ESEA FLEXIBILITY:
CHANGES TO SCHOOL AND DISTRICT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSISTANCE
Intended outcomes for today
We hope you will leave this meeting with:
1. Increased understanding of changes to
Arkansas school and district accountability
and assistance system resulting from ESEA
Flexibility.
2. Additional ideas about how your district
might use federal and state resources to
help support your low-performing schools.
3. Where to get more information.
What did NCLB require?
• 100% proficiency in literacy and math by 2013–14
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations
for all schools and districts
– Schools and districts identified for improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring
– Required actions linked to NCLB status
• 20% reservation of Title I, Part A for school choice and
supplemental educational services (SES) [ESEA
§1116(b)(10)(A)(i-iii)]
• 10% reservation of Title I, Part A for professional
development [ESEA §1116(b)(3)(A)(iii)]
What did ESEA Flexibility require?
• Adopt college- and career-ready standards and assessments
• Set new ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable
Objectives (AMO) toward specific goals
– State, districts, schools, student groups
• Implement system of differentiated recognition, accountability,
and support
– Identify high performance and/or growth, persistent subgroup issues,
lowest performance, schools not meeting annual targets
• Implement educator evaluation system
Why seek ESEA Flexibility?
• Unify accountability and support system
– Bring together state and federal requirements, and
– Better differentiate between schools
• Maintain Arkansas’s track record in setting high standards and
expectations
– Goals that are ambitious and attainable
• Incentivize improved student growth, achievement and
graduation rates in all schools
• Identify schools that need the most assistance in the aggregate
and for student subgroups, and recognize high achieving and
improving schools
• Focus more deliberately on college and career readiness by
reducing proficiency, growth and graduation rate gaps
• Facilitate transition to CCSS and PARCC assessments
Foundation for Transition
Do what is best for Arkansas’s children
Reduce complexity
Ensure fairness and sensitivity
Measure what is important
Honor history
Remember fairness is not always simple
Infuse incentives
Ensure alignment to support college and career
readiness
• Anticipate unintended consequences
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are the major changes?
• NCLB goal of 100 percent proficient replaced
with ambitious and achievable goal
• AYP status labels eliminated
• Achieving or Needs Improvement based on
new AMOs for schools and districts
• Exemplary, Focus and Priority Schools
identified separately
• Remodeling technical assistance and support
system
Remodeling…
Adaptive/
Strategic
Technical
Some of your questions may be…
Technical
• How will ADE measure school and district performance
next year?
• How does ADE’s flexibility plan impact my district or school
accountability status?
• How much of my Title I funding will I have to set aside and
for what purposes?
• Will I have to implement SES and/or school choice?
• Can I continue to use my Title I funds as I have been?
• What does the flexibility plan mean for my Title II-A funds?
• How does this impact my ACSIP?
Some of your questions may be…
Adaptive / Strategic
• How do I move from compliance to adaptive/strategic planning?
• How do I know if I have been using my Title I and NSLA funds
effectively?
• What data should I collect in order to answer that question?
• How should I plan to use my set-aside funds?
• Should I think about using my total Title I allocation and/or my
NSLA allocation differently to get better results for my lowperforming students, especially those in my low- performing
schools and my schools with large achievement gaps?
The Big Shift
• All students on a path to college and career
readiness
– Support transition to CCSS and PARCC
• Facilitate through accountability
– New goals
– New classifications
Targeted Achievement Gap
Group (TAGG)
Students at risk due to economic
disadvantage, English Learner (EL) status
or Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Why use the TAGG?
• Eliminates multiple counting of students who are in
more than one subgroup
• Holds more schools accountable for economically
disadvantaged students, EL and SWD
– Only 9% of schools were accountable for ELs under AYP,
– Only 16% of schools were accountable for SWD under
AYP
• Appropriately differentiates risk within race/ethnicity
groups
• Most schools and all districts will be placed in their
accountability status based on meeting AMOs for All
Students and the TAGG
• Exception: Needs Improvement Focus and Needs
Improvement Priority Schools
Revised Goals
Reduce proficiency, growth and graduation rate gaps
by half by 2016–17 (Option C AMOs)
• Ambitious and achievable AMOs
• Goal is same for all, but AMOs are differentiated
• Focus on literacy, mathematics and graduation
AMOs
• Flexibility to redirect resources to serve
students with greatest needs
• Applies to state, districts, schools, and groups
Replaces the AMO chart under NCLB
Reduce Proficiency, Growth or Graduation Rate Gap
by half by 2016–17
Reducing Gap
between100% and
2011 baseline.
Individualized
AMOs reduce
the gap
between
students at
risk and others
not at risk.
Sample calculation of school or district
performance AMOs*
All Students’ Proficiency AMOs**
TAGG’s Proficiency AMOs**
76% Proficient
100% - 76% = 24 %age point Proficiency Gap
52% Proficient
100% - 52% = 48%age point Proficiency Gap
24 ÷ 2 = 12 %age points
(Half of Proficiency Gap)
Annual Increase = 2 Percentage Points
(12%age points ÷ 6 = 2)
48 ÷ 2 = 24 %age points
(Half of Proficiency Gap)
Annual Increase = 4 Percentage Points
(24%age points ÷ 6 = 4)
2012 AMO = 76 + 2 = 78% Proficient
2013 AMO = 78 + 2 = 80% Proficient
2014 AMO = 80 + 2 = 82% Proficient
2015 AMO = 82 + 2 = 84% Proficient
2016 AMO = 84 + 2 = 86% Proficient
2017 AMO = 86 + 2 = 88% Proficient
2012 AMO = 52 + 4 = 56% Proficient
2013 AMO = 56 + 4 = 60% Proficient
2014 AMO = 60 + 4 = 64% Proficient
2015 AMO = 64 + 4 = 68% Proficient
2016 AMO = 68 + 4 = 72% Proficient
2017 AMO = 72 + 4 = 76% Proficient
* Actual calculations are rounded to the nearest hundredth (two places to right of decimal).
**Growth and/or graduation rate AMOs will also be calculated for schools and districts.
What is Arkansas’s framework for
accountability?
Exemplary Schools
• Must identify reasonable number of Title I schools
that are highest-performing and/or high-progress
schools
• High performance, high TAGG & high performance,
high progress, high TAGG & high progress
• High TAGG-66.67% or higher TAGG students tested
• Looked at highest ranking schools in 3 grade ranges
(K-5, 6-8, 9-12) for performance and progress.
• Methods on pages 83-85.
• Recognition/Rewards on pages 86-87.
Exemplary Schools
• High performance/High TAGG high performance
schools were at or above the 99th percentile (K-5) or
the 95th percentile (6-8, 9-12) of the state distribution
of school performance (3-yr. wt. average math and
literacy)
• High progress/High TAGG progress schools were at
the top of distribution for change in scores comparing
2009-2011 3-yr. wt. average to 2008-2010 3-yr. wt.
average
• Conditional on…
– Removed schools whose within-school achievement gaps
or TAGG/Sontag within-school gap larger than the gap of
schools at or below the 25th percentile (lowest quartile) of
state distribution of school achievement gap size
– Removed schools whose graduation rate < lower bound of
median (83.78%)
Exemplary Schools
High Performance
• All schools (8 schools)
– 3-yr. percent Proficient ranged
from 89.79 to 98.08
– % TAGG ranged from 0% to
52.3% of students tested
High Progress
• All schools (2 schools)
– Gain ranged from 5.56% to
11.06%
– % TAGG ranged from 67.2% to
100% of students tested
• High TAGG schools (6 schools) • High TAGG schools (3 schools)
– 3-yr. percent Proficient ranged
from 75.86 to 91.94
– % TAGG ranged from 70.7% to
80.5%
– Gain ranged from 11.45% to
19.85%
– % TAGG ranged from 98.7% to
100%
Needs Improvement Priority Schools
• 48 Schools: had to include at least 5% Title I
schools (at least 40)
• Among lowest 5% of schools based on
proficiency and lack of progress of “All
Students” group
• Title I participating or Title I eligible high
schools with graduation rates < 60% over
several years
• Tier I or Tier II SIG schools
Needs Improvement Priority Schools
• Added ranks method used (same method for
Persistently Low Achieving schools for SIG).
2009 through 2011 post appeals results used.
Non-mobile students only. See pages 87-88.
• Three year average percent at or above
Proficient for all math and literacy scores
ranged from 7.9% to 47.7%.
• Interventions detailed on pages 88-96.
• Exit criteria detailed on page 97.
Needs Improvement Focus Schools
• 109 schools: Had to include at least 10% Title I
schools (at least 80 Title I)
• Largest within-school gaps between highestachieving subgroup or subgroups and lowestachieving subgroup or subgroups, or
• At high school level largest within-school gaps in
graduation rate, or
• All Title I participating high schools with
graduation rates < 60% over several years not
identified as Priority Schools
Needs Improvement Focus Schools
• Compared Non-TAGG to TAGG performance within
school to identify largest achievement gaps over three
most recent years. 2009 through 2011 post appeals
results used. Non-mobile students only. See pages 97100.
• If Non-TAGG < 25 students, used median Non-TAGG
performance (88.8%) from state distribution of
schools’ Non-TAGG performance.
• Three year Non-TAGG to TAGG gap ranged from
28.5% to 47.7%.
• Interventions detailed on pages 100-108.
• Exit Criteria detailed on page 108.
Broad Classification of Schools
• Achieving
– If meet AMOs for All Students
and TAGG for performance and
growth (math and literacy) and
for graduation rate (where
applicable) then 3 year ACSIP
cycle
– If meet AMOs for All Students
and TAGG for performance but
not growth or growth but not
performance and for graduation
rate (where applicable) then 1
year ACSIP cycle
– Must address needs of students
in any ESEA subgroup(s) (N
>=25) that did not meet AMOs
within ACSIP interventions
– Report all groups and ESEA
subgroups N >=10 and AMOs
• Needs Improvement
– If fail to meet AMOs for All
Students and TAGG for
performance/growth or
graduation rate
– Must address needs of students
in any group(s) or ESEA
subgroup(s) (N >=25) that did
not meet AMOs within ACSIP
interventions
– Report all groups and ESEA
subgroups N >=10 and AMOs
What might a school or district report
card look like?
Accountability Status
(Achieving/Needs Improvement*)
based on All Students and TAGG
meeting AMOs for math, literacy
and/or graduation rate.
ACSIP must address needs of all
ESEA subgroups that do not meet
AMOs, even in Achieving schools.
*Needs Improvement Focus and
Needs Improvement Priority
Schools identified as such until
they meet exit criteria.
Sample high school report with graduation rate
Accountability Status
(Achieving/Needs Improvement)
based on All Students and TAGG
meeting AMOs for math, literacy
and/or graduation rate.
ACSIP must address needs of all
ESEA subgroups that do not meet
AMOs, even in Achieving schools.
Performance, Growth and/or
Graduation Rate AMOs
• All schools will have performance AMOs for
math and literacy.
• Schools serving grades 4 through 8 students
will have growth AMOs.
• High schools will have graduation rate
AMOs.
• Depending on configuration, some high
schools will have performance, growth and
graduation rate AMOs (6-12 schools).
How will 2012 accountability be calculated?
• Performance and growth AMOs were calculated
based on 2011 test results.
– Baseline for AMOs may not include FLEPY1, FLEPY2, or
exited SWD
• 2012 results will be compared to 2012 AMOs.
– FLEPY1, FLEPY2 and exited SWD may be included in
annual results to meet AMOs for these groups on
appeal.
Graduation Rate
• Arkansas uses a lagging graduation rate for
accountability.
– Graduation rate AMOs were calculated using 2010
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates.
– 2011 graduation rates will be compared to AMOs
that were calculated using 2010 graduation rates.
Who is included?
Every full academic year student!
Which student groups are included for determining accountability status?
• All Students
• Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG)
– Economically disadvantaged,
– English Learners (EL), and/or
– Students with Disabilities (SWD).
Which student groups are included for ACSIP interventions and
reporting?
• African American
• Hispanic
• White
• Economically disadvantaged
• EL
• SWD
Classifying districts
• Districts will be classified as Achieving or
Needs Improvement
• ADE engagement and district autonomy
determined by extent of needs based on
number of district AMOs not met for
performance, growth and graduation rate
• Academic Distress under revision.
Accountability Status
Description
ADE
Engagement/District
Autonomy
Exemplary
High performance
High progress
High TAGG high performance
High TAGG high progress
Achieving
3-yr ACSIP—meet all performance,
graduation rate and growth AMOs for
All Students and TAGG
1-yr ACSIP—meet all performance and
graduation rate AMOs for All Students
and TAGG, but miss growth AMOs for
All Students or TAGG
Very low ADE
engagement/High district
autonomy
Needs Improvement
Does not meet performance, graduation
rate or growth AMOs for All Students
and TAGG
Low to Moderate ADE
engagement /Moderate
district autonomy
Needs Improvement
Focus
Schools with largest, persistent gaps
between Non-TAGG and TAGG
students
High ADE
engagement/Low district
autonomy
Needs Improvement
Priority
Schools with persistently lowest
achievement in math and literacy over
three years for All Students
Very High ADE
engagement/Low district
autonomy*
Very low ADE
engagement/Very high
district autonomy
Strategic use of Title I funds
Districts can use the flexibility granted in ESEA
Flexibility to help your lowest performing schools
make their targets by…
– Serving lowest performing schools with Title I and/or
NSLA funding using most appropriate methods aligned
to identified student and adult learning needs
– Designating any Focus or Priority School as a Title I
schoolwide program school, even if the school does
not have a poverty percentage of 40% or more
– Transferring up to 100% of your Title II-A funds into
Title I and using them for Title I purposes
What are my continuing obligations for
allocating Title I, Part A funds?
• Prioritize your lowest achieving
students in your lowest
performing schools.
• Allocate Title I, Part A funds
sufficiently to address the scope of
the problem.
• Schools and districts must
demonstrate alignment of federal
and NSLA fund allocations
sufficient to support
implementation of interventions.
How do I align my use of funds with the
scope of my problems?
• Self-assess schools’ identified needs using a school
effectiveness rubric such as the Scholastic Audit selfassessment*.
– Assessment includes performance descriptors and indicators for
the school improvement process for districts and schools to gauge
their level of effectiveness in seven key areas.
– http://arkansased.org/programs/pdf/audit_sisi_051910.pdf
• Scan all performance descriptors, but focus on a few –
those closest to the instructional core.
• Link to analysis of student achievement data and other
evidence of impact.
• Identify strengths and areas for improvement.
• Use high leverage strategies to guide plan
development.
Key continuous improvement
performance areas
• Academic Performance:
– Curriculum
– Instruction
– Classroom
Assessment/Evaluation
• Learning Environment:
• Efficiency:
– Leadership
– Organization, Structure and
Resources
– Comprehensive and Effective
Planning
– School Culture
– Student, Family and
Community Support
– Professional Growth,
Development and
Evaluation
http://arkansased.org/programs/pdf/audit_sisi_051910.pdf
High leverage strategies…
• Target your lowest achieving students in your
lowest performing schools
• Aggressively address school performance and
student achievement
• Provide a strong instructional core within a
response to intervention framework:
– Regular structures/systems for collecting and analyzing data that
directly inform instructional practice
– Frequent teacher teaming and teacher-specific coaching linked to
instructional practice
– Responsive systems of tiered instruction, especially Tier II and Tier III
interventions
• Are monitored for efficacy and impact
In proposing use of prior set aside funds in
your ACSIP…
• Your ACSIP should demonstrate how you will use the
opportunities granted by ESEA Flexibility to provide
maximum support to lowest-achieving students in your
lowest-performing schools.
• Your ACSIP should include description of your findings
from self-assessment and data analysis. What
problems/weak areas do your interventions address?
• Include in your interventions the high-leverage strategies
you will use to aggressively address school performance
and student achievement, and how you will know if they
are working.
Next Steps for Achieving Schools
• Achieving Schools engage in self-assessment
to determine what is working to continue
these strategies.
– If some ESEA subgroups didn’t meet AMOs,
Achieving Schools investigate the factors
contributing to lower performance for these
subgroups to determine interventions to support
improved performance for these students.
• Access regional and ADE resources to support
plans.
Next Steps for Needs Improvement Schools
• Needs Improvement Schools engage in selfassessment to identify areas of concern to
address through ACSIP interventions.
• Focus and Priority Schools engage with ADE
School Improvement Specialist to conduct needs
assessment and develop Targeted or Priority
Improvement Plans (within ACSIP).
• Districts and schools access regional and
Statewide System of Support resources as needed
to meet ACSIP, TIP and PIP.
– Focus and Priority Schools have priority access to
support as outlined in the ESEA Flexibility proposal.
Federal SES/Choice: What comes next?
School Year 2012-13:
• Districts choosing not to continue offering SES or
school choice in 2012-13 must provide parents
with information to explain why and describe the
interventions, incentives and supports that will
replace those options
– A template will be provided to assist you in this effort.
• Any student who has transferred into a school
through NCLB choice must be allowed to remain
in that school through the highest grade served
by the school
State SES/Choice: What comes next?
• School Year 2012-13:
– ADE will work to address this in the 2013
Legislative Session
Tentative Timeline
• ADE will post tentative timeline and information at
http://arkansased.org
• AMOs posted for schools and districts
• Preliminary Accountability Reports
• Corrections Process
• ACSIP timelines
• FAQs to be posted on ADE website
Technical
Content
Adaptive / Strategic
Content
John Hoy, Academic Accountabilty--john.hoy@arkansas.gov
Dr. Laura Bednar, Learning Services--laura.bednar@arkansas.gov
Dr. Karen Cushman, HR and Licensure--karen.cushman@arkansas.gov