OSPI UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICY
AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
2013 WSSDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 22, 2013
Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D.
Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)
FLEXIBILITY WAIVER OVERVIEW
•
•
•
•
•
•
ESEA original authorization in 1965
Lyndon Johnson / Great Society
A Nation at Risk (1983)
George HW Bush / America 2000
Bill Clinton / Goals 2000
Reauthorization every 5 years, but…
- 2002 Reauthorization = NCLB
- 2007 Reauthorization still has not occurred
- 2012 U.S. Dept of Ed established waiver program
2
WHERE WE WERE BEGINNING IN 2002
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR
3
MIDDLE SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR
4
HIGH SCHOOL STATE UNIFORM BAR
5
AYP TIMELINE FOR SCHOOLS
(Consequences apply only to schools receiving Title I funds)
Sanctions are a District Responsibility
AYP
AYP
WASL
Results
WASL
Results
1 2
School
Continue:
Continue:
Continue:
Improvement Public School Public School Public School
Plan
Choice
Choice
Choice
Supplemental Supplemental
Services
Public School Supplemental
Services
Choice
AYP
Step
1
AYP
Step
2
Corrective
Action
AYP
Step
3
Implement
Plan
For
Alternative
Governance
Plan for
Alternative
Governance
AYP
Step
4
AYP
Step
5
Identified for School Improvement
6
FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
AND INCREASE THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION
Implementation of School Improvement Requirements
– Flexibility from requirement for school districts to identify or take
improvement actions for schools identified for improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring
– Eliminates Public School Choice (PSC) as a mandate
– Eliminates Supplemental Educational Services (SES) as a mandate
– Eliminates the 20% district Title I set aside to fund PSC and SES
– Eliminates the 10% set aside for professional development for schools
7
WHAT DOES ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE
FROM STATES?
1. Ensure college- and career-ready expectations for all students
in Washington
– Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
2. Implement state-developed system of differentiated
recognition, accountability, and support
3. Support effective instruction and leadership in Washington—
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP)
4. Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on school
districts by the state
8
PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY
EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS
To support States in continuing the work of transitioning students, teachers,
and schools to higher standards
• Adopt college- and career-ready (CCR) standards in at least
reading/language arts and mathematics
• Transition to and implement CCR standards
• Develop and administer Statewide, aligned, high-quality
assessments that measure student growth
• Adopt English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards
corresponding to the State’s new CCR standards and develop
aligned assessments
9
PRINCIPLE 2: STATE-DEVELOPED DIFFERENTIATED
RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT
To support states’ efforts to move forward with next-generation accountability systems
• Set ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
• 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: Close achievement gaps by identifying and implementing
interventions in schools with the greatest achievement gaps or low
graduation rates
• Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools (Emerging
Schools)
• Build State Education Agency (SEA), Local Education Agency (LEA), and
school capacity to improve student learning in all schools
10
STATES MUST:
• Set ambitious, but achievable, Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs)
• Identify:
– Reward schools: Provide incentives and recognition for highprogress 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
(e.g., turnaround principles) in schools with the lowest performing
subgroups
– Other low-performing Title I schools (Emerging schools):
Provide incentives and support
• Build state, district, and school capacity
11
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM BASED ON ESEA REQUEST
Up to 2011-12
AYP Determinations
•Sanctions for schools and districts
“in improvement”
•Set-asides required for Public
School Choice and Supplemental
Education Services
2012-13 and 2013-14
2014-15 and beyond
AMO Calculations
•Annual targets intended to close proficiency gaps by half by 2017; uses 2011 as baseline and
adds equal annual increments (1/6 of proficiency gap) to get to 2017 target; each subgroup,
school, district, and state have unique annual targets.
•Calculations reported on Report Card
•No AYP sanctions based on identification of schools and districts “in improvement”
•Requires districts to set aside up to 20% for Priority, Focus, and Emerging Schools
School Improvement
•Uses AYP calculations to identify
schools and districts in a step of
improvement (Title I)
•Uses PLA Methodology based on
AYP calculations to generate list of
Persistently Lowest Achieving
Schools (PLAs)
SBE/OSPI Achievement
Index
ESEA Request Accountability
System
Washington State’s New
Accountability System
Used to identify Reward, Priority, Focus, and
Emerging schools
Used to identify Reward, Priority, Focus,
and Emerging schools for Title I and nonTitle I schools
Used to identify Award Schools
12
OPTION A: SET AMBITIOUS BUT ACHIEVABLE ANNUAL
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES (AMOs)
NEW AMOs (Targets): Cut Proficiency Gap by Half by 2017
Sample High School - 10th Grade Reading
Our goal for all Students remains 100% meeting standard!
Decrease of
50%
Proficiency Gap
13
HOW IS A SCHOOL IDENTIFIED?
Focus:
Priority:
Based on
“Subgroup”
Performance
Thresholds:
Priority:
Emerging-P:
Focus:
Emerging-F:
<38.1%
<42.3%
<13.5%
<19.8%
Based on “All
Students”
Performance
Emerging Priority
(Next 5%)
Emerging Focus
(Next 10%)
Priority (lowest 5%)
Focus (lowest 10% )
(Emerging = Other
Title I Schools)
14
PROPOSED STATE AND FEDERAL
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
State System
Federal Definitions
Reward – Highest Performing
Reward – High-Progress
“Emerging”: Next 5% based on Index
Focus: Subgroup Performance – Lowest
10% on Assessments + Grad Rates < 60%
Priority: Lowest 5% based on Index +
High Schools w/Grad Rates < 60%
15
PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE
INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP
To support SEA and LEA development of evaluation systems that go beyond
NCLB’s minimum HQT standards
• Develop and adopt SEA guidelines for local teacher and
principal evaluation and support systems
• Ensure LEAs implement teacher and principal evaluation and
support systems that are consistent with SEA guidelines
16
PRINCIPLE 3 - NEXT STEPS
Action
Timeline
Principle 3 amendment submitted
July 19, 2013
Response from U.S. Dept. of ED (high-risk
status)
August 14, 2013
WA State response to “high-risk” status
September 12,
2013
Legislation request/change
January-March
2014
17
USE OF STUDENT GROWTH DATA
USING STATE-BASED TOOLS
Upshot:
• State-based tools have limited applicability.
• Only teachers in Grades 4–8 with ELA or math courses can use summative
testing as part of their evaluation.
(HS math teachers with students in 9th grade Algebra or 10th grade Geometry could be included)
– Since evaluations are due in early May and SGP ratings aren’t available
until Sept. 1, analysis will always be one year behind.
– Teacher attribution is challenging at all levels:
• Middle school students are reported by individual classes in
CEDARS
• Elementary school students are reported by homeroom teacher in
CEDARS
– Transition to a new set of standards and a new exam system will take
time.
18
STUDENT GROWTH PERCENTILES
WHERE WE ARE
• March 2013: SGPs from 2011 & 2012 have been
provided to districts for Grades 4–8 and high school
(reading and math MSP, HSPE, and EOC)*
• October 2013: SGPs from 2013 provided to districts
• October 2014: ?
• October 2015: SGPs from 2015 (Smarter Balanced)
provided to districts
• October 2016: SGPs from 2016 (Smarter Balanced)
provided to districts (could use in 2016–17 evaluations)
*High school SGPs will be available for consecutive year tests (e.g., 8th MSP, 9th Algebra 1, 10th Geometry)
19
EXAMPLE FROM A DISTRICT IN A STATE
WITH A 50% STUDENT GROWTH RULE
Classroombased
Observations/
Artifacts
State Tests
Formative
Classroom-based
State Tests
Formative
Observations/Artifacts
20
AVAILABLE STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES
TPEP PILOT SITE DATA
Multiple Measurement Tools
This chart represents data collected from TPEP districts and a sample of the strengths and limitations of implementing measures.
% of teachers=
Examples
Strengths
Limitations
Measure
assessment*
ClassroomBased Tools
School-Based
Tools
100%
79%





Student work
Graphic organizers
Performance tasks
Unit assessments
Art/PE performance
assessments


Common formative
assessments
7th grade writing
samples
Kindergarten readiness




District-developed
benchmark exams
MAP assessments
DIBELS (literacy)





MSP
HSPE
SAT
ACT
AP exams



District-Based
Tools
State-Based
Tools
30.8%
16.2%





Capture authentic
student work and
learning
Relevant to teachers
to inform practice in a
timely way

Encourage team goal
setting
Relevant to both
teacher/principal
evaluations

Can compare across
schools/districts
Useful in district-wide
PLC and vertical
teaming

Higher likelihood of
validity for assessing
student performance
Widely available and
public






Difficult to compare across
classrooms
May lack validity
More time involved to
assess students
May not be comparable
between districts
Training for principals key
to implementation
May not have district
capacity to support timely
use of data
May lack reliability in
administration of
assessments
Only relevant to a small
percentage of teachers
Data is not quickly
accessible to quickly inform
21
teaching practice
STATE
FEDERAL
E2SSB 6696 contains language
around student growth
including:
ESEA Flexibility -- Frequently Asked
Questions (C-53): What are an SEA’s
responsibilities with regard to ensuring
that an LEA’s evaluation and support
systems consider student growth?
Student growth data that is relevant to
the teacher and subject matter must be
a factor in the evaluation process and
must be based on multiple measures
that can include classroom-based,
school-based, district-based, and statebased tools. Student growth means the
change in student achievement
between two points in time.
An SEA is responsible for ensuring that an LEA
develops and implements evaluation and support
systems consistent with the guidelines the SEA
has developed under principle 3 (as described in
the document titled ESEA Flexibility). This
includes ensuring that LEA evaluation and
support systems take into account data on student
growth in significant part in determining teacher
and principal performance levels….
For grades and subjects in which assessments are
required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3), an SEA
must define a statewide approach for measuring
student growth based on such assessments.
22
PRINCIPLE 3: ESEA WAIVER
• USED requires state test
scores in tested grades and
subjects to be a significant
part of teacher evaluation
• Waiver requires change from
“can be used” to “must be
used” regarding state tests
• Supt. Dorn will seek request
legislation to change ESSB
5895 language from can to
must. It will also include a
statement that will delay the
implementation of using
state test scores in teacher
evaluations to 2016-17
• Smarter Balanced assessment
system will have an effect on
timeline for implementation
• Waiver decision expected May
2014
• 20% of Title 1 funds return to
mandated use without a waiver:
– $44M total available to
Supplemental Educational
Service (SES) providers and
to support School Choice
– $18M used three years ago
– $2.6M in Seattle
23
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
• ESEA Flexibility Web Site
– www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility
• Questions?
– ESEAflexibility@ed.gov
24
TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL
EVALUATION PROJECT (TPEP)
INFLUENCES ON TPEP
DEVELOPMENT
TPEP Pilot
Sites &
Steering
Committee
Instruction
al and
Leadership
Framework
Authors
ESSB
5895
Research
and Best
Practice
E2SSB
6696 &
Race to
the Top
2010–12
ESEA
Flexibility
Waiver
2012
Washington
State
Evaluation and
Professional
Growth System
2012
26
E2SSB 6696 (2010)
• First change educator
evaluation since the 70s
• New criteria for teachers
and for principals
• Emphasis on instructional
improvement for all
educators
• Established Steering
Committee with
designated functions
• Gave OSPI rule-making
authority
ESSB 5895 (2012)
 Implementation timelines
 Instructional Framework details
 Role of the pilots
 Reports to the Legislature
27
TPEP STEERING COMMITTEE
28
CHANGES IN TEACHER & PRINCIPAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria
Instructional skill
Classroom management
Professional preparation and scholarship
Effort toward improvement when needed
Handling of student discipline and
attendant problems
Interest in teaching pupils
Knowledge of subject matter
New Teacher Evaluation Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Current Principal Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge of, experience in and training
in recognizing good professional
performance, capabilities and
development
School administration and management
School finance
Professional preparation and scholarship
Effort toward improvement when needed
Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and
subjects taught in school
Leadership
Ability and performance of evaluation of
school personnel
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
Demonstrating effective teaching practices
Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address
those needs
Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment
Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student
learning
Communicating with parents and school community
Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional
practice and student learning
New Principal Evaluation Criteria
Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and
teaching for students and staff
Providing for school safety
Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for
increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data
elements
Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and
assessment with state and local district learning goals
Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices
Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal
responsibilities
Partnering with the school community to promote student learning
Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap
29
30
TRANSITION / IMPLEMENTATION
(Suggested Timeline)
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
Provisional and
Probationary
Teachers (RCW
28A.405.100)
Required:
Comprehensive
Evaluation
Required:
Comprehensive
Evaluation
Required:
Comprehensive
Evaluation
Required:
Comprehensive
Evaluation
Certificated
Classroom
Teachers *
25%
Comprehensive
Evaluation and
75% PGO New
Criteria Goals
tied to
Frameworks OR
Focused
Evaluation
25%
Comprehensive
Evaluation and
75% PGO New
Criteria Goals
tied to
Frameworks OR
Focused
Evaluation
25%
Comprehensive
Evaluation
OR Focused
Evaluation
25%
Comprehensive
Evaluation
OR Focused
Evaluation
* In order to go on the focused a certificated classroom teacher must have 4 years of satisfactory
evaluation (RCW 28A.405.100).
31
EVALUATION SUMMATIVE SCORING PROCESS
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
District
determined process
State determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
32
THE RAW SCORE MODEL
Overall
Criterion
Scores
Teaching Criteria
* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics
Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
3
Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices
*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those
needs
Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
4
Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment
3
*Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning
2
Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community
3
3
2
*Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice
2
and student learning
Total Summative Score
OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band
8-14
15-21
1
2
Unsatisfactory
Basic
22
22-28
3
Proficient
29-32
4
Distinguished
Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating categories
based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a
preliminary overall summative rating of Proficient.
33
34
35
STUDENT GROWTH TEACHER RUBRIC LANGUAGE
Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address
those needs.
Student Growth 3.1: Establish Student Growth Goal(s)
Unsatisfactory
Does not establish student
growth goals or establishes
inappropriate goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full learning
potential. Goals do not
identify multiple, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Basic
Establishes appropriate
student growth goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full learning
potential. Goals do not
identify multiple, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Proficient
Establishes appropriate
student growth goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full learning
potential. Goals identify
multiple, high-quality
sources of data to monitor,
adjust, and evaluate
achievement of goals.
Distinguished
Establishes appropriate
student growth goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full potential in
collaboration with
students, parents, and
other school staff. Goals
identify multiple, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s)
Unsatisfactory
Growth or achievement
data from at least two
points in time shows no
evidence of growth for
most students.
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
Multiple sources of growth
or achievement data from
at least two points in time
show some evidence of
growth for some students.
Multiple sources of growth
or achievement data from
at least two points in time
show clear evidence of
growth for most students.
Multiple sources of growth
or achievement data from
at least two points in time
show evidence of high
growth for all or nearly all
students.
36
USING DISTRICT, SCHOOL, AND
CLASSROOM-BASED DATA (TEACHERS)
Five Student Growth Criteria
– 3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals
Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/
opportunity gap)
– 3.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/
opportunity gap)
– 6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data
Elements
Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to
school and district goals
– 6.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to
school and district goals
– 8.1 Establish Team Student Growth Goals
Re: Teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other
school/district team
37
STUDENT GROWTH RUBRIC AND RATING
(TEACHERS ONLY)
Student Growth
Goal-Setting Score
Based on Rubric
Criterion 3
Criterion 6
3
2
Criterion 8
2
Student Growth Score 7
Student Growth*
Score Based on
Rubric
2**
2**
Overall Student
Growth
Criterion Score
5
4
N/A
2
11
4
OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band
5-12
13-17
18-20
Low
Average
High
Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As
illustrated above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating.
* Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (e.g., state-, district-, school-,
and classroom-based measures).
**A student growth score of 1 in any of the student growth rubrics will result in a Low
growth rating.
***For teachers on a focused evaluation, any cell with a score of 1 will result in a low rating;
a rating above 1 in all cells will result in an adequate rate.
38
STUDENT GROWTH INQUIRY CONSEQUENCES
Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the
beginning of the following school year, whichever is later, one or more of the
following must be initiated by the evaluator:
• Triangulate student growth measure with other evidence (including
observation, artifacts and student evidence) and additional levels of
student growth based on classroom, school, district and state-based
tools;
• Examine extenuating circumstances possibly including: goal setting
process/expectations, student attendance, and curriculum/assessment
alignment;
• Schedule monthly conferences with the teacher to discuss/revise goals,
progress toward meeting goals, and best practices; and/or
• Create and implement a professional development plan to address
student growth areas.
39
TRANSITION TO
NEW ASSESSMENTS
2013-14 AND 2014-15
✔
Balanced Assessment
✔
Summative
Assessments for
Accountability
✔
•Coverage of full breadth/depth of Common Core
•Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)
• Precise assessment of all students
• More engaging assessment experience
•Performance Tasks – real world problems
Interim
Assessments to
Signal Improvement
Formative Tools and
Resources for
Improved
Instruction
•Optional for district, school or classroom use
•Fully aligned with Common Core – same item pool
•Focus on set of standards or clone summative test
•Teachers can review and score responses
•Digital library gives access to high-quality resources
•Tools/materials for classroom-based assessments
•Professional social networking (Web-based PLCs)
•Useful for in-service and pre-service development
41
A Balanced Assessment System
English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School
School Year
Last 12 weeks of the year*
DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE OF FORMATIVE TOOLS, PROCESSES AND EXEMPLARS
Released items and tasks; Model curriculum units; Educator training; Professional development tools and
resources; Scorer training modules; Teacher collaboration tools; Evaluation of publishers’ assessments.
Optional Interim
Assessment
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
Optional Interim
Assessment
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
PERFORMANCE
TASKS
• ELA/Literacy
• Mathematics
Scope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined
COMPUTER
ADAPTIVE TESTS
• ELA/Literacy
• Mathematics
Re-take option
*Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.
42
Major Milestones in Development of
Summative Assessments
✔
Cognitive
Labs
Apr – Aug
2012
✔
Small
Scale
Trials
Mar – Nov
2012
✔
Pilot
Testing
Feb – May
2013
Early Q.C. of items & software; no student results
Field
Test
Mar – June
2014
Deploy For
Operational
Use
Fall 2014
Full system
run-through;
Establish
performance
standards
43
Technology Requirements:
Responding to School Needs
•
•
•
•
Smarter states have established standards for new and
existing hardware
Online “Readiness Tool”
– Schools and districts can evaluate technology readiness
Schools do NOT need one-to-one computers
– Illustrative example: A 600-student school can be supported by a
single 30-computer lab
– Smarter Balanced Readiness Calculator at:
http://www3.cde.ca.gov/sbactechcalc/
Pencil-and-paper option available for three-year
transition period
44
Accommodations
•
The Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines are available
at http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_091113.pdf
45
Learn More and Stay Engaged
www.smarterbalanced.org
•
•
•
Visit us at:
SmarterBalanced.org
Sign up for the
e-newsletter
Follow on
Twitter:
@SmarterBalanced
46
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Evolution to Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessments in Washington
Reading
Writing
English/LA
Math
Math
Science
(end 20132014)
(end 20132014)
(begin 20142015)
(end 20132014)
(begin 20142015)
(no change)
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
Grade 3
MSP
Grade 4
MSP
Grade 5
MSP
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
Grade 6
MSP
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
Grade 7
MSP
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
Grade 8
MSP
SBAC
MSP
SBAC
High
School
MSP
MSP
See next slide
See next slide
MSP
MSP
Biology
EOC
MSP = Measurements of Student Progress
HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams
EOC = End of Course exams
SBAC = Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
47
With Summative High School Assessments in
2014–15 and beyond
English/LA
Mathematics
Science
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(no change)
Grade 3
SBAC
SBAC
Grade 4
SBAC
SBAC
Grade 5
SBAC
SBAC
Grade 6
SBAC
SBAC
Grade 7
SBAC
SBAC
Grade 8
SBAC
SBAC
MSP
Comprehensive ELA
exit exam
Year 1or Year 2
EOC exit exam
EOC Biology
exit exam (until NGSS)
SBAC – College and
Career Ready
SBAC – College and
Career Ready
Grades10
(until Class of 2019)
Grade 11
MSP
SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
MSP= Measurements of Student Progress
EOC= End of Course exams
48
HS Testing for Graduation (new June 30)
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Graduation Assessment Requirements

Classes of 2013 and 2014


Classes of 2015 – 2018



HSPE Reading, HSPE Writing; 1 EOC Math
ELA exit exam; 1 EOC Math exit exam; EOC Biology
Smarter Balanced ELA and math tests taken in 11th for school
accountability
Class of 2019 and beyond

Smarter Balanced tests in ELA and Math; Biology or NGSS
49
Smarter Balanced Field Testing
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

US Dept of Ed is allowing states to participate in the
Smarter Balanced field test in 2013-14 (pending ESEA Waiver
approval):
 Washington has opted for the blended model (grades 3-8 only)
where some schools take current tests and some schools take
field tests



If only giving field tests, school accountability is carried over from
2013 MSP
Waiver will be submitted at end of November– approval likely in
December
High schools need to administer all current state tests due to
graduation requirements
50
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
What’s Happening This Year, 2013-14?

Exit exams remain the same (HSPE, EOC)

CAA options remain the same

Class of 2013 had some relaxation of Collection of Evidence
rules that had been newly implemented – these will not
continue (COE is limited to one submission per content area
throughout HS, and requires two attempts on general assessment
before submitting)

Some schools will administer Smarter Balanced field test
51
Smarter Balanced Field Testing
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION


March - June 2014
Purpose: Evaluate items and tasks for Smarter Balanced
pool…





Statistical data analysis of 22,000+ items
Divide items/tasks into secure (summative) pool and open
(interim) pool
Conduct standard setting for different performance levels (“cut
scores”)
Sampling requires about 10% of each state’s students for ELA
and about 10% for math
Washington has about 33% participating in grades 3-8, and
10% in 11th
52
EFFECTS OF RECENT LEGISLATION
•
•
•
•
1080 / 1000 Hour Requirement
ESSB 5946 – Educational Outcomes
E2SSB 5329 – K-12 Education – Failing Schools
ESSB 5491 – K-12 Schools – Educational
System Health
53
1080 HOURS
• 2009 law; 2013 budget authority
• For 2014-15, Grade 7-12 1080-hour requirement
– RCW 28A.150.204 allows passing time “intermissions” and
early dismissals for parent conferences but not professional
development releases
– Most middle and high schools employ a 6-hour student
instructional day
– 6 x 180 = 1080
– Every 5 minute extension = 15 hours
• All K-6 grades are required to offer 1000 hours
54
ESSB 5946 – EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
• K-4 report cards include whether a student is reading on grade level
• Beginning in 2014-15, interventions are required for below grade level
readers beginning with 3rd grade.
• Beginning in 2015-16, districts must implement an intensive reading
improvement strategy from an OSPI menu.
• Focus of LAP program changes: Needs of K-4 students with reading
deficiencies are highest priority.
• Current LAP plans are replaced with entrance and exit performance
data.
• Student Discipline Task Force must set up standards definitions for
disciplinary events.
• Expulsions are limited to one year and emergency expulsions must end
after 10 days.
• The ALE 80% funding regulations is repealed.
55
E2SSB 5329 – K-12 EDUCATION – FAILING
SCHOOLS
• The State Board of Education (SBE) and OSPI
must establish rules for “challenged schools in
need of improvement”
• A required action district (RAD) designation is
further divided between RAD I and RAD II, the
later subject to increasing attention from OSPI
56
ESSB 5491 – K-12 SCHOOLS
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM HEALTH
• The SBE must establish six statewide indicators of
educational system health:
–
–
–
–
–
The six characteristics measured in WaKIDS
Fourth Grade Reading
Eighth Grade Math
Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate
Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in college
training programs or employed within nine months
– College remediation rates
• All indicators must be disaggregated
57
QUESTIONS?
Thank you!
5