1. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Transitioning to a New Accountability System: Moving California Forward Nancy S. Brownell, Senior Fellow State Board of Education Staff CISC – March 24, 2016

2. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Background from Prior SBE Meetings The March 2016 SBE Meeting item 23 continues the Board focus on shifting from an outdated accountability system to a single, coherent local, state and federal accountability system. At the January 2016 meeting, the Board requested more information and clarity on specific components being considered. 2

3. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23 Attachments 1.Proposed Architecture of an Accountability System that Integrates Local, State and Federal Requirements 2.Options for Performance Standards and Expectations for Improvement based on Graduation Rate Example Scenarios 3.Options for Developing a Concise Set of Indicators Reflecting State and Federal Requirements 4.Timeline for the Proposed Transition 5.Relevant CA Education Codes 3

4. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 1 Proposed Architecture Information Memorandum 3 – Components of the New System –Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update –Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Evaluation Rubrics –Support and Assistance System established by LCFF and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) for districts and schools 4

5. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 1 Proposed Architecture Graphic Organizes the overall system into two parts: (1) local continuous improvement and accountability; and (2) an integrated state and federal continuous improvement, support, and accountability system. Left side of the graphic depicts the foundation of the system—the 8 LCFF Priorities and any Local Priorities that LEAs identify—and the Evaluation Rubrics The arrow with the text “Key indicators” that crosses from the left portion of the graphic into the right portion demonstrates that the key indicators from the LCFF evaluation rubrics are central to the assistance and support system, connecting local processes with state and federal components. 5 February 23, 2016 Information Memorandum 3 – Attachment 1

6. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 6

7. Technical Assistance (TA) EC Section 52071 (LEAs/Districts) –IF a County Superintendent does not approve a LCAP, or a local governing board requests TA, THEN County Superintendent shall provide any of the following: Assign an academic expert or team of experts, solicit another district to be a partner, request that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) assign the CA Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to provide TA. 7

8. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Technical Assistance (TA) EC Section 52071 (LEAs/Districts) –Using the evaluation rubrics, the County Superintendent shall provide TA to districts that fail to improve achievement across more than one state priority for one or more subgroups. 8

9. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Implications, Triggers & Criteria for Intervention EC Section 52072 The SPI may, with the approval of the state board, identify districts in need of intervention that meets both of the following criteria: 1.District did not improve outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups, OR if district has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the district’s subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years. 2.The CCEE has provided advice and assistance to the district and submits either of the following findings to the SPI: District has failed or is unable to implement recommendations, district performance is either so persistent or acute, based on evaluation rubrics, SPI is required to intervene 9

10. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION What Does Intervention Include? EC Section 52072 The SPI may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following: 1.Make changes to LCAP 2.Develop and impose budget revisions, reflecting LCAP changes, to improve outcomes for students 3.Stay and rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement that would prevent the district from improving outcomes for all subgroups not making progress in regards to state or local priorities 4.Appoint an academic trustee to exercise powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf 10

11. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Additional ESSA Provisions – ESSA State Plan Components The ESSA accountability system and related interventions will take effect in 2017–18 Elementary, Middle and High School Measures Identification of Lowest Performing LEAs for Intervention Intervention- Comprehensive Support and Improvement Intervention-Targeted Support and Improvement Definition of Student Groups 11 January 2016 SBE Meeting – Item 2, Attachment 1

12. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 1 Annual Interaction Graphic Process Overview – Takes the information from the Architecture and suggests how it could be incorporated into the annual budget, LCAP, and Annual Update cycle. Emphasizes and underscores the implications and importance for supporting continuous improvement expectations for accountability. Outlines an integrated process that connects the LCAP development, LCFF Evaluation Rubrics and Assistance and Support processes. 12 February 23, 2016 Information Memorandum 3 – Attachment 1

13. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION GRAPHIC: Annual Interaction Among the LCAP, the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics and Assistance and Support Process 13

14. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 1 Summary: –Graphics show how the current LCFF evaluation rubric prototype could be an important component of an integrated, coherent accountability system. –The current LCFF evaluation rubrics prototype can be further refined as a tool that supports all LEAs in reflecting on practice and planning within the 8 LCFF Priorities and any local priorities through the LCAP and Annual Update process. –Frames the state and federal system of assistance and support for the small set of LEAs and schools that need assistance and support. 14 February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 3 – Attachment 1

15. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Evaluation Rubrics Components Web-based data analysis tool –Standards for school district and individual school site performance and expectations for improvement Practice Standards/Model Practices –Describe research-supported practices inclusive of all state priorities –Convey characteristics and examples of high functioning organizational practices Connections to Best Practice Guides –Tools and resources to support continuous improvement goals 15

16. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 2 Options for Performance Standards and Expectations for Improvement Based on Graduation Rate Example Scenarios Analysis on the graduation rate indicator illustrates how standards, once established, may identify local educational agencies (LEAs) in need of technical assistance and intervention. 16 February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

17. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 2 Options for Performance Standards and Expectations for Improvement Based on Graduation Rate Example Scenario 17 Approximately 483 LEAs and 1,428 schools, excluding alternative schools, with four-year cohort data in at least one of the years from 2011- 12 through 2013-14. In 2013-14 year, 476 LEAs, 1,364 schools have data. Scenarios on the next slides are based on the number of LEAs and schools. February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

18. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 2009-102010-112011-122012-132013-14 All Students74.7%77.1%78.9%80.4%81.0% Hispanic68.1%71.4%73.7%75.7%76.6% American Indian67.3%68.5%72.4%72.8%70.6% Asian89.0%90.3%91.1%91.6%92.4% Pacific Islander72.3%74.9%77.0%78.4%80.4% Filipino87.4%89.9%90.8%91.6%92.2% African American60.5%62.8%66.0%68.1%68.2% White83.5%85.7%86.6%87.7%87.6% Low Income68.0%71.1%73.0%74.8%75.6% English Learner56.4%61.5%62.0%63.1%65.4% Foster YouthN/A Students with Disabilities 56.7%59.5%61.1%61.9%62.3% 18 Item 23: Attachment 2 Options for Performance Standards and Expectations for Improvement Based on Graduation Rate Example Scenarios Statewide Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

19. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 2 Graduation Rate Example Scenario 19 Based on the distribution of LEA results, the four- year cohort graduation rate results at the 5 th percentile (i.e., the lowest 5% of LEAs perform at or below this point and 95% perform above this point) are 59%, the 10 th percentile is 75.6%, the 30 th percentile is 89.1%, and the 60 th percentile is 94.5%. February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

20. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 2 Graduation Rate Example Scenario 20 The same simulation was conducted based on the distribution of results for schools. The four-year cohort graduation rate results at the 5 th percentile are 53.1%, the 10 th percentile is 68.0%, the 30 th percentile is 86.0%, and the 60 th percentile is 94.1%. February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

21. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Graduation Rate Distribution for Outcome 21 PercentileFour-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 2013-14 (# and % of LEAs with grad rates below this %tile) LEA All Students (Outcome) LEA with One or More Student Subgroups Below Percentile Point (Outcome) LEA with Three or More Student Subgroups Below Percentile Point (Outcome) # of LEA s % of LEAs # of LEAs % of LEAs # of LEAs % of LEAs 5 th 59.0% 245%4910.1%255.2% 10 th 75.6% 4810%20442.2%5812.0% 30 th 89.1% 14330%39882.4%22646.8% 60 th 94.5% 28660%45794.6%36575.6% February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

22. Graduation Rate Standard Option 22 Outcome Very LowLowIntermediateHighVery High 78.6% or below 78.7 to 83.2%83.3 to 90.6%90.7 to 96.0% 96.1% or above Improvement Declined Significantly DeclinedMaintainedImproved Improved Significantly -2.9% or below -1.3 to -2.8% -1.2% to 1.3%1.4% to 6.4 6.5% or above Improvement Outcome Very HighHighIntermediateLowVery Low Improved Significantly ExcellentGood Emerging Improved ExcellentGood EmergingIssue Maintained ExcellentGoodEmergingIssueConcern Declined GoodEmergingIssue Concern Declined SignificantlyEmergingIssue Concern

23. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Graduation Rate Distribution for Outcome and Improvement 23 PercentileLEA All Students (Improvement and Outcome) LEA with One or More Student Subgroups Below Percentile Point (Improvement and Outcome) LEA with Three or More Student Subgroups Below Percentile Point (Improvement and Outcome) # of LEAs % of LEAs # of LEAs % of LEAs # of LEAs % of LEAs 5 th 245%11324.7%265.7% 10 th 4810%22148.3%6313.8% 30 th 14330%37481.7%20043.7% 60 th 28660%41290.0%32170.1% February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

24. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 2 Graduation Rate Example Scenario 24 Summary and Conclusion Graduation rate analysis provides one example of how local, state, and federal accountability requirements can be aligned through an integrated approach. illustrates the relationship between standards at the LEA and student subgroup levels. This analysis identifies how many LEAs are impacted at each of the four percentile distribution points for outcome and improvement in the standard setting and performance expectations determinations. February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 4 – Attachment 2

25. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 3 LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Key Indicators – ESSA Required Indicators These potential indicators meet the following identified criteria: (1)currently collected and available for use at the state level, (2)uses a consistent definition, (3)can be disaggregated to the school and subgroup level, and (4) is supported by research as a valid measure. 25 February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 5 – Attachment 3

26. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 3 ESSA Required Key Indicators Five indicators required by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) –Student Achievement (ELA and Math) –Graduation Rate –Progress of English learners toward proficiency –Another K-8 academic measure –At least one other measure 26 February 23, 2016 Information Memorandum 3 – Attachment 1

27. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Additional K-8 Academic Indicator Middle School Drop Out Rate Composite Index of Two Indicators for Proficiency on Grade 3 Reading and Grade 8 Math (On Track for College & Career Ready) 27

28. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION At Least One Other Indicator Williams Settlement Legislation College & Career Ready Suspension Rate Note: Chronic Absence is a candidate for inclusion as a key indicator in the future, pending verification of the quality and reliability of the underlying data after state-level collection begins. 28

29. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 3 LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Key Indicators – ESSA Required Indicators Summary –Information in Attachment 3 identifies potential options for selecting key indictors that would satisfy the requirements of ESSA. –The identified options were selected because they meet the four criteria identified in slide 30 29 February 24, 2016 Information Memorandum 5 – Attachment 3

30. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 4 Timeline and Outreach for Proposed Transition Transition to the New Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Updated Memo http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/infomemofeb2016.asp 30 Proposed LCAP Template Revisions Proposed Development of LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Proposed Development of ESSA State Plan State Board Meetings February 19, 2016 Information Memorandum 1 – Attachment 4

31. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 4 Timeline May SBE Meeting –LCAP template changes, fully developed LCFF evaluation rubrics prototype, state transition plan for ESSA July SBE Meeting –Update on stakeholder input and status of LCAP template changes, final design features and prototype of evaluation rubrics, progress update on ESSA state plan September SBE Meeting –Approve LCAP template changes, Evaluation Rubrics, receive information on ESSA State Plan 31

32. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 4 Timeline May - State Board Decisions Points Identify additional key indicators. Clarify how to determine whether LEA has made sufficient progress or not for technical assistance and intervention. Determine the range of performance across key indicators for eligibility for technical assistance. Consider the best way to include a local data selection tool with the evaluation rubrics. Direct staff to identify recommended criteria and potential metrics for local selection for consideration in July. 32

33. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Item 23: Attachment 4 Timeline July - State Board Decisions Points Decide how to best connect the self-reflection dimension of the evaluation rubrics with the annual update of the revised template. Determine the need for a range within quality and aspirational standards. Approve final design and descriptors of performance (outcome and improvement), including different bands/tiers in an Alberta-like model. Recommend how to best display data so that it is locally actionable and meaningful. Decide if the board will determine additional key indicators now or hold off until analysis of the data on potential key indicators is available. Decide on the recommended criteria and metrics included in local data selection tool. 33

34. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Approving the Motion Means CDE and SBE Staff will –Use the architecture model to detail how components fit together into a coherent, integrated system. –Continue to model graduation rate results across the distribution range by weighting improvement and/or outcome results to consider additional options. –Apply the methodology and progression of analyses that were used for graduation rate to other potential key indicators. 34