1. AAAC January 13, 2016 Best Western, Marlborough

2. Agenda  Welcome from Council Chair  ESE updates  2015 accountability reporting  Holyoke Public Schools  Southbridge Public Schools  Transition to new assessments & federal law  Implications for accountability & assistance system  Role of AAAC Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 2

3. Welcome  Update from Council Chair, Meg Mayo-Brown Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 3

4. ESE Updates  2015 Accountability Reporting  Overall district and school accountability determinations  Level 4 school exit decisions  Newly identified Level 4 school  Holyoke Public Schools  Southbridge Public Schools Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 4

5. 2015 Accountability Reporting Update on Overall District & School Accountability Determinations, Level 4 School Exit Decisions & Newly Identified Level 4 Schools

6. 6 Goals of this presentation 1.Provide an overview of 2015 district and school accountability determinations, which are based on 2012-2015 statewide assessment results and high school graduation and dropout data 2.Share updated information about exit determinations and next steps for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 Level 4 schools. Each of these schools will follow one of two pathways:  Exit to Levels 1-3  Remain in Level 4 3.Provide an update on one new Level 4 school designation

7. Accountability & assistance system under ESEA flexibility waiver  Goal: Reducing proficiency gaps by half by 2017  Accountability & assistance levels for schools & districts (Levels 1-5)  Progress & Performance Index (PPI) – a performance measure that includes student growth, science, & other indicators  School percentiles – representing performance relative to other schools of the same school type  “High needs” subgroup data reported  Low income students, students with disabilities, current & former English language learners Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 7

8. 8 How schools are classified Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Lowest performing 20% of schools (including lowest performing subgroups) DescriptionESE Engagement High Lowest performing schools (subset of Level 3) Chronically underperforming schools (subset of Level 3 & 4) Not meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals (for aggregate &/or high needs students) Meeting proficiency gap narrowing goals (for aggregate & high needs students) Very low Low Very high Receivership High achieving, high growth, gap narrowing schools (subset of Level 1) Commendation Schools

9. Modifications to 2015 reporting  Additional credit for English language learners demonstrating high growth in English language proficiency  Change in threshold for identifying schools with persistently low graduation rates  67 percent for 4-year cohort rate, 70 percent for 5-year cohort rates  Reduction in minimum subgroup size  25 students, only if group was 30 or larger in 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 9

10. Modifications to 2015 reporting  Equipercentile linking approach used to link MCAS and PARCC results through transitional CPIs  Transitional student growth percentiles (SGPs) calculated for PARCC schools  “Hold harmless” applied to PARCC schools and districts  No hold harmless for high schools or other MCAS schools Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 10

11. 2015 Impact of hold harmless approach Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 11  18% of schools administering PARCC in grades 3-8 in 2015 held harmless  Majority of these schools remain in Level 1  Approximately 12% of PARCC districts held harmless  Majority are single-school districts remaining in Level 1

12. 2015 Commendation schools Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 12  45 Commendation schools  Subset of Level 1 schools  Three categories:  High progress (28 schools)  Narrowing proficiency gaps (21 schools)  High achievement (7 schools)  Schools can be commended in multiple categories

13. 2014 & 2015 School Levels Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 13 1 Schools with insufficient data to be eligible for a level are schools ending in grade PK, K, 1, or 2, very small schools, and schools without four full years of data.

14. 2014 & 2015 District Levels Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 14 1 Schools and single-school districts with insufficient data to be eligible for a level are schools ending in grade PK, K, 1, or 2, very small schools, and schools without four full years of data.

15. 15 Level 4 Schools Discussion Overview Provide an overview of ESE’s process for making exit decisions for Level 4 Schools Summarize the next steps for each designation pathway Provide an update about newly identified Level 4 school Level 4 Refresher Exiting Schools Schools Remaining in Level 4 New Level 4 School

16. 16 6 Cohorts of Level 4 Schools CohortStatus# of SchoolsRelevant Districts Cohort 1 (Identified in Spring 2010) Exited to Level 1, 2 or 3 18 Boston, Fall River, Lynn, Lowell, Springfield, Worcester Remained in Level 4 9 Boston, Springfield, Worcester In a L5 District 3 Holyoke, Lawrence Designated as Level 5 4 Boston, Holyoke, New Bedford Closed 3 Boston, Fall River Cohort 2 (Identified in Fall 2011) Eligible to Exit in Fall 2015 6 Lawrence, New Bedford, Salem, Worcester Cohort 3 (Identified in Fall 2012) Eligible to Exit in Fall 2016 4 Boston, Lawrence, Springfield Cohort 4 (Identified in Fall 2013) Eligible to Exit in Fall 2017 7 Athol-Royalston, Boston, Fall River, New Bedford, Springfield Cohort 5 (Identified in Fall 2014) Eligible to Exit in Fall 2018 6 Boston, Springfield, Worcester Cohort 6 (Identified in Fall 2015) Eligible to Exit in Fall 2019 1 Boston

17. 17 Decision Overview Determination# of Schools Relevant Districts Exit to Level 13Lawrence, Springfield Exit to Level 31Worcester Remain in Level 414 Boston, Holyoke, Lawrence, New Bedford, Salem, Springfield

18. 18 Information for Schools Exiting Level 4  District must submit an “Exit Assurances & Sustainability Application” to identify ongoing sustainability supports, request continued flexibilities, and allow ESE to monitor progress.  4 schools have qualified to exit Level 4 status:  Lawrence – Community Day Arlington ES & UP Academy Leonard  Springfield – White Street ES  Worcester – Burncoat Street ES

19. 19 Information for Schools Remaining In Level 4 Several schools remaining in Level 4 are engaged with turnaround partners or in-district receivers: Boston – English HS Boston – Dearborn Salem – Bentley (Horace Mann III) Springfield - Chestnut Street North Springfield – Chestnut Street South Springfield – Chestnut Street TAG Springfield – Kennedy MS Springfield – Kiley

20. 20 New Level 4 School: Identification & Next Steps  Selection Criteria:  Any newly identified Level 4 schools are a subset of Level 3  This school has had flat or declining results for multiple years and is not making progress:  Boston – Madison Park HS  Next Steps:  Convening a Local Stakeholder Group  Preparing and submitting a Turnaround Plan  Option to apply for FY17 School Redesign Grant Funds

21. 21 Questions & Discussion

22. Update on Holyoke and Southbridge Public School Districts

23. Transitions New statewide assessments New federal law

24. Purpose of this discussion  Provide information about upcoming transitions  Statewide assessment plans & new federal law  Ask you to think about potential impact on MA’s approach to accountability & assistance  Begin to gather your advice on possible modifications to system & talk about next steps Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 24

25. Context: Key elements of current system  Annual determinations, typically based on 4 years of data, for all schools  Normative & criterion-referenced components  School percentile - comparison to other schools  Progress & Performance Index - progress against targets, set thru 2016-17  Grade 3-8 determinations based in full on assessment results  District level based on lowest performing school Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 25

26. Context: 2015 assessment choice  In spring 2015 schools chose to administer PARCC or MCAS tests in grades 3-8  ESE calculated comparable statistics for 2015 accountability reporting regardless of test selected  CPIs, % Adv, % W/F, & SGPs  ESE announced we would not use 2015 data in school percentiles for 2016 reporting & beyond  Hold harmless for PARCC schools & districts Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 26

27. November 2015 Board vote  Transition to next-generation MCAS for grades 3-8 by spring 2017  Allow assessment choice (MCAS->PARCC) again in G3-8 in spring 2016  Augment spring 2016 MCAS with PARCC items  Remain member of PARCC consortium  Commit to computer-based assessment by 2019  Hold harmless – again – for PARCC schools & districts Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 27

28. “Hold harmless” deconstructed  In this context hold harmless means a school or district accountability & assistance level can improve, but cannot get worse as compared to prior year  Applies to G3-8 PARCC schools and districts in 2015 and 2016, and all G3-8 schools & districts in 2017  Does not apply to Level 5 designations  Exception for Level 4 designations in 2017 – “reasons other than 2017 test scores”  ESE continues to publish accountability-related data Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 28

29. Statewide assessment transition timeline Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 29 * HH=Hold harmless. Exception for Level 5 designations and, in 2017, Level 4 designations YearGrades 3-8High School 2015-16PARCC & MCAS Science – MCAS only HH for PARCC schools & districts* MCAS No HH 2016-17Next Generation MCAS ELA, math, & science HH for all schools & districts* MCAS No HH 2017-18Next Generation MCAS No HH Next Generation MCAS No HH announcement as of 1/2016

30. Every Student Succeeds Act enacted  Signed by President Obama 12/10/15  Reauthorizes the federal Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)  Replaces No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  Gives us a new acronym - ESSA  Maintains certain accountability requirements for schools, which take effect in SY 2017-18  ESEA/NCLB flexibility waiver expires 8/1/16 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 30

31. Accountability & assistance under ESSA  Maintains NCLB’s annual testing requirements  Requires system of “annual meaningful differentiation” for all public schools  Long-term goals & measures of interim progress, for all students and subgroups  Including test-based proficiency, English language proficiency, graduation rates, and indicator of “school quality or student success”  May incorporate growth  Identification of & intervention in lowest performing 5 percent of schools & high schools with graduation rates below 67%  Identification of & support for schools with low performing subgroups Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 31

32. ESSA accountability transition timeline YearFederal context 2015-16ESEA flexibility waiver Current accountability requirements 2016-17Transition year Support low performing schools while reconsidering design of system 2017-18ESSA New accountability requirements Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 32

33. Accountability reporting timeline Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 33 Testing yearReporting year Publication date Determinations apply to Key planning done by * SY 2015-162016August 2016SY 2016-17May 2016 SY 2016-172017August 2017SY 2017-18Dec 2016 SY 2017-182018August 2018SY 2018-19June 2017 * Anticipated timeline, as of January 2016. Includes time for regulatory changes.

34. Role of AAAC  Under state law -- Review & advise ESE and BESE on policies and practices of office of school & district accountability and ESE’s targeted assistance and intervention efforts  Within ESE’s “MCAS 2.0” project management plan -- Review & advise on transition to MCAS 2.0 results in state’s school & district accountability system  We need your help! Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 34

35. Group discussions  Technical aspects of system  Years of data included  Goals & targets – including baseline year  Indicators included  Weighting  Identification of and support for lowest performing schools & districts  Communication/framing  How we talk about accountability & assistance system  Identification/naming of school & district categories Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 35

36. Next steps  ESE establishes overall project plan, including stakeholder engagement  AAAC advises and establishes processes for providing input into the design  April 6 th AAAC meeting Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 36