1. Every Student Succeeds Act - ESSA Barbara Hunter Cox Director Teaching and Learning Arkansas Public School Resource Center

2. COMPARISONS NCLB TO ESSA

3. Student Expectations Unrealistic goals and targets created incentives for States to lower standards for students, well below levels needed to succeed after high school. Focus on English Language Arts and Math Prescriptive and Punitive AYP is gone Flexibility is new focus States must set expectations for all students that will put them on a path to succeed in college or career, with flexibility to design accountability systems that best support this goal.

4. Goals and Timelines States were held to a federally- prescribed timeline for all students to achieve proficiency in reading and math. States set their own ambitious goals and short-term measures of progress that hold high expectations for all students and reflect the progress necessary to close achievement gaps.

5. Measures of School Quality School performance was defined and measured narrowly, with a heavy focus on math and reading test scores and high school graduation rates. Increased state flexibility to take a more holistic view of school performance based on multiple measures

6. Transparency Around Performance Schools that did not meet benchmarks were given a "pass/fail" mark and a label (e.g., corrective action) associated with the types of improvement efforts that had to be undertaken in the school - information that was not meaningful or particularly useful to parents and the public. States create a multi-level rating system that clearly communicates to parents and communities how their schools are doing, taking into account all of the measures of school performance. Information displayed in a timely manner on annual report cards, designed with input from parents.

7. Interventions Federally-prescribed interventions for schools and districts identified as "failing." Locally-tailored, evidenced-based interventions for schools identified for support. Improvement plans designed in collaboration with teachers, principals, parents, and other stakeholders.

8. Resources Districts were directed to set-aside substantial amounts of funding for specific federally-prescribed interventions, which were not consistently effective. Districts no longer forced to set aside funds. State funds are prioritized to a state's lowest-performing five percent of schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and schools with persistent low performance among subgroups of students. Flexibility to use funds for locally- tailored, evidence-based strategies.

9. Similarities/Continuing Practice Basic framework still focus – Standards-based reform Equity Focus Must have systems of assessment and accountability Grades 3-8 and high school (once) for accountability Differentiated accountability for schools and districts based on performance

10. Major Shifts Places Career and College Ready into the federal requirements. Flexibility Shifts authority to the states and districts to design system to achieve goals State is responsible for setting long term goals State also determines interim measures.

11. ESSA Calendar Timeline and Tasks

12. 2016-17 School Year Accountability is Paused Rule Making around ESSA is occurring Major change is the requirement to gain public comment and input into new state plan As of August 1 st all NCLB waivers are void Arkansas Highly Qualified instead of Highly Qualified (which was removed with ESSA)

13. Plan Submission Two defined dates for submission MARCH 6, 2017 JULY, 2017 Examine Implementation Page for details on submission process ADE must present proposed plans to the State Board of Education for approval; and ADE must present to the Governor for a 30-day review prior to submission.

14. Accountability Think of a Dashboard Continuous Improvement – Emphasis on Trend Data Flexibility

15. ESSA – An Opportunity to Redefine Student Success How are we held accountable now? What would you like to change?

16. Assessment Changes Tests must include “multiple up to date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks” Tests may be a single summative assessment or may be “multiple statewide interim assessments that result in a single summative score” States may apply for innovative assessment pilots

17. Assessment  Academic Achievement  English language arts and mathematics, 3-8 and once in High School  Science, once in 3-5, 6-8, 10-12  English Proficiency  Progress / gains in achieving English proficiency  Another Academic Indicator  Another academic indicator in elementary school  4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (states can add extended rate)  At Least One Other Indicator  E.g. School climate; opportunity to learn; post-secondary readiness

18. Academic Assessment Indicators High Schools: State test results ELL proficiency Multimetric indicator Graduation rates Mid/Elem Schools: State test results ELL proficiency Multimetric indicator Other academic indicator

19. Performance Goals State determines Must be based on Grade Level Proficiency For each individual subgroup No federally ‐ prescribed goals

20. Weighting of the Scores – Multiple Measures State will define the weight of each of the criteria for Nonacademic factors Academic factors

21. Academic Indicators  Student growth on annual assessment compared to grade level proficiency  What about Student Growth?  Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates with option to include extended year cohort rate.  Progress of English Learners achieving proficiency within a specified timeline for all ELs Gr. 3-8 and during Gr. 9-12.  Additional school quality indicator: Multiple Measures or Multimetric Accountability  Must be comparable statewide within each grade  Must be valid & reliable measures

22. Multimetric Accountability ESSA requires inclusion of nonacademic measures of school quality or student success Measures of school quality or student success Must meaningfully differentiate schools Must be used in all schools in the state

23. Multimetric Measures  Multiple Measures – Examples  student engagement;  educator engagement;  student access to and completion of advanced coursework;  postsecondary readiness;  school climate and safety;  and any other indicator states choose that meet requirements.

24. 24 Potential Indicators for a Multiple Measures System Academic OutcomesOpportunities to LearnEngagement / Responsiveness Achievement on Assessments  Standardized test results, reported in terms of status and growth for individual students and/or student cohorts  Performance assessment results from common state tasks Progress toward English language proficiency / EL reclassification rates  Students meeting college standard on AP/IB or other college readiness tests or dual credit college coursework Graduation / School Progress  4-, 5-, and 6-year adjusted cohort graduation rates  Proportion of eighth graders who progress to 9 th grade  Dropout rates Career and College Readiness  Students completing college preparatory coursework, approved CTE sequence, or both  Students meeting standard on graduation portfolios, industry- approved certificates, licenses, or badges recognized by post- secondary institutions ad businesses Curriculum Access  Access to a full curriculum, including science, history, and the arts, as well as reading and math  Availability of and participation in rigorous courses (e.g. college preparatory, Advanced placement), programs, etc.  Availability of standards-based curriculum materials, technology resources Access to Resources  Ratios of students, counselors, and specialists to students  Teacher qualifications  Safe, adequate facilities School Climate  Evidence from student and staff surveys about school offerings, instruction, supports, trust, belonging Teachers’ Opportunities to Learn  Access to and participation in professional development Student Participation  Attendance / chronic absenteeism  Suspensions / expulsion rates  Student perceptions of belonging, safety, engagement, school climate on student surveys Social-emotional learning  Student attitudes towards learning (academic mindset)  Indicators of social -emotional skills (from assessments)  Indicators of social-emotional supports (from surveys) Parent / Community Engagement  Indicators of participation, engagement from parent survey Teacher Engagement  Indicators of participation, engagement from teacher surveys Source: CCSSO

25. Accountability State long and interim measurements of academic achievement must identify subgroups who are behind Interim measurements must take into account the improvement necessary to make significant progress in closing proficiency and graduation rates What factor will impact this?

26. Size of “N” Definition of a subgroup – Who decides? State Must be justified if it is 30 or more Why is this important? New article “Ensuring Equity in ESA: The Role of N-size in Subgroup Accountability” What was the past status on “N”? 13 states set N of 10 or fewer students 9 states and California CORE Districts set N between 11 and 20 students 28 states and the District of Columbia set N at 21 or more students (8 of these states set it at 31 or more students)

27. What Do You Want to Know? Gallery Walk Activity Find Your Group Chose a Reporter, Recorder and Timekeeper Generate a list of questions, concerns, opinions, or feedback you want to share.

28. State Plan Must Address and Define Consequences Percent Tested – 95% or above in each subgroup and overall Creation of “Opt-Out” policies Mobility of students doesn’t count in academic accountability but must be reported in annual report card Gaps – must identify and report schools with gaps within schools between subgroups Schools with large school gaps and low achieving groups will be compared to state average performance and may lead to “targeted assistance”

29. State Plan Must Address and Define Consequences Assign weights to each academic indicator and aggregate calculations with academics weighing more than school quality indicators Identify schools for “comprehensive support and improvement” Identify no less than lowest 5% in 17-18 but can have identifications every 3 years minimum Identify High Schools failing to graduate at least 66.7% of their students Use this to identify consistently underperforming subgroup based on all indicators

30. State Plan Must Address and Define Consequences Schools identified for “targeted support” Those where a particular subgroup is struggling Schools intervene with “evidence ‐ based” plan which is monitored by district. Public Reporting has new requirements for transparent annual report card: Describe accountability system List schools in need of improvement Per ‐ pupil expenditures at all levels: federal, state, local Postsecondary enrollment

31. State Plan Must Address and Define Consequences Requires summative ratings of all schools With at least 3 categories of performance Can be number, A ‐ F, or descriptive (excellent…) All data that goes into rating must be made public 95% Participation rate with regulations requiring that states: Select one of 3 federally prescribed sanctions OR Submit own plans for dealing with low participation rates

32. State Plan Must Address and Define Consequences States to define “consistently underperforming” subgroup but must address at least one of these criteria: Is the subgroup: On track to meet long ‐ term goals Performing at lowest level on an academic indicator At or below a certain level of performance (vs. state) Performing way below the state average Another factor state can determine Define exit criteria for comprehensive and targeted support schools

33. Barbara Hunter Cox Director of Teaching and Learning Arkansas Public School Resource Center 1401 West Capitol, Suite 315 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501 492 4300 bhuntercox@apsrc.net