ESSA Feedback: Accountability and School Improvement ACET Conference October 21, 2016

Purpose To be specific about our training goals: Today is about

Overview of ESSA development timeline and opportunity for additional input Provide status of current work and policies for accountability and school improvement Gather feedback on specific policy questions related to ESSA implementation To be specific about our training goals: Today is about --Enhance your understanding of requirements and specific processes for the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) --Gaining further clarity on the partnerships and roles of the DCSI, PSP, Support Specialist, ESC, and TCDSS --Receiving specific training and tips for completing the required Targeted Improvement Plan ----while today is just a starting point, the day is designed so you will leave with a concrete example of a problem statement that you’ve worked through from beginning to end ----leaving with a planning process you can replicate when you get home. ----leaving with tools and resources to support your work --finally, learning or refreshing yourself around IR and priority requirements

ESSA: Where are we now On-going—Gather stakeholder input Winter 2016—Draft initial state plan Early Spring 2017—Release draft plan for public comment Late Spring/Summer 2017—Submit final state plan to USDE for approval Final approval from USDE within 120 days

--Early October: Release of statewide survey to gather input from parents and general public on ESSA implementation Timed with launch of dedicated ESSA on TEA website --Continuing outreach with specific groups through out the fall (e.g.—ACET, various personnel associations, parent engagement conference) --More sessions to come at TASA Midwinter Statewide Survey

What’s New in ESSA

ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW

House Bill 2804, 84th Texas Legislature (HB 2804) HB 2804 established the creation and implementation of an A–F accountability rating system. Each district and campus will be assigned an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F and a rating for each domain beginning with the 2017–18 school year.

Shift from 4 indices to 5 Domains Districts and campuses will be rated on five domains: Domain I: Student Achievement Domain II: Student Progress Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Domain V: Community and Student Engagement

Domain I: Student Achievement STAAR STAAR Satisfactory Standard STAAR College-Readiness Standard

Domain I: Student Achievement STAAR Phase-in Level II—Percentage of students who meet performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area College Readiness—Percentage of students who meet college readiness performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area STAAR Alternate 2—Percentage of students who meet performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area Percentage of students who meet or exceed ELL progress measure expectations EOC Substitute Assessment (TBD)

Domain II: Student Progress STAAR Progress measure expectations for STAAR satisfactory standard Progress measure expectations for STAAR college-readiness standard

Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps Academic achievement differentials among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds

Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Districts and High Schools Dropout Rate Graduation rate College and Career Readiness Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Middle/Junior High Schools Student Attendance Dropout Rate Students receiving instruction in preparing for high school, college, and career Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Elementary Schools Student Attendance Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

Domain V: Community and Student Engagement Three indicators from Community and Student Engagement Ratings chosen by the district Three indicators from Community and Student Engagement Ratings chosen by the campus

Weighting of Domains 55% of Overall Rating 35% of Overall Rating Domain I: Student Achievement Domain II: Student Progress Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness Domain V: Community and Student Engagement 55% of Overall Rating 35% of Overall Rating 10% of Overall Rating

Implementation Timeline Fall 2015–Summer 2016 Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability meets September 1, 2016 Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability delivers a recommendations report to governor and legislature By December 1, 2016 TEA adopts a set of indicators for A–F ratings

Implementation Timeline By January 1, 2017 TEA releases report showing the rating that each district and campus would have received for Domains I–IV for the 2015–16 school year if the A–F rating system had been in place Summer 2017 Districts and campuses report to TEA which three Community and Student Engagement indicators will be used for Domain V and the criteria that will be used to measure performance in those indicators

Implementation Timeline Spring 2018 Districts and campuses assign to themselves an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F for Domain V and a rating for each of the three Community and Student Engagement indicators used for Domain V August 15, 2018 TEA assigns each district and campus an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F and a rating for each domain

ESSA Indicators Academic proficiency in reading and math For high schools, a measure of how graduation rates Another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools, this measure may include individual student growth or another statewide, valid, and reliable indicator of student learning. English-language proficiency: A measure of the progress that a school’s English learners are making toward English proficiency. (This measure is for the English learner group only.) Additional indicator of school quality: Another valid, reliable, and statewide indicator of school quality, which may include measures of postsecondary readiness, student engagement, or school climate.

Performance Reporting Resources and Contacts 2016 Accountability Rating System http://tea.texas.gov/2016accountability.aspx Performance Reporting Resources http://tea.texas.gov/perfreport/resources/index.html Performance Reporting Home Page http://tea.texas.gov/accountability/ Performance Reporting E-mail performance.reporting@tea.texas.gov Performance Reporting Telephone (512) 463-9704

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW

School Improvement Comprehensive Support and Improvement: Lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools on state accountability index; High schools with <67% graduation rates, and Schools with underperforming subgroups that do not improve after a state- determined number of years. Targeted Support and Improvement: Schools with consistently underperforming subgroups, as defined by the state.

School Improvement NCLB Requirements Removed: SES Corrective Action Restructuring Parental Notification Reconstitution ESSA replaces these interventions with requirement to develop a state-designed intervention system

Current State Intervention System

Both plans are developed and implemented under the TAIS framework Both have a 4 piece foundation No need to re-invent the wheel: Campuses implementing a turnaround plan will use the same Targeted Improvement Plan template (new tab). Thought about adjusting current tab, but this made the process better. Reduce duplication of efforts.

HB 1842 By this point, many of you may have heard of House Bill 1842. This year did include a lot of conversation and energy focused on interventions for campuses that do not meet state accountability standards. The conversations led to multiple proposals from across the political and stakeholder spectrum from education associations, higher education, and business groups. As Agency staff we analyzed proposed legislation, offered data and information on programs, and served as a resource to Agency leadership and legislative staff on how our current intervention system works. The culmination of those conversations was HB 1842.

HB 1842 3 While there are many components to the bill related to charter schools, district innovation, and campus interventions. Today I want to focus on three major changes to campus interventions that will directly impact your work.

HB 1842 Turnaround Plan The bill replaces reconstitution with a campus turnaround plan. What is a school turnaround plan? Well, that is one of the details we are still ironing out. Feel free to look-up and read the bill language but the statute outlines four components of a school turnaround plan: 1) outline the academic programs the campus will implement, 2) have the district decide whether to turn the campus into an in-district charter school, 3) the plan must include written comments from the CIT, parents, and teachers, and 4) the plan must include the budget, staffing, and resources necessary to implement the plan.

HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Term of in-district charter(?) Academic programs Written public comments Budget, staffing, & resources

HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Parent & Community Engagement ) It increases the requirements for engaging parents and community members in the development of your targeted improvement plan. According to the bill you not must host a public meeting to gather input from these stakeholders on what to include in your plan. We will be following up shortly with more information on this component since the expectation is that it be implemented beginning with the coming school year.

HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Parent & Community Engagement Closure or Board of Managers Finally, it adjusts the timeline and requirements for campuses that continually miss state accountability standards. Previous statue gave the commissioner the option to close a campus that missed standard for 5 or more years. 1842 now makes it a requirement that, after five years of not meeting standard, a campus must either be closed or the commissioner must insert a board of managers to oversee operations of the entire district. Before you get too concerned please know that there is a transition period built into the implementation, so we won’t be closing any campuses based on this legislation immediately. That is one of the details we will be ironing out over the coming months and will certainly keep districts and ESCs updated as we move through the rulemaking process.

Timeline for New IR Campuses 1st Year IR 2015-2016 2nd Year IR 2016-2017 3rd Year 2017-2018 4th Year 2018-2019 5th Year 2019-2020 CIT Targeted IP Turnaround Plan Implement Turnaround Plan Closure or Board of Managers The new sequence for interventions under new legislation will look like this… 1st year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP 2nd year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP and develop a school turnaround plan. Based on the review of that plan the commissioner must make a determination to either approve the schools turnaround plan, close the campus, insert a board of managers over the district, or require the campus to be operated by an alternative management organization 3rd year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP and implement their turnaround plan from the previous year 4th year IR will continue with the requirements from the previous year. At 5th year IR the campus must either be closed or have a board of managers put in place over the district.

Give us your thoughts! By 5pm on October 25th: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3FYGZGF