request also provides states with flexibility to determine new ambitious and achievable annual targets for state assessments in Reading and Mathematics and for graduation rates. 4. If this flexibility is granted, when will relief from these regulations go into effect?

Relief begins immediately after the flexibility is granted. 5. Did Washington apply for an ESEA Flexibility Request?

Yes. On February 27, with Superintendent Dorn’s concurrence, Washington submitted an ESEA Flexibility Request. Superintendent Dorn chose the February date to assure that, once flexibility is granted, the school choice and 20% set-aside relief will go into effect for 2012–13. Waiting until September to submit the request would likely have the effect of delaying relief until 2013–14. 6. What must the State do to qualify for this flexibility?

ED has established four principles that must be met. Principle 1—College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students Principle 2—State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Principle 3—Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Principle 4—Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden on Districts by the State

For Washington, Principle 1—College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students—is met primarily through our adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics and the state’s plan to implement CCSS. Additionally, Washington

http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/PublicNotice.aspx


State’s role as a lead state with SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) satisfies the requirement to administer high-quality assessments to all students by 2014-15. The major “lift” for Washington is contained in Principle 2—State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support—which essentially is the construction of a new state accountability system. Principle 3—Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership—is met through the teacher/principal evaluation components of E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5985. Principle 4—Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden on Districts by the State—is an ongoing task in all states. 7. Is stakeholder input a necessary part of the ESEA Flexibility Request?

Yes. ED rules specifically call for stakeholder input, especially teachers and their representatives, school and district administrators, plus diverse groups such as students, parents, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, organizations representing students with disabilities and English learners, business organizations, Indian tribes, and Title I Committee of Practitioners. Efforts have been made to engage all of those groups and other educational stakeholders. In addition, OSPI, working with the SBE, produced a draft and multiple revisions of the request; each of these documents was posted on the OSPI website. Stakeholders were asked to provide input on the initial draft. Superintendent Dorn reviewed survey input from those who analyzed the draft prior to making his submission decision. NOTE: Over 75% of survey respondents recommended that Superintendent Dorn submit the request to ED. 8. Where can more information about the ESEA Flexibility Request be found?

The Washington State ESEA Flexibility Request can be found at www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/PublicNotice.aspx. *****************************************************************************************************

Summary of Washington's Request 1. What standards does Washington use? Washington adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics in 2011 and will fully implement them statewide by 2013-14; aligned assessments will be in place by 2014-15. In addition, OSPI is working in a consortium with other states and Stanford University to create English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards aligned to CCSS. The state has also developed early learning benchmarks aligned with CCSS to ensure kindergarten readiness. To support educators in building their capacity to implement the new standards, OSPI will continue to provide a variety of resources, training, and supports over the next several years. 2. What targets has Washington set for its schools and districts? To ensure that all students graduate college and career ready, Washington set a target of cutting gaps in proficiency on state assessments in Reading and Mathematics and gaps in graduation rates by half by 2016-17. (Note: This is one of three options offered by ED for states to calculate their Annual Measurable Objectives [AMOs] or annual targets.) This target will apply to all students as well as to each individual subgroup to ensure the state closes achievement gaps. The chart below illustrates the annual targets on state assessments in Reading (10th Grade) for “Sample High School.” Figure 1. Annual Targets on State Assessments in Reading for 10th Grade for “Sample High School” 3. How is Washington measuring the performance of schools and districts? Washington is working with its stakeholders to develop an enhanced school and district accountability system anchored in its existing system; the system will focus on proficiency and growth as well as the performance of subgroups. The state will identify highest performing and high-progress (Reward) schools, as well as schools with extensive overall low performance (Priority) and lowest performing subgroups (Focus) based on the state's existing accountability system. The state will also identify other low-performing schools (Emerging) from the lists developed to identify Priority and Focus Schools. All of these schools will be identified using performance on state assessments in Reading and Mathematics; growth in Reading and Mathematics; high school graduation rates; and subgroup performance and graduation rates. Additionally, to ensure

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011

Baseline

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Pe

rc

en

t P

ro

fic

ie

nt

All

American Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Limited English

Special Education

Low Income

Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/PublicNotice.aspx


that the state holds a larger number of schools accountable for subgroup performance, the state will lower its minimum "N" size for subgroups from 30 to 20. Federal guidance required Washington to identify four categories of schools: Reward, Priority, Focus, and other low-performing Title I schools (Emerging). Descriptions for each category follow: Table 1. Descriptions for Reward, Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools Identified in the ESEA Flexibility Request

Category Description REWARD: HIGHEST PERFORMING SCHOOLS

• Consideration Pool: Title I-participating schools • Met AYP on state assessments in all students group and all subgroups for 3 years in both Reading and Mathematics

REWARD; HIGH-PROGRESS SCHOOLS

• Consideration Pool: Title I-participating schools • Selected from the top 10% of Title I schools based on performance and improvement (ratio of 1:1) in Reading and

Mathematics (combined) or graduation rates over 3 years • School does not have significant gaps among subgroup performance, which means the school is not on the Focus

School list or the Emerging School list PRIORITY SCHOOLS • Consideration Pool: Title I-participating schools and Title I-eligible secondary schools that graduate students

• Lowest performing in all students group over 3 years in Reading and Mathematics (combined) or graduation rates • Total number of Priority Schools is at least 46 (5% of total number of Title I schools) • Includes 27 schools currently served with federal School Improvement Grants (SIGs) • Remaining 19 schools chosen from the state’s list of “Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools” (PLA) identified in

December 2011; methodology to select these schools is referred to as “PLA methodology” Districts with Priority Schools must ensure the school implements meaningful interventions aligned with turnaround principles. SIG Priority Schools will use SIG funds to continue their turnaround process. Districts with Non-SIG Priority Schools are required to set aside up to 20% of district Title I, Part A funds to support the school’s improvement efforts. Turnaround Principles refer to a list of principles provided by ED that must be addressed in the formulation of a school improvement plan: performance of the principal and teaching staff, operational flexibility, embedded professional development, increased learning time, ensuring a research-based instructional program, data-based decision making, ensuring a safe environment, and ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

FOCUS SCHOOLS • Consideration Pool: Title I-participating schools • Lowest performing subgroups over 3 years • Total number of Focus Schools is 92 (10% of total number of Title I schools) • Uses “PLA methodology” for Reading and Mathematics (combined) and graduation rates (<60%) • Identified from bottom of ranked list of all subgroups • School could be identified for multiple subgroups Districts with Focus Schools must ensure the school implements meaningful interventions, which can include turnaround principles, aligned with the unique needs of the school and its students. These districts are also required to set aside up to 20% of district Title I, Part A funds to support the school’s improvement efforts.

EMERGING SCHOOLS

• Consideration Pool: Title I-participating schools • Total number of Emerging Schools is 138; includes the next 5% up from bottom of Priority Schools list (46 schools) and

next 10% up from bottom of Focus Schools list (92 schools). Emerging Schools identified from the Priority School list will be required to implement turnaround principles, and Emerging Schools identified from the Focus School list will be required to implement meaningful interventions aligned with the unique needs of the school and its students. These districts are also required to set aside up to 20% of district Title I, Part A funds to support the school’s improvement efforts.

4. What is Washington doing to support its lowest performing schools? Table 2. Requirements for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools

Requirement Priority Focus Emerging

Engage in Needs Assessment or NA (September – October) √ √ √

Develop School Improvement Plan (SIP) using findings from NA; use OSPI’s 8-step process and on-line planning tool; submit plan for review and feedback (October - November)

√* √* √**

Implement SIP aligned with Turnaround Principles √

√***

Implement SIP aligned with meaningful interventions that match unique needs of school and its subgroups √ √ √

Engage in professional development aligned with turnaround principles and/or meaningful interventions √ √ √

Develop 90-day benchmark plans to monitor progress √ √ √

District: Set-aside up to 20% of Title I, Part A funds; ensure school(s) implements SIP as designed; build capacity to sustain improvements and changes over time

√ √ √

*Use findings from external Needs Assessment (NA) **Use findings from internal Needs Assessment (NA) ***If Emerging School is identified from Priority Schools list


5. What is Washington doing to support its lowest performing schools? Table 3. Supports and Services for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools

Supports and Services Priority Focus Emerging

Student and School Success Coach – Leadership Coaching, Technical Assistance, and Progress Monitoring (Differentiated)

√ √ √

Needs Assessment √ √ Support to conduct

using web-based tools

Data Packages √* √**

Review of SIP by OSPI √ √ √

Access to OSPI and ESD PD and services √ √ √

Minimal funding to support engagement in professional development and other services √ √

Access to “Mentor Schools” (Reward Schools, SIG Schools with similar demographics) √ √ √

Additional funding for small schools/districts √ √

6. What is Washington doing to maintain focus on subgroups and target support to subgroups? Washington has set specific targets for improvement of subgroup proficiency and includes subgroup performance as a key indicator in its current school and district accountability system. The state has committed to expanding the disaggregation it uses to report performance and graduation data for subgroups and has lowered its "N” size for subgroups to hold a greater number of schools accountable for subgroup performance. Additionally, the state will utilize on-site reviews and other approaches to assess school needs and the effectiveness of interventions in improving the performance of subgroups in Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools. 7. How does Washington report information to the public? Washington has an extensive public report card website (http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us) that provides user-friendly summative, growth, and trend data on state assessments for schools and districts. The site also provides access to assessment trend data for the past 15 years, information on teacher licensing and qualifications, student demographics, and financial information and identifies higher performing schools/districts with similar demographics.

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/

The Washington State Board of Education 1

Update on

Washington State

Graduation Requirements

PRESENTATION TO THE EDUCATIONAL

OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND

ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE, JULY 31, 2012

Linda Drake, Senior Policy Analyst


Framing Today’s Presentation Why should Washington State set Graduation

Requirements?

• For all students Equity

• In post-secondary careers and college Opportunities

8/6/2012

2


Equity: are all students equally prepared?

Source: The BERC Group, December 2008.

Washington State Board of Education Transcript Study.

Based on a random sample of 14,875 2008 Washington

public high school graduates


Equity: “College and Career Readiness is NOT

about all students attending four-year colleges

and universities. Increasingly, access to middle

class jobs requires at least some postsecondary

education and or training.” Achieve, 2012, Career and College Readiness and Economic Competitiveness

8/6/2012

4

A clear guide to educators, parents and students

Pathways leading to post-high school careers and education

Access to the middle class Graduation

Requirements

“ready for success in postsecondary education, gainful employment

and citizenship” RCW 28A.230.090(1)


Opportunities for the 21st century

Jobs available to our high school graduates will require more education and training

The recession has accelerated a shift of jobs requiring post-secondary education

Anthony Carnevale;

Smith, N. and Strohl, J.

(2010). Help Wanted:

Projections of Jobs and

Educational

Requirements Through

2018, George Town

University Center on

Education and the

Workforce

A Skilled and Educated

Workforce, 2011

Update, report by the

Washington State

Higher Education

Coordinating Board, the

Board of Community

and Technical

Colleges, and the

Workforce Training and

Education Coordinating

Board


Washington State workforce needs

8/6/2012

6


Authority and Legislative Directives

for Graduation Requirements

• The State Board of Education (SBE) is authorized by

RCW 28A.230.090 to set credit graduation requirements

• In 2006, E2SHB 3098

o “purpose and expectations”

• In 2007, 2SHB 1906

“3 credits of math and describe the content”

• In 2009, ESHB 2261

o 24 credit framework for graduation

o No additional costs to districts without legislative approval

and funding

8/6/2012

7


Process: Timeline

8/6/2012

8

E2SHB

3098

2SHB

1906 ESHB

2261

Transcript

Study Washington

Learns

CP and HSBP

become

requirements

Transcript

follow-up

studies

Online

survey

24 credit

framework

approved/

OSPI Cost

Estimate

Career and

College

Ready

Graduation

Requirements

2 year

extension to

implementing

requirements

E2SHB 3098

directed SBE to

revise the

definition and

expectations of

a high school

diploma

Washington

Learns

comprehensive

education

study

2SHB 1906

directed SBE

to include 3

credits of

math, and

describe the

content

Culminating

Project, High

school and

Beyond Plan

became

requirements

Transcript

Study of

course taking

patterns of

high school

students

ESHB 2261

24 credits for

graduation,

changes that

cost districts

additional

funds require

legislative

approval

Studies on

college

admission and

HS schedules

Online survey

of over 4,000

respondents

provided

feedback

24 credit

framework

and OSPI

cost estimate

changes with

no fiscal

impact

determined

20 credit

Career and

College

Ready

Graduation

Requirements

approved with

flexibility

measures

2 year

extension for

districts who

requested it

Process: timeline

2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012


Career and College Ready Graduation Requirements

Subject Class of 2013 Class of 2016 (1) 24-credit (yet to be adopted)

English 3 4 4

Mathematics 3 3 3

Science 2 (1 lab) 2 (1 lab) 3 (2 labs)

Social Studies 2.5 3 3

Arts 1 1 2

Health and Fitness 2 2 2

Occupational Education 1 1 1

World Language 0 0 2

Career Concentration 0 0 2

Electives 5.5 4 2

Total 20 20 24 (2)

8/6/2012

9

(1) Some districts have 2-year extension for implementing additional credits.

(2) Up to 2 credits may be waived by local administrators for students who

have attempted 24 credits.

Credits in red denote a change from the previous year


A Third Year of Math At the direction of the legislature, in 2008 SBE

adopted 3 credits of mathematics

Year 1

Algebra 1

Integrated Math 1

Year 2

Geometry

Integrated Math 2

Year 3

Algebra 2

Integrated Math 3

Another high school math

course*

8/6/2012

10

or or or

or

* Must align with student’s career plan in their High School and Beyond Plan; also calls for the student, parent or guardian, and a high school representative to meet and sign a form.

For the

graduating

class of

2013 and

beyond:


Built-in Flexibility in the Graduation Requirements

Algebra 2

• High School and Beyond Plan

Student choice and electives

• 17/7 in the 24-credit framework--High School and Beyond Plan

• 2 for 1 CTE

• Civics

Struggling students

• 2 credits may be waived within the 24-credit framework

District implementation

• 2 year extension

• 150 hour credit definition removed

• Washington State history

8/6/2012

11


New for the 2012-2013 school year: positive changes for Washington students

8/6/2012

12

• 3 credits of math as a state graduation

requirement Seniors

• 20-credit Career and College Ready

Graduation Requirements

Freshmen


What’s next for Graduation

Requirements? Legislative directives have

been addressed

• OSPI fiscal analysis

24 credit framework

• No fiscal impact on districts

20 credit framework

Funding

8/6/2012

13


Questions?

For more information, contact:

Linda Drake

[email protected]

260.725.6028

8/6/2012

14


EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2011-2012

1

RCW 28A.300.136 Statutory Charges

Recommendations to the Quality Education Council Status

(2)(a) Supporting and facilitating parent and community involvement and outreach

Parent/family voice should be included in discussions about school funding. Invest in support for the engagement and partnerships among students, families and communities to deliver personal and differentiated instruction from early childhood through high school graduation.

In Progress QEC recommendations to the Legislature include:

Replace the staffing category in the prototypical school model “Parent Involvement Coordinator” with “Family Engagement Coordinator”

(2)(b) Enhancing the cultural competency of current and future educators and the cultural relevance of curriculum and instruction

Support districts and schools in implementing comprehensive and culturally responsive intervention systems in all content areas, inclusive of social and emotional development.


Support the recruitment, development, placement, and retention of educators who are culturally competent and possess skills and competencies in language acquisition

Provide support for programs that encourage diverse populations to become teachers.

Direct the Compensation Working Group to utilize educator professional development needs data, including cultural competency and competency in language acquisition for the following purposes:

I. to identify strategies and incentives to recruit and retain diverse teachers;

II. to examine data from other states regarding certification options and requirements that support competency in language acquisition and cultural competency;

III. to identify professional development requirements for continuing teachers regarding cultural competency and language acquisition; and

IV. to identify current policies that make it difficult to recruit and retain diverse teachers

(2)(c) Expanding pathways and strategies to prepare and recruit diverse teachers and administrators

Recruit, develop, place and retain educators who are culturally competent and possess skills and competencies in language acquisition.


Provide support for programs that encourages diverse populations to become teachers

Direct the Compensation Technical Working Group

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.300.136


2

identify strategies and incentives to recruit and retain diverse teachers

(2)(d) Recommending current programs and resources that should be redirected to narrow the gap

Additional staffing must be allocated to the state Transitional Bilingual Program to provide adequate monitoring of schools, technical assistance and support for implementing effective instructional models for English Language learners. Schools need more support staff with experience in social work:

to support students when the influence of gangs and chemical dependency is prevalent

to support students when family members are incarcerated or when students and their families experience some other form of trauma.


The 2011-13 Biennial Operating Budget (ESHB 1087) directs OSPI to implement a funding model for the transitional bilingual program (TBIP), beginning in the 2012-13 school year, that is scaled to provide more support to students with beginning levels of English language proficiency and less support to students with higher levels of English language proficiency.

In addition, the biennial budget states that the funding model shall provide up to two years of additional funding for students that successfully exit the bilingual program.

(2)(e) Identifying data elements and systems needed to monitor progress in closing the gap

Intermediate measures in addition to high stakes testing so that timely interventions can be put into place.


Increase quality assurance and accountability in the Transitional Bilingual Program

Strengthen the Highly Capable Program to ensure that all students have equal access to it, creating a common and consistent identification process for students

Strengthen the Learning Assistance Program (LAP) based on recommendations of the LAP Working Group, allowing LAP funds to be used for assistance to students in science and to extend credit retrieval from grades 11-12 to grades 9-12.

RCW 28A.300.136 Statutory Charge

Recommendations to the K-12 Data Governance Committee Status

(2)(a) Supporting and facilitating parent and community involvement and outreach

Presented so that families and educators can ensure appropriate supports and interventions.

In Progress (no specifics available at this time)


Disaggregated by ethnic subgroups to provide a more accurate picture.




3


Accurate, useful data should be organized so that schools can track students and their credits as they transfer from one school to the next.


(2)(f) Making closing the achievement gap part of the school and school district improvement process

Listed in ways that can identify damaging patterns in a school or district that will require technical assistance.



Recommendations to the State Board of Education Status


The Accountability Index must take into account achievement gaps based on race and disaggregate data by ethnic subgroups to expose hidden gaps.

In Progress The Joint Select Committee on Educational Accountability, OSPI and SBE are convening to create an updated Accountability Index. An interim report is due Sept. 2012.

(2)(f) Making closing the achievement gap part of the school and school district improvement process

Schools that do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress but that make significant progress towards meeting the needs of students of color and students from low socioeconomic communities should receive recognition. (Completed by the SBE and OSPI in 2010 through the Washington Achievement Award program.)

Completed ESEA Flexibility Waiver includes recognition for Reward-Title I Participating Schools

Highest Performing: Met AYP in both Reading and Math for 3 years in “all students” group and all subgroups

High Progress: In top 10 % of Title I schools in Reading/Math combined for 3 years or for graduation rates for 3 years. Ratio of current performance to improvement is 1:1.

The school cannot have significant gaps among subgroups, which means the school is not on the list of Focus Schools or the List of Emerging Schools.


Recommendations to the Washington Legislature Status


The Committee recommends that the 2008 Achievement Gap Studies be updated to ensure that data is current and strategies reflect best practices in communities that may have changed over time.

No action




4


Recommendations to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Status


The Common Core Standards have not adequately been vetted for cultural competence or relevance and, therefore, should undergo a bias and fairness assessment prior to adoption. The standards have not taken into consideration the complexities of language development in acknowledgment of the large English Language Learner population in Washington State.

Completed Bias and Sensitivity Review of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics-Implementation Recommendation Report


Washington Colleges of Teacher Education Status


Programs should increase efforts to attract and retain students of

color.

All educators (incoming and veteran) must be prepared and held accountable to teach every Washington State student, regardless of racial, ethnic, cultural background.

No action


http://www.k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/pubdocs/ImplementationRecommendationReport.pdf




1

Teach For America-

Seattle Tacoma

Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and

Accountability Committee

Lindsay Hill, Executive Director

<Insert Date Here>

2

1 Teach For America Overview

3 Partnership with University of Washington (U-ACT)

2 Our Corps Members

4 Our School Partnerships

Agenda

3

visio

n

One day, all children in this nation will have the

opportunity to attain an excellent education

missio

n

To build the movement to eliminate educational

inequity by enlisting our nation's most

promising future leaders in the effort

Teach For America’s Work

approach

Recruit diverse corps of

outstanding recent college graduates and

professionals to teach for two years in

low-income communities

Train & develop these corps members so

that they have an immediate positive

impact on their students

Foster the leadership of our alumni as

they address this problem from all

sectors

4

46 Regions where corps members teach and we have local

affiliates

10,00

0

First and second year corps members, one

third of whom identify as people of color

28,00

0

Alumni, two-thirds of whom work full-time

in education

Teach For America Today

48,00

0 Applicants for this year’s corps of 5,800

5

Gold-Standard Studies: The Impact of

TFA…

In Elementary Schools In High Schools

The Effects of Teach For America on Students:

Findings from a National Evaluation

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2004)

Making a Difference?

The Effects of Teach For America in High School

CALDER (2009)

Students of Teach For America

corps members attained greater

gains in math than did

students of other teachers,

including veteran and

certified teachers

Corps members work in the

highest-need classrooms in the

country

Gold-standard experimental

study

Corps members were more

effective than non-Teach For

America teachers in all

subject areas...

…Even when Teach For America

corps members were compared

with experienced, fully

certified teachers

The positive impact was two

to three times that of having

a teacher with three or more

years of experience; impact

levels were particularly

strong in math and science Two more in process: i3/Mathematica (PK-G5) and HSAC/Mathematica (secondary math)

6

Statewide Pathway Studies

2010 & 2011 - Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher

Training Programs

Tennessee State Board of Education and Higher Education

Commission

Finding: Based on a value-added analysis of student achievement

data that compared the effectiveness of graduates of 42 teacher

preparation programs, Teach For America was the top teacher

preparation program in the state of Tennessee.

2009 - Teach For America Teachers’Contribution to Student Achievement In Louisiana in Grades 4-9: 2004–2005 to 2006–2007

George H. Noell and Kristin A. Gansle

Finding: Teach For America corps members in Louisiana

outperformed other new teachers and were as effective as

veteran teachers across the state in math, science, reading,

and language arts.

2010 & 2012 - UNC Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness

Report

Carolina Institute for Public Policy, UNC Chapel Hill

Finding: In an annual study of novice teachers, researchers

find that Teach For America corps members are performing as

well as, and most often better than, traditionally prepared UNC

graduates in all grade level and subjects studied. CMs did

especially well in mathematics and in all high school subjects.

7

Our 2012 National Corps Members

Top Graduates

– Average GPA: 3.5

– 98 Class Presidents

– 17% of applicants admitted

– Top Employer on 55 Campuses

Diverse Corps

– 38% are people of color

– 35% are from low-income communities, and

– 23% are the first in their family to attend college.

To contextualize these numbers…

Peace Corps: 15% people of color

B.A. graduates of school of education: 15% people of color

M.A. graduates of schools of education: 23% people of color

College graduates: 27% people of color

National teaching workforce: 21% people of color

8

How We Recruit our Corps Members

What we look for:

– Leadership and achievement

– Perseverance and sustained focus in the face of challenges

– Strong critical thinking skills

– Superior organizational ability

– Respect for individuals’ diverse experiences

– Superior interpersonal skills

– Understanding of and desire to work relentlessly in pursuit

of our vision

Our focus on diversity:

– Our recruitment team invests significant energy and

resources recruiting people of color—especially African-

American, Latino, and Native Peoples—and people from low-

income backgrounds

– We partner with other organizations that focus on

cultivating diverse leaders as well as HBCUs

– Transitional loans and grants for incoming corps members

($1,000-6,000)

– Eligible for AmeriCorps education benefits

9

How We Select Our Corps Members: What

the Research Says

Question: Are Teach For America competencies used during the

admissions process predictive of how well corps members will

perform in the classroom, as measured by student achievement

scores, and student behavior?

Finding: The Teach For America selection model successfully

identifies teachers who will have a positive impact on student

achievement in year 1.

Math: Prior achievement, perseverance, and leadership are

associated with student gains in math in a teacher’s first

year.

English: Leadership and fit are associated with student gains

in english in a teacher’s first year. Though Correlations are

stronger in mathematics.

Student Behavior: Critical thinking and respect and humility

are associated with improvements in student behavior in a

teacher’s first year.

This is one of the first studies to detect a relationship

between student success and observable teacher characteristics

that can be measured prior to service.

Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement: Evidence from Teach For America

Will Dobbie (2011)

10

40 First and second year corps members in Seattle metro

area, half of which identify as people color

250

Our 2012 Seattle-Tacoma Corps Members

22 First and second year corps members from local alma

maters, including Seattle University, University of

Puget Sound, University of Washington-Seattle, and

Western Washington University

1500 Applicants from Washington state in 2011

Alumni living in the Seattle area

11

Kendra

Undergrad: University of

Washington

Role/School: 6th Grade English

Teacher, Aki Kurose Middle School

(Seattle Public Schools)

Daniel

Undergrad: Macalester College

Role/School: Spanish Teacher,

Rainier Beach High School (Seattle

Public Schools)

In her second year of teaching,

Kendra led her students to

approximately 1.5 years of

growth in reading according to

MAP testing. She was able to

create a positive environment

not only through her

instruction, but through her

classroom design and decoration,

which was held up by the

school’s administration as a

model for other teachers and

school visitors. Furthermore,

she led a series of rigorous

debates for her students, which

also served as a model for her

department. Kendra is excited

to teach a third year at Aki

Kurose Middle School.

As a first year teacher, Daniel

chaired the World Languages

department and helped launch a

pilot for a Spanish

International Baccalaureate

program at Rainer Beach. He

immersed himself in the school

and broader community through

regularly attending sporting

events, volunteering for school

activities, and meeting with

parents. At the end of the year

he hosted a successful parent

night during which students

presented their work entirely in

Spanish.

Our Seattle-Tacoma Corps Members:

Snapshot

12

Our Partnership with University of

Washington

U-ACT: A unique and innovative certification program

– Dedicated and Experienced Faculty

– Customized Teacher Training Support

– Content Area Cohorts: Math, Science, Humanities,

Elementary

– Additional Summer Courses: Special Education and

English Language Learners

13

Our Partnerships with Schools:

Evidence of an Achievement Gap

`

% Students

of Color

MSP/HSPE Results

District/School % F/R Lunch

Highest

Grade

Reading

Highest

Grade Math

Seattle Public Schools District Average 43.3% 56.6% 80.3% NA

Wedgwood Elementary [Highest Performing Elem in

the District] 11.4% 34.2% 98.6% 91.7%

Aki Kurose Middle School 87.1% 97.2% 55.9% 36.4%

Emerson Elementary School 89.0% 94.1% 53.2% 33.9%

Rainier Beach High School 79.2% 92.9% 49.4% NA

South Shore K-8 School 64.1% 91.0% 72.2% 37.7%

Washington Middle School 52.8% 72.5% 77.0% 69.1%

Federal Way Schools District Average 50.0% 61.6% 80.9% NA

Green Gables Elementary [Highest Performing Elem

in the District] 31.1% 54.3% 78.7% 80.3%

Sunnycrest Elementary School 74.4% 80.2% 61.1% 51.9%

Wildwood Elementary School 73.3% 82.0% 69.0% 50.0%

Saghalie Middle School 65.0% 68.4% 64.2% 51.1%

Silver Lake Elementary School 58.5% 70.7% 65.6% 58.6%

TAF Academy 50.7% 63.1% 43.8% NA

Todd Beamer High School 41.8% 52.0% 80.8% NA

Renton School District 54.2% 67.5% 75.5% NA

Hazelwood Elementary [Highest Performing Elem in

the District] 18.1% 37.1% 88.3% 80.5%

Cascade Elementary 69.3% 70.8% 48.3% 56.3%

14

Our Partnerships with Schools:

Principals

• Nationally, the overwhelming majority (87 percent) of

principals are satisfied with the Teach For America teacher(s)

working in their schools.

• Nearly all principals (92 percent) rate Teach For America corps

members at least as effective as, if not more effective than

other beginning teachers in terms of overall performance and

impact on student achievement.

What Principals are Saying about our Corps Members

“He’s a thoughtful planner for his instruction. He goes above and

beyond to acquire the materials necessary for him to teach his

students Spanish. For example, he does not have a curriculum. He

has been able to use his professional and personal contacts, search

the internet, and seek out colleagues in building out his program.

We are delighted to have such a resourceful, thorough member of our

staff.”

“She’s reflective, thoughtful, and offers students many

opportunities to share their thinking through great implementation

of high leverage teaching strategies. She’s willing to put in the

extra work to reach students.”

15 15

Questions // Comments

16 16

One day, all

children in this

nation will have

the opportunity to

attain an excellent

education.

Documents

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ... · EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GAP OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ... Joana Chacon-3rd year teacher ... Educational Opportunity