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