Results Driven Accountability Pilot Kyle Laughlin - TIE Jamie Morris - South Dakota DOE

Data Confirmation – South Dakota

Data Confirmation – South Dakota (Cont.)

Data Confirmation – South Dakota (Cont.)

Stakeholders RDA Work Group – Core Work Group Group of diverse individuals – teachers, SPED directors, school psychologists, etc. Provided input and guidance. Core Work Group Results Driven Manual Risks Analysis Rubric On-going guidance and support

Direction: TIE – SIG TIE SIG SD Systemic Collaborative Data Process Pilot and Trainings SIG Provided information to State on how other States were designing an RDA system Collaborated together to develop pilot timeline and manual Moving forward! Provided information to State on how other States were designing an RDA system

RDA Pilot Project Timeline Proposed District #s January-June 2017 July 2017 – June 2018 July 2018 – June 2019 July 2019 – July 2020 Begin process with three Pilot Districts: Small, Medium, Large (Select from Level 1, 2, or 3) Full support from TIE/SIG District team begins learning system and putting systems and processes into place DOE Support Team Members shadow TIE/SIG District team continues implementing systems and processes DOE Support Team Members shadow and practice some processes with TIE/SIG as co-presenters Continued support from TIE/SIG Partial release of responsibility to district Continued support from TIE/SIG with partial release of responsibility to DOE Support Team Members Full release of responsibility to district Full release of responsibility to DOE Support Team Members Requested support from TIE/SIG as needed Add Two or Three districts (Level 3 only)   Options offered to all districts Beginning January 2018, offer multiple regional trainings for all districts to attend to learn about the new RDA process, compliance, rubric, guidelines, etc. (Not a requirement but a jumpstart) Add Five Districts (Level 2 or 3) Full implementation of RDA process for all districts in SD Kyle Handout/Manual What is this timeline missing – what other information do you need?

Development of Pilot Project Selection of Pilot Schools Size and Effect Geographical Demographics Risk Analysis Rubric – indicators and parameters Capacity at state and district level Implementation of RDA Pilot – Informative trainings

Pilot Forms Risk Analysis Rubric Internal Review Weighed reading & math indicators Internal Review Quantified to become data set Professional Development Form Directed PD for districts Child Count Assurance Form

Pilot Districts Overview Student Population 1 Small (less than 300) 1 Medium (between 300-1,000) 2 Large (over 1,000) 1 Large District is considered high needs (Level 3) Kyle How each district was selected.

Low Needs – Level 1 (80% of Districts) (Optional) -Assembles RDA Committee to review SPED data, conduct root cause analysis, and/or develop action plan. (Optional) -Participate in Regional RDA informative training. (Optional) -Participate in a SPED regional and/or local data retreat. Every SPED teacher in district will complete internal review of compliance practices and the district SPED director submits a statement of assurance of completion of review. Submits Professional Learning Plan to SDDOE. (Form will be given by the state). RDA coaches will be available to provided support if the district requests it. Arlene Discuss how this information is useful, but will not impact the pilot districts.

Medium Needs - Level 2 (15% of Districts) Assembles RDA Committee Participates in Regional RDA informative training. Participates in regional and local data retreats. Reviews local SPED data, conducts root cause analysis, and develops action plan to address local areas of concern. Districts will receive on-going support from RDA coaches on implementing action plan. Every SPED teacher in district will complete internal review of compliance practices and the district SPED director submits a statement of assurance of completion of review. Submits Professional Learning Plan to SDDOE. (Form will be given by the state) Arlene Discuss how this information is useful, but will not impact the pilot districts.

High Needs – Level 3 (5% of Districts) All Pilot districts will meet the requirements of level 3, Assembles RDA Committee-participate in regional and local data retreats. Reviews local SPED data, conducts root cause analysis, and develops improvement plan to address local areas of concern. RDA committee will participate in data retreat each year. Districts will receive monthly support from RDA coaches on the development and implementation of their improvement plan. Every SPED teacher in district will complete internal review of compliance practices and submits a statement of assurance of completion of review. On-site support from RDA coaches when conducting the yearly internal review. On-site support for conducting root cause analysis and development of improvement plan (for both compliance and results areas). RDA coaches will guide this improvement plan. Districts will submit improvement plan to SDDOE, with the assistance of RDA coaches On-site TA provided monthly to support districts improvement strategies. Submits Professional Learning Plan to SDDOE. (Form will be given by the state) District will report to local school board on activities. Arlene

Next Steps Each District has Informational Training Two-Day Data Retreat Data retreat will customized year long process On-site support

SEE YOU IN 2019 TO HEAR OUR RESULTS!

How Colorado Balances Compliance and Results in its LEA Determination Miki Imura Supervisor of Data Accountability & Achievement Colorado Department of Education Jon Paul Burden Director- Exceptional Student Services Weld Re-4 Windsor School District

CDE Convened a Results Matrix Work Group Purpose: Create an LEA evaluation system that values academic results Use the product as part of LEAs’ Annual Determination The work group first met in January 2015 The work completed (for now) in March 2017 2017 LEA Determination Included the newly developed Results Matrix Accounted for 25% of the LEA Determination AU CDE

Work Group’s Wish List Do: Create similarity between District/School Performance Framework and the Results Matrix Emphasize student growth Identify attainable targets Acknowledge areas of strength Utilize as an evaluation/improvement/communication tool Don’t: Create winners and losers (we are all in this together)

Similarity With District Performance Framework Emphasis on Growth Similarity between SPF/DPF and the Results Matrix State Assessments Colorado IEP Accountability Participation in ELA and Math OSEP Accountability Participation in ELA and Math Regular Assessment Mean Scale Score in ELA and Math Alternate Assessment Proficiency Rate in ELA and Math Preschool Skill (Indicator 7) Positive Social-Emotional Skills Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet their Needs Graduation rate Dropout rate (Indicator 2) Post-School Outcomes (Indicator 14) The percent of former students selected in the post- school outcome interview sample whom AU attempted to reach. The percent of former students who participated in the post-school outcome interview. Of the former students who participated in the post- school outcome interview, the percent who are: Enrolled in higher education, or In some other post-secondary education or training programs, or Competitively employed, or In some other employment Academic Achievement 15% Median Growth Percentile in ELA and Math Rise Up in ELA and Math Keep Up in ELA and Math Emphasis on Growth Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness 35% Academic Growth 50%

Attainable Targets – “Norm & Freeze”

Attainable Targets – Example of Grad Rates

Attainable Targets – Example of Grad Rates

Slide 23 CO’s students on IEPs are not doing well across the states, so no AU would get any points in the results matrix! That’s not true!! The top 10% of AUs receive the full 3/3 points first year (2017). And the number of AUs that receive 3/3 points will (hopefully) increase from the 2nd year on!

2017 LEA Determinations

Results Matrix

Academic Achievement 15%

Academic Growth 50%

Rise Up / Catch Up / Keep Up Colorado Growth Model A student who is currently proficient is on track to keep proficiency for the next 3 years or until 10th grade = Keep Up Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Keep Up Worth 30 points of the Results Score

Rise Up / Catch Up / Keep Up Colorado Growth Model A student who is under proficient is on track to reach proficiency in 3 years or before 10th grade = Catch Up Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Catch Up But it’s EXTREMELY hard for a student currently in unsatisfactory to be on track to reach proficient in 3 years or before 10th grade.

Rise Up / Catch Up / Keep Up A student who is under proficient is on track to go up a step in 3 years or before 10th grade = Rise Up Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Rise Up Rise Up Worth 90 points of the Results Score We put a HEAVY emphasis on the growth of students who are under proficiency (78.5% of Special Education Population in TCAP 2014, 93% in PARCC 2016).

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness 35%

Summary Page

LEA LEVEL ANALYSIS Utilization of the norm charts helps to determine the gap to additional points and higher performance. Provides for targeted analysis of specific areas of performance rather than overall achievement. Growth data allows for deep dive into building level data Can drill down to the classroom or student level for targeted improvement Identifies achievable and meaningful improvements at student and system level.

ELA Median Growth Percentile (15 points)

Slide 35

Dropout Rate (42 points)

JP’s section With small “n” sizes these measures are highly sensitive 1 less dropout puts me over the 50th percentile 1 less graduate drops me below the 50th percentile This provides a clear urgency for staff to establish creative and innovative programming to keep students in school Over 130 school districts of 178 are considered small or rural in Colorado…thus small “n” sizes affect 2/3’s of all districts.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/rda

Questions and Comments? Colorado Jon Paul (jonpaul.burden@weldre4.org) Miki (imura_m@cde.state.co.us) Toby – CO’s State Director (king_t@cde.state.co.us) South Dakota Kyle Laughlin (kwlaughlin@tie.net) Jamie Morris (Jamie.Morris@state.sd.us)