AAAC
January 13, 2016
Best Western, Marlborough
Agenda
Welcome from Council Chair
ESE updates
2015 accountability reporting
Holyoke Public Schools
Southbridge Public Schools
Transition to new assessments & federal law
Implications for accountability & assistance system
2
Role of AAAC
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Welcome
Update from Council Chair, Meg Mayo-Brown
3
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
ESE Updates
2015 Accountability Reporting
Overall district and school accountability
determinations
Level 4 school exit decisions
Newly identified Level 4 school
Holyoke Public Schools
Southbridge Public Schools
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
4
2015 Accountability
Reporting
Update on Overall District & School Accountability Determinations,
Level 4 School Exit Decisions & Newly Identified Level 4 Schools
Goals of this presentation
1. Provide an overview of 2015 district and school
accountability determinations, which are based on 2012-2015
statewide assessment results and high school graduation and
dropout data
2. Share updated information about exit determinations and
next steps for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 Level 4 schools. Each of these
schools will follow one of two pathways:


Exit to Levels 1-3
Remain in Level 4
3. Provide an update on one new Level 4 school designation
6
Accountability & assistance system
under ESEA flexibility waiver
 Goal: Reducing proficiency gaps by half by 2017
 Accountability & assistance levels for schools &
districts (Levels 1-5)
 Progress & Performance Index (PPI) – a performance
measure that includes student growth, science, &
other indicators
 School percentiles – representing performance relative
to other schools of the same school type
 “High needs” subgroup data reported
 Low income students, students with disabilities, current &
former English language learners
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
7
How schools are classified
Description
ESE Engagement
Commendation
Schools
High achieving, high growth,
gap narrowing schools (subset of Level 1)
Level 1
Meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals
(for aggregate & high needs students)
Level 2
Not meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals
(for aggregate &/or high needs students)
Low
Level 3
Lowest performing 20% of schools
(including lowest performing subgroups)
High
Level 4
Lowest performing schools
(subset of Level 3)
Level 5
Chronically underperforming schools
(subset of Level 3 & 4)
Very low
Very high
8
Receivership
Modifications to 2015 reporting
 Additional credit for English language learners
demonstrating high growth in English language
proficiency
 Change in threshold for identifying schools with
persistently low graduation rates
 67 percent for 4-year cohort rate, 70 percent for 5-year
cohort rates
 Reduction in minimum subgroup size
 25 students, only if group was 30 or larger in 2014
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
9
Modifications to 2015 reporting
 Equipercentile linking approach used to link MCAS and
PARCC results through transitional CPIs
 Transitional student growth percentiles (SGPs)
calculated for PARCC schools
 “Hold harmless” applied to PARCC schools and districts
 No hold harmless for high schools or other MCAS
schools
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
10
2015 Impact of hold harmless approach
18% of schools administering PARCC in
grades 3-8 in 2015 held harmless
Majority of these schools remain in Level 1
Approximately 12% of PARCC districts held
harmless
Majority are single-school districts remaining in
Level 1
11
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
2015 Commendation schools
45 Commendation schools
Subset of Level 1 schools
Three categories:
High progress (28 schools)
Narrowing proficiency gaps (21 schools)
High achievement (7 schools)
Schools can be commended in multiple
categories
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
12
2014 & 2015 School Levels
1 Schools
with insufficient data to be eligible for a level are schools ending in grade
PK, K, 1, or 2, very small schools, and schools without four full years of data.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
13
2014 & 2015 District Levels
Schools and single-school districts with insufficient data to be eligible for a
level are schools ending in grade PK, K, 1, or 2, very small schools, and
schools without four full years of data.
1
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
14
Level 4 Schools Discussion Overview
Level 4
Refresher
Provide an overview of ESE’s process for
making exit decisions for Level 4 Schools
Exiting Schools
Summarize the next steps for each
designation pathway
Schools Remaining in
Level 4
New Level 4
School
Provide an update about newly
identified Level 4 school
15
6 Cohorts of Level 4 Schools
Cohort
Cohort 1
(Identified in Spring 2010)
Cohort 2
(Identified in Fall 2011)
Cohort 3
(Identified in Fall 2012)
Cohort 4
(Identified in Fall 2013)
Cohort 5
(Identified in Fall 2014)
Cohort 6
(Identified in Fall 2015)
Status
# of Schools
Relevant Districts
Exited to
Level 1, 2 or 3
18
Boston, Fall River, Lynn, Lowell, Springfield,
Worcester
Remained in
Level 4
9
Boston, Springfield, Worcester
In a L5 District
3
Holyoke, Lawrence
Designated as
Level 5
4
Boston, Holyoke, New Bedford
Closed
3
Boston, Fall River
Eligible to Exit in
Fall 2015
6
Lawrence, New Bedford, Salem, Worcester
Eligible to Exit in
Fall 2016
4
Boston, Lawrence, Springfield
Eligible to Exit in
Fall 2017
7
Athol-Royalston, Boston, Fall River, New
Bedford, Springfield
Eligible to Exit in
Fall 2018
6
Boston, Springfield, Worcester
1
Boston
Eligible to Exit in
Fall 2019
16
Decision Overview
Determination
# of Schools
Relevant
Districts
Exit to Level 1
3
Lawrence, Springfield
Exit to Level 3
1
Worcester
Remain in Level 4
14
Boston, Holyoke, Lawrence, New
Bedford, Salem, Springfield
17
Information for Schools Exiting Level 4
 4 schools have qualified to exit Level 4 status:
Lawrence – Community Day Arlington ES & UP Academy Leonard
Springfield – White Street ES
Worcester – Burncoat Street ES
District must submit an “Exit Assurances & Sustainability
Application” to identify ongoing sustainability supports, request
continued flexibilities, and allow ESE to monitor progress.
18
Information for Schools Remaining In Level 4
Several schools remaining in Level 4 are engaged with
turnaround partners or in-district receivers:
Boston – English HS
Boston – Dearborn
Salem – Bentley (Horace Mann III)
Springfield - Chestnut Street North
Springfield – Chestnut Street South
Springfield – Chestnut Street TAG
Springfield – Kennedy MS
Springfield – Kiley
19
New Level 4 School: Identification & Next Steps
 Selection Criteria:
 Any newly identified Level 4 schools are a subset of Level 3
 This school has had flat or declining results for multiple years and
is not making progress:
 Boston – Madison Park HS
 Next Steps:
 Convening a Local Stakeholder Group
 Preparing and submitting a Turnaround Plan
 Option to apply for FY17 School Redesign Grant Funds
20
Questions & Discussion
21
Update on Holyoke and
Southbridge Public
School Districts
Transitions
New statewide assessments
New federal law
Purpose of this discussion
Provide information about upcoming transitions
Statewide assessment plans & new federal law
Ask you to think about potential impact on MA’s
approach to accountability & assistance
Begin to gather your advice on possible
modifications to system & talk about next steps
24
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Context: Key elements of current system
 Annual determinations, typically based on 4 years of
data, for all schools
 Normative & criterion-referenced components
 School percentile - comparison to other schools
 Progress & Performance Index - progress against targets,
set thru 2016-17
 Grade 3-8 determinations based in full on assessment
results
 District level based on lowest performing school
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
25
Context: 2015 assessment choice
 In spring 2015 schools chose to administer PARCC or
MCAS tests in grades 3-8
 ESE calculated comparable statistics for 2015
accountability reporting regardless of test selected
 CPIs, % Adv, % W/F, & SGPs
 ESE announced we would not use 2015 data in school
percentiles for 2016 reporting & beyond
 Hold harmless for PARCC schools & districts
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
26
November 2015 Board vote
 Transition to next-generation MCAS for grades 3-8 by
spring 2017
 Allow assessment choice (MCAS->PARCC) again in G3-8 in
spring 2016
 Augment spring 2016 MCAS with PARCC items
 Remain member of PARCC consortium
 Commit to computer-based assessment by 2019
 Hold harmless – again – for PARCC schools & districts
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
27
“Hold harmless” deconstructed
 In this context hold harmless means a school or district
accountability & assistance level can improve, but cannot
get worse as compared to prior year
 Applies to G3-8 PARCC schools and districts in 2015 and
2016, and all G3-8 schools & districts in 2017
 Does not apply to Level 5 designations
 Exception for Level 4 designations in 2017 – “reasons other
than 2017 test scores”
 ESE continues to publish accountability-related data
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
28
Statewide assessment transition timeline
Year
Grades 3-8
High School
2015-16
PARCC & MCAS
• Science – MCAS only
• HH for PARCC schools &
districts*
MCAS
• No HH
2016-17
Next Generation MCAS
MCAS
• ELA, math, & science
• No HH
• HH for all schools & districts*
2017-18
Next Generation MCAS
• No HH
Next Generation MCAS
• No HH announcement
as of 1/2016
* HH=Hold harmless. Exception for Level 5 designations and, in 2017,
Level 4 designations
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
29
Every Student Succeeds Act enacted
 Signed by President Obama 12/10/15
 Reauthorizes the federal Elementary & Secondary
Education Act (ESEA)
 Replaces No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
 Gives us a new acronym - ESSA
 Maintains certain accountability requirements for
schools, which take effect in SY 2017-18
 ESEA/NCLB flexibility waiver expires 8/1/16
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
30
Accountability & assistance under ESSA
 Maintains NCLB’s annual testing requirements
 Requires system of “annual meaningful differentiation”
for all public schools
 Long-term goals & measures of interim progress, for all
students and subgroups
Including test-based proficiency, English language proficiency,
graduation rates, and indicator of “school quality or student
success”
May incorporate growth
 Identification of & intervention in lowest performing 5
percent of schools & high schools with graduation rates
below 67%
 Identification of & support for schools with low performing
subgroups
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
31
ESSA accountability transition timeline
Year
Federal context
2015-16
ESEA flexibility waiver
• Current accountability requirements
2016-17
Transition year
• Support low performing schools while reconsidering
design of system
2017-18
ESSA
• New accountability requirements
32
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Accountability reporting timeline
Testing year
Reporting
year
Publication
date
Determinations
apply to
Key
planning
done by *
SY 2015-16
2016
August 2016
SY 2016-17
May 2016
SY 2016-17
2017
August 2017
SY 2017-18
Dec 2016
SY 2017-18
2018
August 2018
SY 2018-19
June 2017
* Anticipated timeline, as of January 2016.
Includes time for regulatory changes.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
33
Role of AAAC
 Under state law -- Review & advise ESE and BESE on
policies and practices of office of school & district
accountability and ESE’s targeted assistance and
intervention efforts
 Within ESE’s “MCAS 2.0” project management plan -Review & advise on transition to MCAS 2.0 results in
state’s school & district accountability system
 We need your help!
34
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Group discussions
Technical aspects of system
 Years of data included
 Goals & targets – including baseline year
 Indicators included
 Weighting
Identification of and support for lowest
performing schools & districts
Communication/framing
 How we talk about accountability & assistance system
 Identification/naming of school & district categories
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
35
Next steps
 ESE establishes overall project plan, including
stakeholder engagement
 AAAC advises and establishes processes for providing
input into the design
 April 6th AAAC meeting
36
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education