Shared commitments between the Oregon Education Investment Board and K-12 School Districts and ESDs.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MSIP Accountability Plan
Advertisements

LCFF & LCAP. Key Precepts of LCFF Based on specific considerations: Equity, additional resources for students with greater needs Low-income students English.
Achieving the Dream. Achieving the Dream is a national effort to help more community college students succeed, with a special focus on students of color.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Texas State Accountability 2013 and Beyond Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013 Austin Independent School District Bill Caritj, Chief Performance.
Standards help teachers ensure their students have the skills and knowledge they need by providing clear goals for student learning. Common standards.
Hermiston School District K-12 Achievement Compact Implementation & Review Process.
School Performance Framework (SPF). Purpose of SPF The School Performance Framework (SPF) is a comprehensive system to help schools focus on strengths.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
Data for Student Success Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report “It is about focusing on building a culture of quality data through professional development.
1 Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Process CDE Briefing for the Colorado State Board of Education March 5, 2008.
2oth Century21 st Century Seat timeDemonstrations of proficiency and flexible uses of time Content knowledge4 keys of college and career readiness (Know,
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
LOUISIANA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION JOHN WHITE Tracking Readiness: Measuring High School Effectiveness in Louisiana National Conference on Student.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
“An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap” Report of the Superintendent Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D. March 4, 2010.
Common Core State Standards Background and ELA Overview Created By: Penny Plavala, Literacy Specialist.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Cindy Hunt, Government and Legal Affairs Manager Oregon Department of Education.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Graduate School of Education Leading, Learning, Life Changing Evolving Oregon Educational Policy Courtesy of Pat Burk, Ph.D. Department of Educational.
We believe kids can….. Connecting is key….. Learning unlocks opportunities…..
What is Title I ?  It is federal funding that is attached to NCLB/ESEA legislation  It is intended to help students who are falling behind.
What’s going on in Richmond? Items of Interest to VESIS March 21, 2012 Bethann H. Canada Director of Educational Information Management Virginia Department.
Graduate School of Education Leading, Learning, Life Changing Emerging Trends in K-12 Education in Oregon and the U.S. Patrick Burk, PH.D. Educational.
Agenda (5:00-6:30 PM): Introduction to Staff Title I Presentation PTA Information Classroom visits (two 30 minute rotations)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2013 Assessment and Accountability Information Meeting State.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Transition to Smarter Assessment January Why did Delaware need new academic standards?
Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA January 8, 2002.
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-4:00.
Fall 2010 Mathematics Standards of Learning Assessment Update - 1 -
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction January 2015 Jenny Singh, Administrator Academic Accountability.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION State Policies: Orchestrating the Common Core Mathematics Classroom Ilene W. Straus, Vice President California State.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Building the Parent Voice
-- Oregon Education Investment Team report to Governor (July 2011)
TENNESSEE SUCCEEDS.. In the spring of 2007, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an education report card for all states. Tennessee received an “F” in.
ELL Program Advisory Group December 1, TWO PHASES of WORK ELL Program Advisory Group PHASE ONE 1/1/2016As Specified in HB Criteria Determine.
Local Control Accountability Plan Update, Renewal, Review Santa Barbara Unified School District
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
The Department of Early Education and Care 2013 Annual Legislative Report February 11, 2014.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Overview Plan Input Outcome and Objective Measures Summary of Changes Board Feedback Finalization Next Steps.
What just happened and what’s next? Presenters: Steve Dibb, MDE Debra Landvik, MDE AYP 2011.
Our State. Our Students. Our Success. DRAFT. Nevada Department of Education Goals Goal 1 All students are proficient in reading by the end of 3 rd grade.
Corona-Norco Unified School District Accountability Update RAN Meeting May 15, 2015.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Stephanie Graff, Chief Accountability Officer
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015: Highlights and
Driving Through the California Dashboard
January 2015 Jenny Singh, Administrator Academic Accountability Unit
Texas Academic Performance Report TAPR)
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Michigan School Report Card Update
Overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and
Driving Through the California Dashboard
English Learning Meeting June 12th, :00 – 2:15 pm
ESSA accountability & Report Card Proposed regulations
Presentation transcript:

Shared commitments between the Oregon Education Investment Board and K-12 School Districts and ESDs

 Oregon Education Investment Board  Established by Senate Bill 909  12-member board chaired by the governor  Charged with:  Reaching Oregon’s 40/40/20 goal  Overseeing creation of a seamless, unified education system

 To align Oregon’s education system toward achievement of 40/40/20 goal  To focus and inform state investment and local budget decisions  To showcase best practices and promote collaboration  To replace provisions of NCLB with a more supportive and flexible accountability system

Achievement Compact Student-level data Priority/Focus/Model Designation School & District Report Card Policymakers -- State & District Guide budget & policy setting at state & local level to improve achievement Parents & Public Provide ratings & information about school & district quality Focus state & district school improvement efforts. Inform teaching & learning Educators & Community Students, Families, & Teachers

College and Career Ready: Are students completing high school ready for college or career? 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of **Dis- advantaged 4-Year Cohort Graduation Optional Required Optional 5-year Cohort Graduation Optional Required Optional 5-Year Completion Optional Required Optional Post-Secondary EnrollmentPending Optional Required Optional Earning 9+ College CreditsOptional Required Optional Disadvantaged is aggregate of disadvantaged student groups (details on pp. 2-4) Gray shaded boxes are district-provided projections and goals ** goals are optional Progression: Are students making sufficient progress toward college and career readiness? All Dis- advantaged AllDis- advantaged All*Dis- advantaged Goal All Dis- advantaged 4-Year Goal ( )** Dis- advantaged Ready for SchoolKindergarten readiness assessment under development 3rd Gr. Reading Proficiency Optional Required Optional 3rd Gr. Math Proficiency Optional Required Optional 6th Grade On-Track Optional Required Optional 9th Grade On-TrackOptional Required Optional *Estimate based on most recent available data **2016 Goals are optional Equity: Are students succeeding across all buildings and populations? Goal4-Year Goal ( )** Priority & Focus Schools* RequiredOptional DISAGGREGATED DATA AND GOALS FOR EACH DISADVANTAGED STUDENT GROUP LISTED ON PP 2-4 *Prior to , school in federal AYP "Need Improvement" status **4-year Goals are optional Local Priorities: What other measures reflect key priorities in the district? (optional, up to 3) Year Dis- advantaged YearDis- advantagedYearDis- advantaged1-Year Goal Dis- advantaged 4-Year Goal**Dis- advantaged Optional **4-year Goal optional Investment: What is the public investment in the district? (does not include capital investments) * * QEM calculation of Formula Revenue District Share Local Revenue not passed through formula District Official Federal Revenue State Grants not passed through formula OEIB Chief Education Officer NOTE: The gray fields for current and past data are optional, as are the tan fields for local priorities. Districts should fill in the blue fields with their targets, provided student counts are six or more.

College and Career Ready: Are students completing high school ready for college or career? 4-year cohort graduation 5-year cohort graduation 5-year completion Post-secondary enrollment Earning 9+ college credits 6

Progression: Are students making sufficient progress toward college and career readiness? Ready for School (under development) 3 rd Grade Reading Proficiency 3 rd Grade math Proficiency 6 th Grade On Track (attendance) 9 th Grade On Track (attendance and credits) 7

Equity: Are students succeeding across all buildings and populations? Priority & Focus Schools Disaggregated data and targets for economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficiency students, students with disabilities, students of color (broken down by race and ethnicity), and TAG students. 8

Local Priorities: What other measures reflect key priorities in the district? Optional 9

Investment: What is the public investment in the district? (does not include capital investments) Formula Revenue Local Revenue not passed through formula Federal Revenue State Grants not passed through formula 10

College and Career Ready: Are students completing high school ready for college or career? 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of Dis- advantaged 9th graders of **Dis- advantaged 4-Year Cohort Graduation Optional Required Optional 5-year Cohort Graduation Optional Required Optional 5-Year Completion Optional Required Optional Post-Secondary EnrollmentPending Optional Required Optional Earning 9+ College CreditsOptional Required Optional Disadvantaged is aggregate of disadvantaged student groups (details on pp. 2-4) Gray shaded boxes are district-provided projections and goals ** goals are optional Progression: Are students making sufficient progress toward college and career readiness? All Dis- advantaged AllDis- advantaged All*Dis- advantaged Goal All Dis- advantaged 4-Year Goal ( )** Dis- advantaged Ready for SchoolKindergarten readiness assessment under development 3rd Gr. Reading Proficiency Optional Required Optional 3rd Gr. Math Proficiency Optional Required Optional 6th Grade On-Track Optional Required Optional 9th Grade On-TrackOptional Required Optional *Estimate based on most recent available data **2016 Goals are optional Equity: Are students succeeding across all buildings and populations? Goal4-Year Goal ( )** Priority & Focus Schools* RequiredOptional DISAGGREGATED DATA AND GOALS FOR EACH DISADVANTAGED STUDENT GROUP LISTED ON PP 2-4 *Prior to , school in federal AYP "Need Improvement" status **4-year Goals are optional Local Priorities: What other measures reflect key priorities in the district? (optional, up to 3) Year Dis- advantaged YearDis- advantagedYearDis- advantaged1-Year Goal Dis- advantaged 4-Year Goal**Dis- advantaged Optional **4-year Goal optional Investment: What is the public investment in the district? (does not include capital investments) * * QEM calculation of Formula Revenue District Share Local Revenue not passed through formula District Official Federal Revenue State Grants not passed through formula OEIB Chief Education Officer NOTE: The gray fields for current and past data are optional, as are the tan fields for local priorities. Districts should fill in the blue fields with their targets, provided student counts are six or more.

 From now until June 30, 2012:  Set targets and complete compacts  By July 2, 2012:  Submit completed compacts to OEIB  July 31, 2012:  Deadline for Chief Education Officer to accept achievement compacts and local priority measures

 By September 30, 2012:  Board appoints Achievement Compact Advisory Committee  By February 1, 2013:  compacts provided to districts and ESDs  By June 30, 2013:  Deadline for Chief Education Officer to accept achievement compacts and local priority measures

 Collaborative process is key  ‘Sowing the seeds’ this spring  Continue in earnest next fall  Compacts are evolving documents  With our help, they will get better over time  Real hope for the future  Move us away from NCLB  Move us toward greater investment in education

 Collaborative process is key  ‘Sowing the seeds’ this spring  Continue in earnest next fall  Compacts are evolving documents  With our help, they will get better over time  Real hope for the future  Move us away from NCLB  Move us toward greater investment in education

 Collaborative process is key  ‘Sowing the seeds’ this spring  Continue in earnest next fall  Compacts are evolving documents  With our help, they will get better over time  Real hope for the future  Move us away from NCLB  Move us toward greater investment in education

 Comments to the OEIB   Questions  Margie Lowe, ,  On the Web   ation/Oregon_Education_Investment_Board.aspx ation/Oregon_Education_Investment_Board.aspx  Board.shtml Board.shtml