Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Suffolk BOCES Presented by - - PDF document

1

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Suffolk BOCES

Presented by Assistant Commissioner Ira Schwartz March 17, 2017

Greetings and Introductions ESSA Update Winter Regional Meetings Presentation of Questions School Quality & Student Success Indicators Survey ESSA State Plan Timeline Trump Administration Budget Blueprint Questions

2

ESSA Update

ESSA Updates

• The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) remains in effect.
• Rulemaking pertaining to the assessment provisions of ESSA are now

final and in effect.

• Draft rulemaking regarding the supplement not supplant provisions of

ESSA were withdrawn in January 2017 by the Obama administration.

• On February 7, 2017, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the

rulemaking pertaining to accountability, data reporting, and state plans. On March 9, 2017, the Senate also voted to repeal this rulemaking. Once this Joint Congressional Resolution is signed by the President The United States Department of Education is prohibited from issuing similar regulations to replace those repealed.

• The dates for submission of State plans remain April and September
• 2017. A revised state template was provided by USDE to states on

March 13, 2017.

4

3

Implications of Repeal of Rulemaking

5

The Law: (i) beginning with school year 2017–18, and at least once every three school years thereafter, one statewide category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, which shall include— (I)… (II) all public high schools in the State failing to graduate one third or more of their students; The Rulemaking: Identify: (2) Low high school graduation rate. Any public high school in the State with a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as calculated under § 200.34(a), at or below 67 percent, or below a higher percentage selected by the State.

Implications of Repeal of Rulemaking

6

The Law: (ii) For the purpose of measuring, calculating, and reporting … include in the denominator the greater of— (I) 95 percent of all such students, or 95 percent of all such students in the subgroup, as the case may be; or (II) the number of students participating in the assessments. The Rulemaking: (1) Annually calculate … so that the denominator of such measure, for all students and for all students in each subgroup, includes the greater of-- (i) 95 percent of all such students in the grades assessed who are enrolled in the school; or (ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school who participated in the assessments …

4

Winter Regional Meetings

ESSA Winter Regional Meetings

• Each DS and Big Five superintendent is

conducting a series of ESSA Winter Regional Meetings, which began in late February and run through late March.

• The meetings are geared to any combination of

the following stakeholder groups:

• a. School Board Members
• b. Principals
• c. District Staff
• d. School Staff
• e. Parents and the Public

8

5

Suffolk BOCES ESSA Winter Regional Meetings

Date Time Location Capacity Stakeholder Group Facilitator Facilitator Title Facilitator E‐mail Address

Suffolk County and BOCES (Eastern Suffolk)

3/13/17

9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 201 Sunrise Highway, Patchogue, NY 11772 80 people School Board Members, Principals, District Staff, and School Staff David Wicks District Superintendent dwicks@esboces.

• rg

Suffolk County and BOCES (Eastern Suffolk)

3/13/17

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 201 Sunrise Highway, Patchogue, NY 11772 80 people Parents and the Public David Wicks District Superintendent dwicks@esboces.

• rg

Suffolk County and BOCES (Western Suffolk)

3/2/17

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 31 Lee Avenue Wheatley Heights NY 11798 160 people School Board Members, Parents, the Public, and Students Angelique Johnson‐Dingle District Superintendent ajohnson@wsboc es.org Suffolk County and BOCES (Western Suffolk)

3/7/17

3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 31 Lee Avenue Wheatley Heights NY 11798 160 people District Central Office Staff, Principals, and School Staff Angelique Johnson‐Dingle District Superintendent ajohnson@wsboc es.org

9

You may access the ESSA Winter Regional Meeting survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ESS A_Winter_Regional_Meeting_Participa nt_Survey

6

Selected Questions from Winter Regional Meetings

Challenging Academic Standards & Assessments

12

• 1. Should NY consider applying for the Innovative Assessment

Demonstration Authority (assuming the program moves forward)? Yes or No? If yes, why should NY apply? Please rank order your reasons: ___ To pilot classroom-based performance assessments (e.g., performance tasks, or portfolios)? ___ To pilot project-based assessments? ___ To use interim assessments to incorporate multiple measures of student achievement into annual, summative determinations (classifications) of performance? ___ To take advantage of technological advances in educational assessment, such as computer adaptive assessments?

7

Supporting English Language Learners

• To ensure that accountability

for ELLs/MLLs beginning in their first year of enrollment is equitable and reliable, New York State will use student specific factors (like prior schooling, level of English proficiency, and age) to determine whether a student is first tested on state language arts accountability tests in their first or second year here.

13

Supporting English Language Learners

2. If regulations prevent NY from using its preferred option, which of the following options would you recommend?:

• Option 1: All recently arrived English language learners

(ELLs)/multi lingual learners (MLLs) within the first year of enrollment would be exempted from taking the ELA in year 1, and take the ELA in year 2 and onward to measure achievement and possibly growth.

• Option 2: All ELLs/MLLs, including recently arrived ELL/MLL within

the first year of enrollment, will take the ELA in year 1 to set a baseline for future growth, in year 2 to measure growth, and in years 3 and after to measure both achievement and growth.

14

8

Supporting English Language Learners

Background - Accountability Options

• States have two accountability options for recently arrived ELLs/MLLs:

Option 1 – Year 1: Exempt ELLs/MLLs from English Language Arts (ELA) assessment. Test ELLs/MLLs in Math but use only for reporting purposes (not accountability). Year 2: Test ELLs/MLLs in ELA and Math and use to measure achievement, with the option to use Math score to measure growth (compared to score from Year 1). – Year 3 and thereafter: Test ELLs/MLLs in ELA and Math and use to measure achievement, with the

• ption to use both scores to also measure growth (from the previous year’s score).

Option 2 – Year 1: Test ELLs/MLLs in ELA and Math but use only for reporting purposes (not accountability). – Year 2: Test ELLs/MLLs in ELA and Math and use to measure growth (from Year 1). – Year 3 and thereafter: Test ELLs/MLLs in ELA and Math and use to measure both growth (compared to the previous year’s score) and achievement.

• Section 200.16 of the U.S. Department of Education’s state plan regulations under

ESSA permits states to use a uniform statewide procedure in which some recently arrived ELLs/MLLs are held accountable under Option 1 and others by Option 2, using student specific factors such as prior schooling, level of English proficiency, and age to determine whether to follow Option 1 or Option 2 for a particular ELL/MLL. 15

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

16

6. The Department recently issued a Survey on Possible Indicators for School Quality and Student Success. The following indicators are those that survey respondents, up to the this point, are supporting for inclusion in the state’s school accountability system:

• a. Chronic Absenteeism
• b. High School Credit Accumulation
• c. High School Success Index
• d. Student Access to Highly Qualified Teachers
• e. Student Completion of Required Credits By Year

f. Student Successful Completion of Required Courses for Graduation

• g. Student Successful Participation in Advanced Coursework (i.e., AP, IB, dual

college credit, and CTE courses)

• h. Teacher Attendance

i. Teacher Certification/Effectiveness Please choose four of the indicators that you most support. Then rank order your 4 choices based on your level of support, from 1 (most strongly support) to 4 (support) for inclusion in the state’s accountability system.

9

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

17

7. ESSA requires that New York establish long-terms goals for, at the minimum, indicators in the areas of language arts, mathematics, acquisition of English proficiency, and graduation rate for all students and for all accountability subgroups (i.e., English language learners, low-income students, racial/ethnic groups, and students with disabilities). How should NY set these goals?

Long-Term Goals: NCLB

18 Under ESSA, the Regents must again establish long‐term goals and measures of interim progress in ELA and math, as well as for graduation rate and acquisition of English proficiency by English language learners. If the Board of Regents were to adopt the same methodology that New York used to meet the Annual Measurable Achievement Requirements of No Child Left Behind, then New York’s goals for and interim measures

• f progress for grades 3‐8 ELA would be as follows:

Under NCLB, all groups had the same goals and Annual Measurable Objectives. If a school did not achieve a target for a subgroup, the school could make Annual Yearly Progress by reducing the gap by 10% between the school’s prior performance and the goal of 100% proficiency. In New York, these Annual Measurable Objectives were expressed as a Performance Index.

Baseline: Proficiency at the 20% of Profiency 100% goal by 2025‐26 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 2024‐25 2026‐27 2025‐26 Prof at 20% of PI 100% Gap Gap/10 Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Goal EM ELA All 26.0 74.0 6.7 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 SWD 7.0 93.0 8.5 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 Am Ind 19.0 81.0 7.4 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 Asian 47.0 53.0 4.8 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 Black 11.0 89.0 8.1 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 Hisp 15.0 85.0 7.7 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 White 31.0 69.0 6.3 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 LEP 6.0 94.0 8.5 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 ED 15.0 85.0 7.7 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0 Mix Rac 17.0 83.0 7.5 32.7 39.5 46.2 52.9 59.6 66.4 73.1 79.8 86.5 93.3 100.0

10

Long-Term Goals: NCLB

19 In the table below, the goal remains 100% proficiency by 2025‐26, but the annual targets have been individualized for each subgroup. Under No Child Left Behind, Annual Measurable Objectives were initially not very many demanding for many schools and subgroups of students and overly demanding on other schools and groups. Over time, more and more schools were unable to meet these Annual Measurable Objectives.

Baseline: Proficiency at the 20% of PI 100% gap reduction by 2027‐28 2015‐16 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 2024‐25 2025‐26 2026‐27 2027‐28 Prof at 20% of PI 100% Gap Gap/11 Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target EM ELA All 26 74 6.7 33 39 46 53 60 66 73 80 87 93 100 SWD 7 93 8.5 15 24 32 41 49 58 66 75 83 92 100 Am Ind 19 81 7.4 26 34 41 48 56 63 71 78 85 93 100 Asian 47 53 4.8 52 57 61 66 71 76 81 86 90 95 100 Black 11 89 8.1 19 27 35 43 51 60 68 76 84 92 100 Hisp 15 85 7.7 23 30 38 46 54 61 69 77 85 92 100 White 31 69 6.3 37 44 50 56 62 69 75 81 87 94 100 LEP 6 94 8.5 15 23 32 40 49 57 66 74 83 91 100 ED 15 85 7.7 23 30 38 46 54 61 69 77 85 92 100 Mix Rac 17 83 7.5 25 32 40 47 55 62 70 77 85 92 100

Long-Term Goals: ESEA Flexibility Waiver

20 Under New York’s original ESEA flexibility waiver, New York used a United States Department of Education approved methodology by which each subgroup on an accountability measure was expected to reduce over six years the gap by 50% between the goal of 100% proficiency and average performance of the subgroup in the base

• year. Schools could continue to make Adequate Yearly Progress by making “Safe Harbor.” If New York were to

use this method to set long‐term goals and interim measures of progress, the table below shows the results for Grades 3‐8 ELA expressed as percent proficient. Baseline: Average Proficiency 50% gap reduction by 2022‐23 2015‐16 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 Average Prof 50% Gap Gap/6 Target Target Target Target Target Target EM ELA All 38.6 30.7 5.1 43.7 48.8 54.0 59.1 64.2 69.3 SWD 12.4 43.8 7.3 19.7 27.0 34.3 41.6 48.9 56.2 Am Ind 26.3 36.9 6.1 32.4 38.5 44.7 50.8 57.0 63.1 Asian 60.7 19.7 3.3 64.0 67.2 70.5 73.8 77.1 80.3 Black 26.4 36.8 6.1 32.5 38.6 44.8 50.9 57.0 63.2 Hisp 29.6 35.2 5.9 35.5 41.3 47.2 53.1 58.9 64.8 White 46.3 26.8 4.5 50.8 55.3 59.7 64.2 68.7 73.2 LEP 11.4 44.3 7.4 18.7 26.1 33.5 40.9 48.3 55.7 ED 27.8 36.1 6.0 33.8 39.9 45.9 51.9 57.9 63.9 Mix Rac 36.1 31.9 5.3 41.5 46.8 52.1 57.4 62.7 68.1

11

Long-Term Goals: ESEA Renewal

21 In New York’s second ESSA flexibility renewal waiver, New York reestablished its Annual Measurable Objectives so that the goal became, over a period of four years, to reduce by 50% the gap between each subgroup’s baseline performance and the performance of the school that was at the 90th percentile statewide for the “all students”

• group. Schools could continue to make Adequate Yearly Progress by making “Safe Harbor.” If New York were to

use this method to set long‐term goals and interim measures of progress, the table below shows the results for Grades 3‐8 ELA expressed as percent proficient. Baseline: Average Proficiency 50% gap reduction by 2022‐23 2015‐16 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 Average Prof 50% Gap Gap/6 Target Target Target Target Target Target EM ELA All 38.6 30.7 5.1 43.7 48.8 54.0 59.1 64.2 69.3 SWD 12.4 43.8 7.3 19.7 27.0 34.3 41.6 48.9 56.2 Am Ind 26.3 36.9 6.1 32.4 38.5 44.7 50.8 57.0 63.1 Asian 60.7 19.7 3.3 64.0 67.2 70.5 73.8 77.1 80.3 Black 26.4 36.8 6.1 32.5 38.6 44.8 50.9 57.0 63.2 Hisp 29.6 35.2 5.9 35.5 41.3 47.2 53.1 58.9 64.8 White 46.3 26.8 4.5 50.8 55.3 59.7 64.2 68.7 73.2 LEP 11.4 44.3 7.4 18.7 26.1 33.5 40.9 48.3 55.7 ED 27.8 36.1 6.0 33.8 39.9 45.9 51.9 57.9 63.9 Mix Rac 36.1 31.9 5.3 41.5 46.8 52.1 57.4 62.7 68.1

Long-Term Goals Compared

22

When these methodologies are compared, they create reasonably similar trajectories during the initial years of the time

• frame. The table below shows what the long‐term goal would be in 2023 using the three different methodologies for each

subgroup for grade 3‐8 ELA, expressed in terms of percent proficient and the Performance Index. In general, the ESEA waiver methodology, the middle columns, sets the most rigorous targets, while the other two methods produce similar results. Baseline: 20% PI Baseline: Avg PI Baseline: Avg PI Baseline: 20% Prof Baseline: Avg Prof Baseline: Avg Prof PI ‐ NCLB 100% Gap Reduction PI ‐ 50% Gap Reduction: ESEA Flex Waiver PI ‐ 50% Gap Reduction to 90th Percentile: ESEA Renewal Waiver PI ‐ NCLB 100% Gap Reduction PI ‐ 50% Gap Reduction: ESEA Flex Waiver PI ‐ 50% Gap Reduction to 90th Percentile: ESEA Renewal Waiver 2020‐21 2020‐21 2020‐21 2020‐21 2020‐21 2020‐21 Target Target Target Target Target Target EM ELA All 126 141 134 53 59 52 SWD 91 101 104 41 42 39 Am Ind 110 126 123 48 51 46 Asian 154 165 152 66 74 63 Black 113 127 123 43 51 46 Hisp 117 131 126 46 53 47 White 136 150 141 56 64 56 LEP 94 102 105 40 41 38 ED 117 128 124 46 52 46 Mix Rac 113 136 130 47 57 51

12

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

23

• Important terms to understand in this area:
• Achievement means the percentage of students who score partially proficient or

proficient on state tests, as measured by a Performance Index. When a school reduces the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 and/or increases the percentage

• f students who score proficient or above, the school will improve on this metric.
• Growth means the change in a student’s performance, as measured at two points in
• time. Currently New York compares a student’s growth to that of similar students based
• n the students’ prior test history and sometimes other factors. This is expressed as a

student growth percentile (SGP), so that, for example, a student with an SGP of 60%

• n the grade 4 math assessment performed better than 60% of similar students

statewide on this assessment.

• Progress means the change in the achievement level of students in a school over
• time. For example, if a school has a graduation rate of 75% in the base line time period

and 85% in the current year, the school has shown 10% progress in graduation rate.

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

24

• 8. Please list in rank order the following measures, as part of the process of

differentiating school performance. Place a one next to the measure you believe should be given the most weight. If you wish to weight measure(s) equally, give them the same number. Elementary/Middle Level: Rank #__ Achievement in ELA and math Rank #__ Growth in ELA and math Rank #__ Progress in ELA and math Rank #__ Achievement in Grades 4 and 8 Science Rank #__ Acquisition of Proficiency by English language learners High School: Rank #__ Achievement in ELA and math Rank #__ Progress in ELA and math Rank #__ Achievement in Social Studies and Science Rank #__ Graduation Rates Rank #__ Acquisition of Proficiency by English language learners

13

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

25

• 9. How should the Department use the results from indicators

to differentiate among schools?

• a. Create a summative score based on individual indicator

results and use the summative score to differentiate among schools.

• b. Create decision rules based on individual indicator

results and use these rules to differentiate among schools.

• c. Other.

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

Summative Index vs. Decision Rule Approach Note: The following examples are for illustrative purposes only to show how a summative score approach compares to a decision rule approach. The actual indicators to be used, their weightings, and any decision rules to be applied are still to be determined. Summative Index Approach Schools in the bottom five percent for total score are identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement. Schools in the bottom five percent for English language learners, low- income students, racial/ethnic groups, or students with disabilities are identified for Targeted Support and Improvement.

26

Indicator Performance Weighting Score A 50 20 100 B 60 20 120 C 40 20 80 D 30 10 30 E 70 10 70 F 80 10 80 G 90 10 90 Total 570

14

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

Decision Rule Approach

Sample Decision Rules: A school will be identified for comprehensive support and improvement if: – (1) the school’s Subtotal 1 is below 10% and (2) the school’s Subtotal 2 is also below 10%; or – (1) The school’s Subtotal 1 is below 20%, (2) the school’s Subtotal 2 Is below 50%, and (3) the school’s performance on Indicator F or Indicator G is below 10%.

27

Indicator Performance Percentile Rank A 50 70 B 60 80 Subtotal 1 75 C 40 70 D 30 25 E 70 60 Subtotal 2 40 F 80 90 G 90 90

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

10.In addition to identification of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools and Targeted Support and Improvement Schools, as required by ESSA, NYSED should identify:

• a. Schools for local support that are performing below

specific levels on one or more indicators, but are not identified for Targeted or Comprehensive Support and Improvement.

• b. Schools that exceed specified standards for

recognition.

• c. Other categories of schools.
• d. No other schools.

28

15

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

29

• 11. Who should be held accountable for students who are educated outside
• f the school district?
• a. The results for these students should be assigned to students’ home

district, rather than their home school. In order to make sure these students are part of the accountability system, NYSED should continue identifying low-performing school districts.

• b. The results for these students should be assigned to a school within

the students’ home district. As a result, NYSED would not need to identify low-performing school districts in order to ensure these students are included in the accountability system.

• c. Other.

Accountability Measurements & Methodologies

30

• 12. What should New York do with information regarding such things as class sizes, ratio of

school counselors to students, availability of certified librarians, and percentage of students receiving instruction in music and arts? (Rank the choices in the order that best applies. Rank only those choices that should apply.) a. __# Report the information to the school along with data on similar schools and schools statewide. b. __# Make this data publicly available along with data on similar schools and schools statewide. c. __# Create recommended state standards and make this data publicly available along with data on similar schools statewide. d. __# Use metrics, such as this, as part of the state system to differentiate school performance for accountability purposes. e. __# Require schools identified for improvement to review these metrics and address them, as appropriate, in their improvement plans. f. __# Require schools identified for improvement to take actions to meet minimum standards on these benchmarks established by the state. g. __# Nothing. h. __# Other.

16

Survey of School Quality and Student Success Indicators

Survey of School Quality and Student Success Indicators

• The New York State Education Department is

accepting public comment on potential Indicators

• f School Quality and Student Success.
• This survey will gather feedback from stakeholders
• n which indicator(s) of school quality and/or

student success should be included in the methodology to differentiate among schools and make school accountability decisions.

• Responses will be accepted through March 20,

2017.

32

17

Survey of School Quality and Student Success Indicators

• The survey has been translated

into Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic.

• To access these versions of the

survey, please visit our website at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/account ability/essa.html

33

ESSA State Plan Timeline

18

ESSA State Plan Timeline –

February 2017 – June 2017

35

Timeline for Submission of ESSA Plan to USDE in September 2017

Please note: Timeline may change based on new presidential administration.

Activity Date Public Engagement – Survey and Regional Meetings Conducted. February/March 2017 (TBD) March and April Board of Regents Meetings – Continued discussion of ESSA plan. March and April 2017 State must submit fiscal year 2017 ESSA Assurances. April 3, 2017 May 2017 Board of Regents Meeting – Staff will present draft plan and seek permission to release for public comment. May 8 - 9, 2017 The Department will release the draft plan for public comment. May 10 – June 9, 2017 Proposed weeks for Public Hearings on Draft Plan. Regional staff will gather public comments on the draft plan. May 10 – June 9, 2017

ESSA State Plan Timeline –

July 2017 – September 2017

36

Timeline for Submission of ESSA Plan to USDE in September 2017

Please note: Timeline may change based on new presidential administration.

Activity Date

July 2017 Board of Regents Meeting – Staff will present any changes to the draft plan based on public comment, and request permission to send revised draft state plan to Governor. July 11 - 12, 2017

Application with Governor for 30 days. July 19 – August 18, 2017 September 2017 Board of Regents Meeting – Staff will seek approval to submit final state plan to USDE. September 11 - 12, 2017 Deadline to submit ESSA State Plan to USDE. September 18, 2017 (subject to Board discussion and agreement)

19

Next Steps

• Complete the ESSA Winter Regional

Meeting survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ESSA_Win ter_Regional_Meeting_Participant_Survey

• Complete the Possible Indicators of School

Quality and/or Student Success survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PossibleIn dicatorsofSchoolQualityandStudentSuccess

37

Communicating with the General Public Regarding ESSA

NYSED has created a public website on ESSA, which includes:

– Board of Regents Items related to ESSA – ESSA Law – USDE Proposed Regulations on ESSA – Resources – Upcoming Webinars – Survey Links

The website is located at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/essa.html

38

20

Trump Administration Budget Blueprint

• Overall proposed reduction of $9 billion or 13% for United States

Department of Education

• Increase of $168 million for charter schools and $250 million for

new private school choice program.

• Increase of $1 billion in Title I funding tied to states adopting

student based budgeting (i.e., portability) and/or open enrollment initiatives.

• Elimination of Title IIA
• Elimination of 21st Century Learning Grants
• Elimination or reductions to over 20 categorical programs that

“do not address national needs, duplicate other programs, or are more appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds, including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs.

39

Questions?