Transitioning to a New Accountability System: Moving ... · Industry Certificate Additional career related data elements (e.g., Career Pathways Trust and CTE Incentive Grant) Pilot

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF

EDUCATION

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Transitioning to a New Accountability System:

Moving California Forward

Dr. Ilene Straus, Vice President State Board of Education

ACSA Region 14 – February 8, 2017

Torrance, California


EDUCATION

Today’s Focus• Share State Board of Education

decisions related to developing the local, state, and federal accountability and continuous improvement system.

• Consider how leaders use LCFF Evaluation Rubrics data to better understand district and set goals

• Share alignment of ESSA state plan and development.

• Discuss next steps2


EDUCATION

Accountability Defined

The quality or state of being accountable; especially: an

obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for

one’s actions.

3


EDUCATION

Continuous Improvement

The term continuous improvement refers to any school- or instructional-improvement process that unfolds progressively, that does not have a fixed or predetermined end point, and that is sustained over extended periods of time. The concept also encompasses the general belief that improvement is not something that starts and stops, but it’s something that requires an organizational or professional commitment to an ongoing process of learning, self-reflection, adaptation, and growth.

4Great Schools Partnership – Education Reform


EDUCATION

Cross Cutting Themes on Continuous Improvement Models

• Leadership and Strategy

• Communications and Engagement

• Organizational Infrastructure

• Methodology (Use of a specific model)

• Data Collection and Analysis

• Capacity Building

5Continuous Improvement in Education – Carnegie Foundation


EDUCATION

Accountability and Continuous Improvement System

6

• Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update

• Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Evaluation Rubrics

• Support and Assistance System established by LCFF, including County Superintendents, CDE and the CA Collaborative for Educational Excellence

• Progress on state priorities, measured by state and local metrics and performance indicators


EDUCATION

7

LCAP Challenges

Local and

County Board

approved

LCAPs and

Annual

Updates, use

of the LCFF

Rubrics

All students

leave high

school college

and

career ready;

unduplicated

students well

served.

How do we get from here … to here?

…and what actions and services support success?


EDUCATION

Accountability Goals

• Strengthen teaching and learning

• Increase the individual capacity of teachers and school leaders

• Increase the institutional capacity of schools, districts, and state agencies to continuously improve

• Carefully phase in policy changes as state and local capacity grows

• Consider federal accountability requirements relative to the new state system once established.

8


EDUCATION

Local, State & Federal Accountability!

• With LEAs now responsible for more local accountability components (LCAP, annual update, rubrics), purposes and roles within the new accountability system must be redefined.

• For state accountability purposes, many system components are already in place. A review of these components shows how they support the current overall goal of continuous system improvement.

• With the enactment of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), possibilities for designing one, coherent local, state and federal accountability and continuous improvement system. 9


EDUCATION

Collective Accountability and Shared Responsibility

• Student accountability

• Parent responsibility

• Teacher and leader accountability

• Local school board and superintendent accountability

• Higher education accountability

• Educator preparation provider accountability

• State accountability

10


EDUCATION

Coherent Accountability System Components

Classroom

and School

Practices

Local

Accountability

Processes

State

Accountability

Processes

Federal

Accounta-

bility

Processes

Classroom

and school

practices

grounded in

state

standards

and

curricular

frameworks.

Local

accountability

processes and

elements, based

on the state

priorities,

LCAPs, and

evaluation

rubrics.

Statewide

accountability

processes and

elements that

support

fairness,

comparability,

and trend

analysis across

multiple

measures of

progress.

Statewide

accountability

processes

and elements

that meet

federal

requirements

11


EDUCATION

Accountability Model Foundation

Based on progress toward the LCFF state priorities.

Priority 1 (Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to

Curriculum-Aligned Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean

and Functional School Facilities)

Priority 2 (Implementation of State Academic Standards)

Priority 3 (Parent Engagement)

Priority 4 (Achievement)

Priority 5 (Pupil Engagement)

Priority 6 (School Climate)

Priority 7 (Access to a Broad Course of Study)

Priority 8 (Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study)

Priorities 9 and 10 (Coordinated Services for Expelled and Foster Youth)12


EDUCATION

State and Local Performance Indicators

Priority 1 – Local Williams Reporting Priority 2 – Local Surveys Priority 3 – Local Survey and/or Measures Priority 4 – Smarter Balanced Math and ELA

Assessments, EL Indicator, Grad Rate Priority 5 – Suspensions, Chronic Absence Priority 6 – Healthy Kids Survey and/or Local

Measures Priority 7 – College and Career Indicator Priority 8 – College and Career Indicator Priorities 9 and 10 – Surveys

13


EDUCATION

So, …………….1. Chat with your colleagues. What is here

that reinforces what you are already doing in your district?

2. What are your common understandings of accountability and continuous improvement and how do you communicate them as leaders?

3. How do you ensure the importance of shared and collective accountability as central to students’ success?

14


EDUCATION

Brief Sequence of SBE Decisions • March SBE Meeting – Architecture of

Accountability and Continuous Improvement System

• May SBE Meeting – Determination of a balance of local and state measures and plans for a single, coherent local, state, federal system

• July SBE Meeting – Standards and performance expectations

• September SBE Meeting – Approve Evaluation Rubrics 15


EDUCATION

Ongoing Decisions

• November SBE Meeting – Approve Revised LCAP Template, updates from CDE on work groups for School Conditions and Climate and English Learner indicator

• January SBE Meetings forward – Growth model for Academic Indicator, revisions to Statements of Model Practices, continuing updates from CDE

• ESSA state plan submitted in September

• March – Rollout of CA School Dashboard; updates from working groups

16


EDUCATION

Purposes of Rubrics

17

Three Statutory Purposes for Evaluation Rubrics

• To support LEAs in identifying strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement;

• To assist in determining whether LEAs are eligible for technical assistance; and

• To assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction in determining whether LEAs are eligible for more intensive state support/intervention.


EDUCATION

Components of the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics

• Top-Level Summary Data Display

– Summary report showing performance relative to standards for the state priorities

• Data Analysis Tool

– Web-based, more detailed data reports

• Statements of Model Practices

– Qualitative statements of effective processes and practices

• Links to External Resources

– Links to additional resources for assistance 18


EDUCATION

19

• The California Model uses percentiles to create a 5 by 5 grid (giving 25 results) that combine “Status” and “Change” that are equally weighted to make an overall determination for a “Performance Category” (represented by a color) for each indicator.

• Status (outcome) is based on the current year performance.

• Change (improvement) is the difference between performance from the prior year and current year, or between the current year and a multi-year average—if available.

Overview


EDUCATION

20

Example:

An LEA or school with a “High” Status and an “Increased” in Change will receive an overall performance of Greenfor most indicators.

Overview of the Model

Change

Sta

tus

21

Graduation Rate Cut-Scores

22

Graduation Rate Cut-Scores

Total Red Orange Yellow Green Blue

LEAs (515)70

(13.6%)

122

(23.7%)

106

(20.6%)

81

(15.7%)

136

(26.4%)

Schools

(1,221)

99

(8.1%)

85 (7.0%) 186

(15.2%)

298

(24.4%)

553

(45.3%)

The number of local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in each

performance category based on their “Status” and “Change” results.

School Type

# of

School

s

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue

Non Charter 1,026 56 (5.5%) 69 (6.7%)153

(14.9%)

263

(25.6%)

485

(47.3%)

Charter 195 43 (22.1%) 16 (8.2%) 33 (16.9%) 35 (17.9%) 68 (34.9%)

Small Schools* 19 9 (47.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (15.8%) 4 (21.1%) 3 (15.8%)

Non Small

Schools1,202 90 (7.5%) 85 (7.1%)

183

(15.2%)

294

(24.5%)

550

(45.8%)

Displays the number of schools (disaggregated by charters, non-

charters, small schools, and non-small schools) in each performance

category based on their “Status” and “Change” results.

23

English Learner ChangeEnglish Learner Change

(Change in Percent Progressing Plus Reclassified Students)

Level

Declined

Significantly

by more

10%

Declined

by 1.5% to

10%

Maintained

Declined or

increased by

less than

1.5%

Increased

by 1.5%

to less than

10%

Increased

Significantly

by 10% or

more

Very High

85% or moreYellow Green Blue Blue Blue

High

75% to less

than 85%

Orange Yellow Green Green Blue

Median

67% to less

than 75%

Orange Orange Yellow Green Green

Low

60% to less

than 67%

Red Orange Orange Yellow Yellow

Very Low

Less than

60%

Red Red Red Orange Yellow

En

glis

h L

ea

rne

r S

tatu

s

(Pe

rce

nt

Pro

gre

ss

ing

Plu

s

Re

cla

ss

ifie

d S

tud

en

ts)


EDUCATION

24

WELL PREPARED – To Be Determined

The College/Career Indicator (CCI) measures for “Well Prepared” will be determined following further review of potential

state and local CCI measures as statewide data becomes available.1 California Department of Education staff, with

input from education researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders, will evaluate the CCI model through the first phase of

the Local Control Funding Formula evaluation rubrics and will propose a revised CCI model for implementation in

2017–18.

PREPARED

Does the graduate meet at least 1 measure below?

High School Diploma and any one of the following:

A. Career Technical Education (CTE) Pathway Completion plus one of the following criteria:

- Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments: At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on English language

arts/literacy (ELA) or Mathematics and at least a Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” in the other subject area

- One semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)

B. At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on both ELA and Mathematics on Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments

C. Completion of two semesters/three quarters of Dual Enrollment with a passing grade (Academic and/or CTE

subjects)

D. Passing Score on two Advanced Placement (AP) Exams or two International Baccalaureate (IB) Exams

E. Completion of courses that meet the University of California (UC) a-g criteria plus one of the following criteria:

- CTE Pathway completion

- Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments: At least a Level 3 “Standard Met” on ELA or Mathematics and

at least a Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” in the other subject area

- One semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)

- Passing score on one AP Exam OR on one IB Exam

APPROACHING PREPARED

Does the graduate meet at least 1 measure below?

High School Diploma and any one of the following:

A. CTE Pathway completion

B. Scored at least Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” on one or both ELA and Mathematics Smarter Balanced Summative

Assessments

C. Completion of one semester/two quarters of Dual Enrollment with passing grade (Academic/CTE subjects)

D. Completion of courses that meet the UC a-g criteria

NOT PREPARED

Student did not meet any measures above, so considered NOT PREPARED


EDUCATION

Future Local and State CCI

Measures

Note: the following measures

will be explored as statewide

data become available:

Articulated CTE Pathway

Work Experience/Career

Internship

AP/IB Career Program

State Seal of Biliteracy

Golden State Seal Merit

Diploma

Further Exploration on the

following:

Course Information

Industry Certificate

Additional career related

data elements (e.g., Career

Pathways Trust and CTE

Incentive Grant)

Pilot career ready

assessments (i.e., National

Occupational Competency

Testing Institute)

25


EDUCATION

Criteria for Technical Assistance

26

A school district or county office of education is eligible for technical assistance if any student group met the Criteria for two or more LCFF priorities. Education Code (EC) 52071(b) & 52071.5(b).

A school district or county office of education is eligible for intervention if three or more student groups (or all the student groups if there are less than three student groups) met the Criteria for two or more LCFF priorities in three out of four consecutive years. EC 52072 & 52072.5.

A charter school is eligible for technical assistance and may be referred to the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence if three or more student groups (or all the student groups if there are less than three student groups) met the Criteria for one or more state or school priority identified in the charter for three out of four consecutive school years. EC 47607.3.


EDUCATION

Criteria for Technical Assistance

27

Criteria for Determining LEA Eligibility for Technical Assistance and Intervention

Basics (Priority 1)

Not Met for Two or More Years on Local Performance Indicator

Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)


Parent Engagement (Priority 3)


Pupil Achievement (Priority 4)

Red on both English Language Arts and Math tests OR

Red on English Language Arts or Math test AND Orange on the other test OR

Red on the English Learner Indicator (English learner student group only)

Pupil Engagement (Priority 5)

Red on Graduation Rate Indicator OR

Red on Chronic Absence Indicator

School Climate (Priority 6)

Red on Suspension Rate Indicator OR


Access to and Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study (Priorities 7 & 8)

Red on College/Career Indicator

Coordination of Services for Expelled Pupils – COEs Only (Priority 9)


Coordination of Services for Foster Youth – COEs Only (Priority 10)



EDUCATION

28

Why is this information important to you as local leaders?

Because…


EDUCATION

29

Sta

te I

nd

ica

tors

30


EDUCATION

31

Local Performance Indicators


EDUCATION

32


EDUCATION

33


EDUCATION

34


EDUCATION

35

Future, In-Depth Webinars:

1. Dashboard and Impact on the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Development

2. Academic Indicator

3. English Learner Progress and Suspension Rate Indicators

4. Graduation Rate and Career/College Indicators

5. Statements of Model Practices, Local Indicators and Chronic Absenteeism (review of local data)

Additional Resources and Training

TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction

California’s Context

36


The Big Picture

• Some familiar elements• States choose standards and assessments• Student achievement is reported by subgroup• Accountability at school and district levels for subgroup

performance• Major formula grant funding streams maintained

• Some significant changes• States have more authority to make decisions• New opportunities for early education• Adequate Yearly Progress, Supplemental Educational

Services, and Highly Qualified Teacher requirements eliminated

37


Plan Development

• Goal: Create a single, coherent local, state,

and federal accountability and continuous

improvement system that is aligned with,

and supportive of, California’s priorities

• Plan to State Board of Education (SBE) for

approval in Fall 2017

• ESSA State Plan will go into effect in 2018

38


Proposed Strategic Direction:“Braiding” of Funds

• ESSA provides California with an opportunity to improve coherence by:

• Providing greater flexibility to state and local authorities

• Leveraging funding across included programs• Removing “silos” between funding streams• Supporting collaboration and efficiency across

multiple programs

• March draft of the plan will reflect integration across programs to the greatest extent possible.

39


Proposed Strategic Direction: Implementation of State Standards

• From October 13 California Practitioners Advisory Group memorandum (Item 1):

• Build the capacity of California educators to successfully implement state content standards;

• Emphasize meeting the specific, and often multiple, learning needs of diverse students, including, but not limited to, English learners, students with disabilities, foster youth, and low-income students;

• Focus on equity and cultural responsiveness; and• Promote a professional learning culture, including

effective professional learning community models.

• March draft will include description of strategies, rationales, timelines, and funding sources aligned to support effective implementation of California standards to the greatest extent possible.

40


ESSA Communications

Receive updates by joining the ESSA listserv. To subscribe, send a blank message to [email protected].

Please send questions and comments [email protected].

Visit the CDE ESSA Web page at www.cde.ca.gov/essa.

41

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cde.ca.gov/essa


Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools

42

• Long term goals

• Accountability System

• Identification of schools

• State support and improvement for low-performing schools

• Performance management and technical assistance

Documents

Transitioning to a New Accountability System: Moving ... · Industry Certificate Additional career related data elements (e.g., Career Pathways Trust and CTE Incentive Grant) Pilot