1 / 50

Grand Division Meetings ESEA Flexibility Waiver Regarding Accountability and Title I Provisions March 27, 29 and April

Grand Division Meetings ESEA Flexibility Waiver Regarding Accountability and Title I Provisions March 27, 29 and April 2, 2012. Purpose of today’s meeting. To provide district staff with more details and specifics of our new accountability system

bedros
Télécharger la présentation

Grand Division Meetings ESEA Flexibility Waiver Regarding Accountability and Title I Provisions March 27, 29 and April

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grand Division Meetings ESEA Flexibility Waiver Regarding Accountability and Title I Provisions March 27, 29 and April 2, 2012

  2. Purpose of today’s meeting • To provide district staff with more details and specifics of our new accountability system • Share information about how the waiver connects with other aspects of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 2

  3. Why we asked for a waiver

  4. We have taken important and significant steps in education reform that are not recognized under AYP 4

  5. We developed a new alternative to AYP through many discussions over the last 7 months 5

  6. New Accountability System The Basics

  7. ESEA Flexibility Waiver • ESEA Flexibility Waiver was granted to TN and waived designated portions of the ESEA as amended by No Child Left Behind 2001. • All other portions of ESEA remain in effect. • Major changes are the accountability system and Title I set-asides.

  8. Focus on all students through public reporting and transparency of data Continued focus on all students through public reporting and transparency of data Unreasonably high proficiency targets that resulted in majority of schools labeled as failing Ambitious but achievable goals around growth and improvement from current baselines Laundry list of goals and lockstep consequences for missing any goal by any amount Focused list of goals for the purpose of accountability, and differentiated consequences State expected to intervene in hundreds of schools Districts as key point of action, with targeted state intervention in a small number of schools We sought to address the parts of the AYP system that are outdated and counter-productive No Child Left Behind AYP System New waiver accountability system

  9. Our new accountability system has two over-riding objectives Growth for all students, every year and Closing achievement gaps, by ensuring faster growth for those students who are furthest behind

  10. These two objectives can be seen throughout our system • School, District, and State levels • Full transparency of: • Progress against AMOs • Reward, Focus, Priority status (for schools, as applicable) • Achievement data by assessment, by sub-group performance • Participation rates • Graduation rates • Redesigned report card to prioritize elements that matter most in the new accountability system • Relative Accountability Framework for Schools • We will identify: • Reward schools: the top 10 percent of schools based on absolute performance and value-added growth • Focus schools: the 10 percent of schools with the largest achievement gaps,and • Priority schools: the bottom 5 percent of schools, based on absolute performance • Absolute Accountability Framework for Districts • Districts and schools set Achievement and Gap Closure AMOs (Annual Measurable Objectives) • Both Achievement and Gap Closure are weighted equally • Districts are measured based on“achieving” or “missing” in each part of the system Goals for Districts School Lists Public Reporting

  11. There are three possible outcomes for districts, based on a totality of results 11

  12. Accountability for Districts and Special Schools • Accountability for AMOs will be reviewed by the state at the district level. Districts will review their school AMOs and determine the appropriate interventions for their schools. • Action from the state will only occur at a school level if the school is identified as a priority, focus, or reward school. This includes all Title I, non-Title I, and charter schools. • Alternative Schools - Students in alternative schools will have their performance data assigned to the regular school they were attending when remanded to the alternative school. • Local Special Schools – Students in special schools at the local level will have their performance data assigned to the district.

  13. Foundations for Accountability • Minimum N is 30 for determining if AMOs are met • Any SWD as defined by US ED is counted toward the N count of 30 (Functionally Delayed and Gifted aren’t part of the SWD subgroup) • Minimum N is 10 for reporting • Participation rate is 95% • To meet this requirement, the State will use the most current year, most current two years, or most current three years of participation rate data • Every Test Taker (ETT) – scores will be included for every student tested in the test cycle • Test Cycle – Prior Summer, Current Fall and Spring

  14. Students with Disabilities and Accountability • Students with Disabilities • 1% cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate achievement standards that can be included in calculations • Without approval of the waiver requesting the extension of the 1% cap, proficient scores exceeding this cap must be changed to below proficient for accountability purposes • 2% cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores based on the modified achievement standards assessment that can be included in calculations • Proficient scores exceeding this cap must be changed to below proficient for accountability purposes

  15. English Learners and Accountability • English Learners • Option to exempt from one administration of RLA subtest • Included in participation rate • Transition students are not counted in the subgroup to meet the minimum N, but are counted in the subgroup when the minimum N is achieved by the school or LEA

  16. Accountability for Special Schools • State Special Schools – Students in special schools at the state level, such as Tennessee School for the Blind, will have their performance data assigned to the state. • New Schools – Students in newly opened schools, including newly opened charter schools, will have their performance data assigned to the new school they are attending. The first year a new school is open, the State will only report the results of the assessments.

  17. District Goals LEAs will be held accountable to the state for LEA AMOs and LEAs are responsible to identify and intervene with schools that are missing their AMOs.

  18. Growing achievement for all students and closing gaps are equally important objectives [1 of 2] The state has set Achievement and Gap Closure AMO (annual measurable objectives) targets through our application. Districts and schools will also set targets in these areas. Our state-level AMOs for Achievement are as follows:

  19. Growing achievement for all students and closing gaps are equally important objectives [2 of 2] Our state-level AMOs for Gap Closure are as follows:

  20. There are three possible outcomes for districts, based on a totality of results 20

  21. Exemplary • Inclusion on list of exemplary districts • Planning without need for state approval • Priority consideration for any TDOE waivers • Priority consideration for TDOE support of alternative evaluation models Every district has the opportunity to reach exemplary status . . . To reach exemplary status, a district would need to: AND 21

  22. ACHIEVE Achievement measures . . . But it is a rigorous bar to reach ACHIEVE Gap Closure measures If the new system had been in place last year: 92 districts would have ACHIEVED Achievement measures But only 30 would have ACHIEVED Gap Closure Measures And only 22 districts would have ACHIEVED in both measures to reach exemplary status. 22

  23. We expect most districts to fall into the intermediate category MISS Gap Closure measures ACHIEVE Gap Closure measures MISS Achievement measures ACHIEVE Achievement measures Intermediate • Detailed analysis of results and plans on how to achieve goals, subject to TDOE approval A district could reach intermediate status in multiple ways: BUT BUT 23

  24. ACHIEVE Achievement measures MISS Achievement measures If the new system had been in place last year, 63 districts would have been in intermediate status MISS Gap Closure measures ACHIEVE Gap Closure measures 6 districts made some growth in overall proficiency, but missed half or more Achievement targets 57 districts made some progress towards reducing gaps overall, but missed half or more Gap Closure targets 24

  25. Some districts will be deemed in need of improvement MISS Gap Closure measures MISS Achievementmeasures MISS Achievementmeasures MISS Gap Closure measures ACHIEVE Gap Closure measures ACHIEVE Achievement measures A district could reach Needs Improvement status in multiple ways: Needs Improvement • Inclusion on list of districts in need of improvement • In-person meeting with TDOE to create aggressive plan for corrective action to meet goals next year. • + Moved Backwards AND BUT BUT • + Moved Backwards 25

  26. ACHIEVE Achievement measures MISS Achievement measures MISS Achievement measures If the new system had been in place last year, 50 districts would have been in need of improvement MISS Gap Closure measures ACHIEVE Gap Closure measures MISS Gap Closure measures 2 moved backwards in Achievement targets 13 widened gaps by moving backwards in Gap Closure targets 35 MISSED both Achievement and Gap Closure measures 26

  27. District ACHIEVEMENT Measures – How are determinations made? • Achievement Measures: • For 2011-12, ALL Students are measured in the following areas (up to 9 per LEA): • 3rd grade Math • 3rd grade RLA • 7th grade Math • 7th grade RLA • 3-8 grades Math • 3-8 grades RLA • HS: Algebra I • HS: English II • HS: Graduation Rate • AMOs are set to measure the required percent of annual growth in the % of students scoring proficient and advanced for ALL students. • The performance of the individual subgroups will NOTbe measured in this ACHIEVEMENT portion of the accountability model but will be measured under the GAP CLOSURE portion of the accountability model. • Refer to the GAP CLOSURE measures process for information regarding how determinations are made for the individual subgroups:. MISS Achievement Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT Is there a 95% Participation Rate in TCAP and EOC Assessments for ALL students? No Yes Add the number of measures that met the AMO to the number of applicable measures that did not meet the AMO but have met one of the two safe harbor provisions. Did the district meet or reach safe harbor for a majority of its measures? Yes No EXCLUDING MEASURES that MET SAFE HARBOR: Did ALL students decline in a majority of the total # of measures? OR Did ALL students decline in any of the following aggregate measures? a) 3-8 math OR b) 3-8 RLA OR c) the majority of HS measures ACHIEVEAchievement Measures No Yes MISS Achievement Measures INTERMEDIATEPOSSIBLE MISS Achievement Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT

  28. Achievement Measures – How are determinations made? YES YES 5 of 9 met ACHIEVEAchievement Measures NO MISS Achievement Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT

  29. Achievement Measures – How are determinations made? NO YES YES 5 of 9 declined MISS Achievement Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT YES NO NO NO MISS Achievement Measures INTERMEDIATE POSSIBLE

  30. District Achievement – Safe Harbor • Safe Harbor provisions applied to achievement targets only 1) TVAAS student growth results • 7th grade RLA and Math; 3-8 RLA and Math (dark green) • Algebra I; English II (green) 2) Reduction in percent below proficient by • 10% from the previous year; • 19% from two years previously; or • 27% from three years previously

  31. District Gap Closure • For 2011-12, Subgroups & Comparisongroups are measured in the following areas : • 3-8 Math, 3-8 RLA, Algebra I, English II • Subgroups & Comparison Groups 1. Racial/ethnic composite (African American/Black, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native) vs. ALL Students 2. Economically Disadvantaged vs. Non-economically disadvantaged 3. English Learners vs. Non-English Learners 4. Students with Disabilities vs. Students without Disabilities • Individual subgroups: African American/Black; Asian; Hawaiian Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Native American/Alaskan Native; White; Economically Disadvantaged; English Learners; Students with Disabilities

  32. District GAP CLOSURE Measures – How are determinations made? • Gap Closure Measures: • For 2011-12, Subgroups are measured in the following areas (up to 4 per LEA): • 3-8 grades Math • 3-8 grades RLA • HS: Algebra I • HS: English II • AMOs are set to measure the reduction in gaps in the % of students scoring proficient and advanced for the following 4 comparison groups of students: • Racial/ethnic groups performing below state average vs. All students • Economically Disadvantaged vs. Non-economically disadvantaged • English Learners vs. Non-English Learners • Students with Disabilities vs. Students without Disabilities • (For 2011-12, there will be up to 4 gap measures for each of up to 4 comparisons groups.) • Additionally, each of the 9 individual subgroups below will be evaluated to identify any with a decline in % proficient and advanced in a majority of the measures: • 6 individual racial/ethnic subgroups* • Economically Disadvantaged • English Learners • Students with Disabilities MISS Gap Closure Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT Is there a 95% Participation Rate in TCAP and EOC Assessments for all individual subgroups with 30 or more students? No Yes Count the number of comparison group gap closure AMOs met. Did the district meet a majority of the AMO targets? Yes No Did the % proficient and advanced for any individual subgroup decline in a majority of the measures? Did the % proficient and advanced for any individual subgroup decline in a majority of the measures? No No Yes Yes ACHIEVEGap Closure Measures MISS Gap Closure Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT MISS Gap Closure Measures INTERMEDIATEPOSSIBLE MISS Gap Closure Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT *Racial/Ethnic Subgroups: African American/Black; Asian; Hawaiian Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Native American/Alaskan Native; White

  33. District GAP CLOSURE Measures – How are determinations made? YES YES YES Y=Yes 95%; N=Not 95% Y=Yes 95%; N=Not 95% Y=Yes 95%; N=Not 95% YES 8 of 14 met NO 8 of 16 met M=Met; N=Not Met NO 8 of 16 met M=Met; N=Not Met M=Met; N=Not Met SWD 3 of 4 declined NO YES I=Improved; D=Declined NO I=Improved; D=Declined I=Improved; D=Declined ACHIEVEGap Closure Measures MISS Gap Closure Measures IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT MISS Gap Closure Measures INTERMEDIATE POSSIBLE

  34. District ACHIEVEMENT and GAP CLOSURE Measures What is the final outcome? Placed on a list of districts in need of improvement District must meet with TDOE to support creation of an aggressive plan for corrective action Did your district ACHIEVE both the ACHIEVEMENT and GAP CLOSURE measures? Did your district MISS in both the ACHIEVEMENT and GAP CLOSURE measures? No Yes No, Missed Achievement Only No, Missed Gap Closure Only Yes District commended to Exemplary District List. District can maintain plans without approval from state, and granted increased latitude in funding flexibility (where possible) Was “INTERMEDIATE POSSIBLE” when you completed the flowchart for the framework you MISSED? No Yes LEA must submit a detailed analysis of the results, along with plans for the coming year to achieve goals, subject to TDOE approval

  35. School IdentificationPriority, Focus, and Reward Schools Categories of schools identified to drive increased performance in chronically low performing schools (priority), schools with the largest achievement gaps (focus), and recognition of top performing and fastest academic growth schools (reward).

  36. Reward School Determinations (Identified Annually) • Based on ALL students • Achievement-based Reward Schools (5%) • Represent the 5% with the highest overall achievement • Progress-based Reward Schools (5%) • Represent the 5% with the highest growth based on TVAAS 3-year growth composite index • Within-school gaps must be smaller than the state median, or if larger than the state median must be narrowing. • Gaps must not have widened from the prior year to the current year. • A school cannot be identified as reward if it could also be identified as priority or focus.

  37. Priority School Determinations (Identified Every 3 Years) • Based on ALL students • Represent the 5% with the lowest overall achievement • Identified schools will face 1 of 4 interventions: • Enter the TDOE-run Achievement School District (ASD) • Enter an LEA-run “Innovation Zone” • Apply and be approved by TDOE to adopt one of 4 SIG turnaround models • Undergo LEA-led school improvement planning processes, subject to direct ASD intervention in the absence of improved results.

  38. Success Rate Calculation – Priority and Reward Schools • The success rate is a composite proficiency rate for ALL students in a school. The data inputs for the calculation of the success rate include 3 years* of data for all of the following indicators for each school where applicable based on the assessments administered by the school. The success rate equals: # Proficient/Advanced Students in Math + Reading/Language Arts + Science + Algebra I + English I + English II + Biology + # HS Graduates # Tested Students in Math + Reading/Language Arts + Science + Algebra I + English I + English II + Biology + # Students in HS Graduation Cohort • 3-8 Math • 3-8 Reading/Language Arts • 3-8 Science • Algebra I • English I • English II • Biology I • Graduation Rate *Tennessee TCAP cut scores were recalibrated in 2009-10, which mean 2008-09 data is not comparable. The success rates used for determining the lists of schools were limited to 2009-10 and 2010-11 data. However, beginning with availability of 2011-12 data Tennessee will use three years of data. Success rates are calculated for all schools with data. However, only active schools with a minimum of 2 years of data are identified for any school list.

  39. Focus School Determinations (Identified Every 3 Years) • Based on student subgroups and comparison groups • Represent 10% schools • Identified based on any of the following 3 pathways: • High schools with a 3-year average graduation rate <60% that have not been identified as “Priority” • Schools with any subgroup(s) with less than 5% success rate • Schools with the largest within-school gaps between comparison groups • Will not be identified as a focus school if the following: • Reduced achievement gaps by 6% • All comparison groups are performing above the state subgroup median

  40. Focus School Determinations (continued) • Individual subgroup ‘Pathway 2’ determinations for: • 6 individual racial/ethnic subgroups • African American/Black; Asian; Hawaiian Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Native American/Alaskan Native; White • Economically Disadvantaged • English Learners • Students with Disabilities • Comparison group gaps ‘Pathway 3’ determinations for: • Racial/ethnic groups* performing below state average vs. All students *African American/Black, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native combined • Economically Disadvantaged vs. Non-economically disadvantaged • English Learners vs. Non-English Learners • Students with Disabilities vs. Students without Disabilities

  41. Success Rate Calculation – Focus Schools • The success rate is a composite proficiency rate for ALL students in a school. The data inputs for the calculation of the success rate include 3 years* of data for all of the following indicators for each school where applicable based on the assessments administered by the school. The success rate equals: # Proficient/Advanced Students in Math + Reading/Language Arts + Science + Algebra I + English II + # HS Graduates # Tested Students in Math + Reading/Language Arts + Science + Algebra I + English II # Students in HS Graduation Cohort • 3-8 Math • 3-8 Reading/Language Arts • 3-8 Science • Algebra I • English II • Graduation Rate *Tennessee TCAP cut scores were recalibrated in 2009-10, which mean 2008-09 data is not comparable. The success rates used for determining the lists of schools were limited to 2009-10 and 2010-11 data. However, beginning with availability of 2011-12 data Tennessee will use three years of data. Success rates are calculated for all schools with data. However, only active schools with a minimum of 2 years of data are identified for any school list.

  42. ESEA Waiver Provisions School improvement, poverty threshold, Title I set-asides, highly qualified, transferability of funds, rural schools, and 21st century learning centers

  43. ESEA Waiver Provisions • 2013-2014 Timeline 1111(b)(2)(E)-(H) • Timeline for achieving one hundred percent proficiency is waived and the state was approved for state level Annual Measurable Objectives and to work with Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to set new, ambitious, but achievable LEA Annual Measurable Objectives. • School Improvement Funds 1003(a)and 1003(g) • 1003(a) funds can be distributed for use in priority and focus schools. • 1003(g) funds for priority schools to implement one of the four SIG models.

  44. ESEA Waiver Provisions • LEA Requirements and LEA Improvement 1116(c)(3) and (5)-(11) and 1116 (e) • Waives requirements to identify LEAs by ESEA status definitions of in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring and waives corresponding requirements at each status level. • NOTE: In place of the previous status definitions, the state’s new accountability system identifies LEAs as exemplary, intermediate or in need of improvement, based upon Achievement and Gap Closure Targets.

  45. ESEA Waiver Provisions • LEA Requirements and LEA Improvement 1116(c)(3) and (5)-(11) and 1116 (e) • Waives federal requirement for set-aside of amount equal to 20% of Title I, Part A funds for Public School Choice or Supplemental Educational Services. • Provides for set-aside Funding Options • Any allowable activity under Title I, Part A. LEA must ensure sufficient support for 1) interventions in Priority and Focus schools, 2) recognition of Reward schools, and 3) support for schools who have not met their AMOs.

  46. ESEA Waiver Provisions • School Improvement and LEA Requirements 1116(b)(except (b)(13)) • Waives requirements to identify schools by ESEA status definitions of in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring and waives corresponding requirements at each status level. • NOTE: In place of the previous status definitions, the state’s new accountability system identifies some schools as Priority, Focus or Reward schools. • Waives requirement for 10% set-aside for Professional Development. • 1116 (b)(13) permits a student who has transferred to remain in the choice school through the highest grade.

  47. ESEA Waiver Provisions • Highly Qualified 2141 (c) • SEA/LEA Title II A agreement plans waived. • Section 1119 on highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals is NOT WAIVED. • The department is reviewing possible modifications to the current highly qualified teacher requirements which includes degrees, certifications, and subject matter competence. • Section 1111(b)(8)(C) states that the SEA must ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. The state is considering possible ways to use the new evaluation system to help meet this requirement.

  48. ESEA Waiver Provisions • Schoolwide Poverty Threshold of 40% or more 1114(a)(1) • Priority or focus schools may operate a schoolwide program with less than 40% poverty. • Rural Schools 6213(b) and 6224(e) • Waives restrictions on using funds under section 1116 for LEAs who fail accountability provisions. • 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) • Waiver permits an eligible entity to provide 21st CCLC activities to support expanded learning time during an expanded school day, week, or year in addition to activities during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session. The state’s new competition for 21st CCLC funds reflects this provision.

  49. ESEA Waiver Provisions • Limitations on Transferability of Funds 6123 • 6123(a) Limit of 50% (now allows 100%) an SEA may transfer from a covered ESEA program into another covered ESEA program or into Title I, Part A. “Covered programs” include Title II-A, Title II D (carryover), 21st Century but NOT Title III and others. • 6123(b)(1) Limit of 50 or 30% an LEA may transfer from a covered ESEA program into another covered ESEA program or into Title I, Part A and do not have to be used for LEA improvement but still need to follow title allowability provisions. • Notifications of transfers not necessary prior to transfers.

  50. Questions and DiscussionEmail additional questions to tned.assessment@tn.gov

More Related