Next-Generation State Accountability Systems NCSA | June 20, 2011 Moderator: Carrie Heath Phillips, CCSSO Presenters: Dan Long, Tennessee DOE Pat Roschewski, Nebraska DOE

 CCSSO accountability taskforce background  State-created, shared principles of next- generation accountability systems  Outline of the accountability roadmap  Multi-state consortium  States’ advocacy on accountability with ED and Congress 2

 Composed of roughly 20 state chiefs and SEA leaders.  The Taskforce has participated in robust meetings and discussions to develop a framework for next- generation state accountability systems.  Drew upon members' experiences in implementing accountability systems over the past two decades along with the knowledge of various experts and the latest research 3

 States have a unique and timely opportunity to assert responsibility and authority for improving student achievement.  These new models capitalize on recent state-led reforms to adopt accountability systems that better promote college- and career-readiness for all students and schools.  These models build upon NCLB accountability systems that have introduced important practices, but move beyond such systems to more tightly integrate across the system's components. 4

 Statement of Principles  41 states and D.C. have agreed to build accountability systems based on these principles  Roadmap for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems Public release today, June 20 5

Goals of next-generation accountability systems Set high expectations of college and career readiness and beyond to drive behavior at all levels of the system. Meaningfully and specifically distinguish performance of schools & districts based on student outcome data. Empower stakeholders to take action through clear data informed by diagnostic reviews. Continuously innovate and improve the system for higher levels of student achievement 6

For each state to advance the goals of college- and career-readiness, we have to establish accountability systems that are consistent with several core principles:  Alignment of accountability with college- and career-readiness  Annual accountability determinations  Determinations focused on student academic outcomes (status & growth)  Continued disaggregation of student data in order to address achievement gaps  Transparent reporting of information in a timely and actionable manner  Diagnostic reviews of schools and districts that inform meaningful supports and interventions  Interventions targeted to the lowest-performing schools & districts  Continuous system evaluation and innovation 7

 Each state’s accountability system will:  have performance goals aligned with college- and career-readiness;  set annual performance benchmarks at levels that are on track for each student to graduate from high school with both the rigorous content knowledge and high-order skills necessary for success in college and career; and  further reflect and value continuous improvement for all schools and students to meet and exceed those expectations. 8

 Each state’s accountability system will:  make annual accountability determinations for all publicly funded schools and districts;  set a high bar for achievement and improvement for all students;  make valid, reliable, and meaningful distinctions regarding the performance levels of schools and districts; and  address both the current performance of the school or district and the extent to which that performance is improving. 9

 Initial accountability determinations will:  expect students, subgroups, and/or schools performing below performance levels to make significant improvement toward being on track to college-and career-ready graduation; and  include, but not be limited to, improved assessments in reading and math, accurate graduation rates, as well as other measures based on each state’s goals and context.  States would have discretion to weigh measures and apply them conjunctively or on a compensatory basis, provided that the focus is on meaningful student outcomes. 10

 Each state’s accountability system will:  continue to support disaggregation of student data for accountability determinations and reporting (such as by race, ethnicity, poverty, disability, and limited English proficiency); and  help identify and address significant achievement gaps and ensure that the needs of particular subgroups are not masked by aggregate student achievement, including particular attention to schools with the lowest performing subgroups and/or the greatest gaps in performance. 11

 Data related to school and district performance will:  be reported in a manner that is timely, actionable, and accessible—to improve teaching and learning and support policy improvements at all levels; and  include disaggregated reporting of student outcome data as well as available input data and data on returns on investment—to promote efficiency and effectiveness. 12

 Each state’s accountability system will include, as appropriate,  deeper analysis and diagnostic reviews of school and district performance, particularly for low-performing schools, to create a tighter link between initial accountability determinations and appropriate supports and interventions.  States may:  classify schools and local educational agencies not simply on the length of underperformance, as under NCLB, but on both student outcomes and deeper analysis of the data, conditions, plans, and capacities in each school and district. 13

 Each state’s system will:  focus on building district and school capacity for significant and sustained improvement in student achievement.  This will require general systems of supports and interventions relevant to all schools and a continued focus on state capacity as well. 14

 The most significant interventions will be focused on at least the lowest performing five percent of schools and their districts (in addition to targeted interventions to address the lowest performing subgroups and/or schools with the greatest achievement gaps).  States must have flexibility to craft interventions that are rigorous, systemic, and context-specific in order to turn around the lowest performing schools on an urgent, ambitious, reasoned time line, with constant evaluation, sustained investment, and true results. 15

 Each state’s accountability system will:  drive innovation and itself be dynamic— promoting innovative accountability approaches with rigorous evaluation to drive continuous improvement over time; and  develop and implement plans for evaluation and improvements related to the system as a whole, core elements of the system, and the impact of the system on individual schools and districts. 16

Purpose:  Provide a guide for state action in developing and implementing next- generation accountability systems.  Offer different considerations for states in how they can meet the shared accountability principles. 17

 The Roadmap is composed of elements that individually and collectively are needed for the accountability systems to meet their goals.  Within each element are the following components:  “Musts" – state actions necessary to ensure system integrity  "Coulds" – actions a state might take depending on its particular context  Key issues to address  State exemplars 18

19 Goal setting Performance Measurements Initial Determinations/Transp arent Reporting Diagnostic Review/Planning Performance Classification and Reporting of Actionable Data Rewards, Consequences, and Supports Evaluation, Review, and Continuous Improvement / Action Cycle of Accountability

 Participation in the Consortium is voluntary for states.  The purpose of the Consortium will be to support each state’s policy development process by providing a forum for cross-state interaction and learning, as well as expert support in dealing with tough issues.  CCSSO will work with its member states to help each state develop a state-specific accountability model consistent with the principles.  The Roadmap will be a tool used in the Consortium to guide discussion.  The Consortium will focus on policy and complement the deeper, more nuanced work of the SCASSes. 20

 CCSSO continues to call on Congress to mirror bipartisan state leadership and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to support state-led innovation.  If reauthorization should be delayed, states welcome Secretary Duncan's willingness to explore using NCLB's waiver authority to collaboratively peer-review and approve these new state-developed accountability models.  NCLB’s waiver authority provides a pathway for states to devise and propose new innovations and not for the Department to continue the law's one-size-fits-all philosophy simply recast through a new policy lens.  This is an opportunity not just to “fix NCLB,” but also to improve accountability and reset federal law to spur state innovation rather than just compliance. 21