Federal Program Directors
Spring Meeting
Proposed ESEA
Flexibility Request
March 12, 2013
5/29/2016
1
ESEA Flexibility Request
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
5/29/2016
2
Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
1.A
Adopt college-and career-ready standards
1.B
Transition to college- and career-ready standards
1.C
Develop and administer annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth
Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support
2.A
Develop and implement a State-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
2.B
Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives
2.C
Reward schools
2.D
Priority schools
2.E
Focus schools
2.F
Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools
2.G
Build SEA, LEA, and school capacity to improve student learning
Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
5/29/2016
3.A
Develop and adopt guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation and support systems
3.B
Ensure LEAs implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems
3
ESEA Flexibility Request
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
Differentiated
Standards
Recognition
and
Accountability
Assessments
Support
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
4
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
5
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
6
Student
Learning
5/29/2016
7
Principle 1
College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
• 1.A: Adopt college- and career-ready standards
• 1.B: Transition to college- and career-ready standards
• 1.C: Develop and administer annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality
assessments that measure student growth
5/29/2016
8
Principle 1
College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
 1.A: Adopt college- and career-ready standards
• 1.B: Transition to college- and career-ready standards
“Menu of Supports”
• Learning and Accommodation Factors for all Students
• Professional Development and Supports for all teachers
• 1.C: Develop and administer annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality
assessments that measure student growth
5/29/2016
9
Professional Development
Schedule
2011
2012
K
(0)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2012
2013
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
3
4
(0)
5
(0)
6
7
8
9
(0)
10
11
12
2013
2014
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(0)
4
(0)
5
(1)
6
(1)
7
(0)
8
9
(0)
10
(1)
11
12
2014
2015
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(3)
4
(1)
5
(1)
6
(2)
7
(2)
8
(1)
9
(0)
10
(1)
11
(2)
12
(0)
2015
2016
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(3)
4
(4)
5
(2)
6
(2)
7
(3)
8
(3)
9
(2)
10
(1)
11
(2)
12
(3)
Professional Development Schedule:
5/29/2016
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Kindergarten
First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Grade
Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Grade
Eighth, Eleventh, Twelfth Grade
10
CCSS-Aligned Professional Development and Implementation Schedule
2011
2012
K
(0)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2012
2013
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
3
4
(0)
5
(0)
6
7
8
9
(0)
10
11
12
2013
2014
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(0)
4
(0)
5
(1)
6
(1)
7
(0)
8
(0)
9
(0)
10
(1)
11
(0)
12
(0)
2014
2015
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(3)
4
(1)
5
(1)
6
(2)
7
(2)
8
(1)
9
(1)
10
(1)
11
(2)
12
(1)
2015
2016
K
(0)
1
(1)
2
(2)
3
(3)
4
(4)
5
(2)
6
(2)
7
(3)
8
(3)
9
(2)
10
(2)
11
(2)
12
(3)
Legend for CCSS-Aligned Professional Development and Implementation Schedule
PD/Implementation Schedule:
First Year of PD/Implementation for Grade
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
(0)(1)(2)(3)
5/29/2016
Red Text:
K
Grades 1, 4, 5, and 9
Grades 2 and 3, 6 – 8, and 10 - 12
Number of Years of Standards Implementation this
cohort of students has experienced by this school
year
11
First year of CCSS-aligned assessment
Discussion
Discuss your county’s plan for supporting the
transition to the Next Generation Common Core
and Smarter Balanced Assessment?
How does your county’s systemic approach
support student learning?
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
Principle 3
Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
• 3.A: Develop and adopt guidelines for local teacher and
principal evaluation and support systems
• 3.B: Ensure LEAs implement teacher and principal
evaluation and support systems
5/29/2016
13
Evaluation System for Teachers
Four
Performance
Levels
Advanced
Progression
6+ years
Intermediate
Progression
4-5 years
Initial
Progression
1-3 years
Oct. 1
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Nov. 1
Summative Conference/Evaluation
by June 1
Al;ksdjf
Unsatisfactory
5/29/2016
14
How are Principal 3 Federal Guidelines being met?
SUPPORTING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Focused Support Plan
Corrective Action Plan
• Proactive, preventative
• Unsatisfactory performance
• Area(s) of concern in one or
shown in a completed evaluation
more performance standards
• Identified timeline and support
• Support meets individual needs • Determinative
Support for Improving Professional Practice (SIPP) Guidelines
To create a comprehensive infrastructure that routinely supports a
continuous process for improving teaching and learning. Its focus is on
developing strong teaching and school leadership, without which effective
learning does not occur.
• High-quality teacher preparation, induction and evaluation;
• Universal support for emerging teachers
• Data-driven, job embedded, sustained professional development
5/29/2016
15
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
16
Discussion
Describe one way that the
revised evaluation system can
support the transition to
Next Generation Common Core?
5/29/2016
17
Evaluation System for Teachers
Four
Performance
Levels
Advanced
Progression
6+ years
Intermediate
Progression
4-5 years
Initial
Progression
1-3 years
Oct. 1
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Nov. 1
Summative Conference/Evaluation
by June 1
Al;ksdjf
Unsatisfactory
5/29/2016
18
Monongalia County Schools
Leader Student Learning Goal – Middle Schools
GOAL:
1. By the end of the year SMI benchmark assessment, both all students and
randomly selected Economically Disadvantaged sixth through eighth grade
students will show a decrease (5%) in below-mastery range scores and an
increase (8%) in mastery and above mastery range scores.
ASSESSMENT:
SMI for Math
Discussion
Discuss your county’s plan for supporting the
transition to the revised educator evaluation
system?
How does your county’s systemic approach
support student learning?
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
20
Principle 2
State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability, and Support
• 2.A: Develop and implement a State-based system of
differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
• 2.B: Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives
• 2.C: Reward schools
• 2.D: Priority schools
• 2.E: Focus schools
• 2.F: Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools
• 2.G: Build SEA, LEA, and school capacity to improve student
learning
State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability
and Support System
All
Schools
Current Metrics: WESTEST RLA & Math
Achievement
Growth
GAP
Attendance/Grad. Rate
WV Accountability
Index &
AMOs
Potential Metrics:
Others?
Highest Performing
Highest Improvement
REWARD
Recognition, Monitoring Exemption, Local Flexibility
PRIORITY
5/29/2016
SUPPORT
FOCUS
TRANSITION
SUCCESS
22
State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability
and Support System
All
Schools
Current Metrics: WESTEST RLA & Math
Achievement
Growth
GAP
Attendance/Grad. Rate
WV Accountability
Index &
AMOs
Potential Metrics:
Others?
Highest Performing
Highest Improvement
REWARD
Recognition, Monitoring Exemption, Local Flexibility
PRIORITY
5/29/2016
SUPPORT
FOCUS
TRANSITION
SUCCESS
23
What is “State-Developed Differentiated
Recognition, Accountability, and Support”?
What it WAS
What it IS
State
Developed
5/29/2016
24
What it WAS
State
Developed
5/29/2016
What it IS
 Accountability
measures and AMO
targets developed
through a USDE
mandated process
 Inequitable system for
large/small schools
 Minimizing negative
consequences –
balancing unrealistic
expectations … gaming
the system
25
What it WAS
State
Developed
5/29/2016
What it IS
 Accountability
 Accountability measures
measures and AMO
and AMO targets/process
targets developed
different for each state
through a USDE
 Create a fair and
mandated process
transparent system for all
 Inequitable system for
schools regardless of
large/small schools
school size
 Minimizing negative
 State developed –places
consequences –
ownership at the state,
balancing unrealistic
regional, district and
expectations … gaming
school level
the system
26
What it WAS
What it IS
Differentiated
5/29/2016
27
Old Adequate Yearly Progress
Participation
Rates
5/29/2016
Annual
Measurable
Objectives
(Proficiency
Rates)
Attendance/
Graduation Rates
28
What it WAS
What it IS
Differentiated  On/Off AYP switch
 Based on time “not
making AYP”
5/29/2016
29
What it WAS
Differentiated  On/Off AYP switch
 Based on time “not
making AYP”
5/29/2016
What it IS
 Schools will no longer be
designated “making” or
“not making” AYP
 Now 5 Categories of
Designation
 Making/not making
progress at the school or
subgroup level- Did the
school designation
change?
30
What it WAS
What it IS
Recognition
5/29/2016
31
What it WAS
Recognition
5/29/2016
What it IS
 No credit for moving
from below mastery to
partial mastery
 Designation solely
based on Achievement
(no way to recognize
growth/improvement
in “old system”)
32
What it WAS
Recognition
5/29/2016
What it IS
 No credit for moving
 Credit for student
from below mastery to
growth- credit for moving
partial mastery
from below mastery to
 Designation solely
partial mastery
based on Achievement  Through “Reward”
(no way to recognize
criteria, schools will be
growth/improvement
recognized for
in “old system”)
achievement AND growth
 High performing schools
will be recognized and
receive more flexibility
33
What it WAS
What it IS
Accountability
5/29/2016
34
What it WAS
What it IS
Accountability  Subgroups resulted in
total On/Off switch
 N size of 50
 Same starting point
for all
 Steep targets to 100%
in 2014
5/29/2016
35
What it WAS
Accountability  Subgroups resulted in
total On/Off switch
 N size of 50
 Same starting point
for all
 Steep targets to 100%
in 2014
5/29/2016
What it IS
 Schools are still held to
high standards for
subgroup achievement
(e.g. GAP is included in
the Index)
 N size of 20
 Account for school
context (i.e. starting
point)
 Steep targets to 2020
36
What it WAS
What it IS
Support
5/29/2016
37
What it WAS
Support
5/29/2016
What it IS
 Sanctions were
primary drivers of
change
 Support is not
meaningfully
articulated in NCLB
38
What it WAS
Support
5/29/2016
 Sanctions were
primary drivers of
change
 Support is not
meaningfully
articulated in NCLB
What it IS
 “Sanctions” no longer
required (e.g.
Supplemental services,
choice)
 Supports are
differentiated depending
on identified deficiency
 Support are spelled out
in negotiated MOU and
consider various
providers (e.g. district,
RESA, state)
39
What it WAS
What it IS
Support
(Improvement
Planning)
5/29/2016
40
What it WAS
What it IS
Support
 Five-Year Strategic
(Improvement
Plan for School
Planning)
Improvement
 Same size fits all
 Included multiple
program requirements
for funding &
compliance
5/29/2016
41
What it WAS
What it IS
Improvement  Five-Year Strategic
 Basic plan with targeted
Planning
Plan for School
& extended sections for
Improvement
schools designated as
 Same size fits all
Transition, Focus,
 Included multiple
Support or Priority
program requirements  Individualized to meet
for funding &
school/county needs &
compliance
resources
 Will include multiple
updated & streamlined
program requirements
for funding & compliance
5/29/2016
42
State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and
Support System
All
Schools
Current Metrics: WESTEST RLA & Math
Achievement
Growth
GAP
Attendance/Grad. Rate
WV Accountability
Index &
AMOs
Potential Metrics:
Others?
Highest Performing
Highest Improvement
REWARD
Recognition, Monitoring Exemption, Local Flexibility
PRIORITY
SUPPORT
FOCUS
TRANSITION
SUCCESS
Self Reflection/HQ Standards, Diagnostic Visit, Data Analysis (e.g. Personnel Evaluations) ID Strengths & Weaknesses
Required
Extended Plan +
Analysis Turnaround
Interventions
LEA & State support
5/29/2016
Optional
Extended Plan LEA
Interventions,
LEA & RESA support
Extended Plan +
Analysis Targeted
Interventions
LEA & State support
Basic Plan + Extension
Regular Monitoring
Local Account.
Basic Plan
Monitoring Exemption
Local flexibility
43
Discussion
Discuss your county’s plan for supporting the
transition to the Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability and Support System?
How does your county’s systemic approach
support student learning?
Differentiated
Recognition
Accountability
Support
Standards and
Assessments
5/29/2016
Educator
Evaluation
and Support
44
Questions / Comments?
THANK YOU!
5/29/2016
45