1. ESSA Feedback: Accountability and School Improvement
ACET Conference
October 21, 2016

2. Purpose
To be specific about our training goals:
Today is about

3. Overview of ESSA development timeline and opportunity for additional input
Provide status of current work and policies for accountability and school improvement
Gather feedback on specific policy questions related to ESSA implementation
To be specific about our training goals:
Today is about
--Enhance your understanding of requirements and specific processes for the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS)
--Gaining further clarity on the partnerships and roles
of the DCSI, PSP, Support Specialist, ESC, and TCDSS
--Receiving specific training and tips for completing the required Targeted Improvement Plan
----while today is just a starting point, the day is designed so you will leave with a concrete example of a problem statement that you’ve worked through from beginning to end
----leaving with a planning process you can replicate when you get home.
----leaving with tools and resources to support your work
--finally, learning or refreshing yourself around IR and priority requirements

4. ESSA: Where are we now On-going—Gather stakeholder input
Winter 2016—Draft initial state plan
Early Spring 2017—Release draft plan for public comment
Late Spring/Summer 2017—Submit final state plan to USDE for approval
Final approval from USDE within 120 days

5. --Early October: Release of statewide survey to gather input from parents and general public on ESSA implementation
Timed with launch of dedicated ESSA on TEA website
--Continuing outreach with specific groups through out the fall (e.g.—ACET, various personnel associations, parent engagement conference)
--More sessions to come at TASA Midwinter
Statewide Survey

8. What’s New in ESSA

9. ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW

10. House Bill 2804, 84th Texas Legislature (HB 2804)
HB 2804 established the creation and implementation of an A–F accountability rating system.
Each district and campus will be assigned an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F and a rating for each domain beginning with the 2017–18 school year.

11. Shift from 4 indices to 5 Domains
Districts and campuses will be rated on five domains:
Domain I: Student Achievement
Domain II: Student Progress
Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps
Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness
Domain V: Community and Student Engagement

12. Domain I: Student Achievement
STAAR
STAAR Satisfactory Standard
STAAR College-Readiness Standard

13. Domain I: Student Achievement
STAAR
Phase-in Level II—Percentage of students who meet performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area
College Readiness—Percentage of students who meet college readiness performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area
STAAR Alternate 2—Percentage of students who meet performance standard aggregated across grades levels by subject area
Percentage of students who meet or exceed ELL progress measure expectations
EOC Substitute Assessment (TBD)

14. Domain II: Student Progress
STAAR
Progress measure expectations for STAAR satisfactory standard
Progress measure expectations for STAAR college-readiness standard

15. Domain III: Closing Performance Gaps
Academic achievement differentials among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds

16. Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness
Districts and High Schools
Dropout Rate
Graduation rate
College and Career Readiness
Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

17. Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness
Middle/Junior High Schools
Student Attendance
Dropout Rate
Students receiving instruction in preparing for high school, college, and career
Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

18. Domain IV: Postsecondary Readiness
Elementary Schools
Student Attendance
Other indicators as determined by the commissioner

19. Domain V: Community and Student Engagement
Three indicators from Community and Student Engagement Ratings chosen by the district
Three indicators from Community and Student Engagement Ratings chosen by the campus

20. Weighting of Domains 55% of Overall Rating 35% of Overall Rating
Domain I:
Student Achievement
Domain II:
Student Progress
Domain III:
Closing Performance Gaps
Domain IV:
Postsecondary Readiness
Domain V:
Community and Student Engagement
55% of Overall Rating
35% of Overall Rating
10% of Overall Rating

22. Implementation Timeline
Fall 2015–Summer 2016
Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability meets
September 1, 2016
Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability delivers a recommendations report to governor and legislature
By December 1, 2016
TEA adopts a set of indicators for A–F ratings

23. Implementation Timeline
By January 1, 2017
TEA releases report showing the rating that each district and campus would have received for Domains I–IV for the 2015–16 school year if the A–F rating system had been in place
Summer 2017
Districts and campuses report to TEA which three Community and Student Engagement indicators will be used for Domain V and the criteria that will be used to measure performance in those indicators

24. Implementation Timeline
Spring 2018
Districts and campuses assign to themselves an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F for Domain V and a rating for each of the three Community and Student Engagement indicators used for Domain V
August 15, 2018
TEA assigns each district and campus an overall rating of A, B, C, D, or F and a rating for each domain

25. ESSA Indicators Academic proficiency in reading and math
For high schools, a measure of how graduation rates
Another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools, this measure may include individual student growth or another statewide, valid, and reliable indicator of student learning.
English-language proficiency: A measure of the progress that a school’s English learners are making toward English proficiency. (This measure is for the English learner group only.)
Additional indicator of school quality: Another valid, reliable, and statewide indicator of school quality, which may include measures of postsecondary readiness, student engagement, or school climate.

26. Performance Reporting Resources and Contacts
2016 Accountability Rating System Performance Reporting Resources Performance Reporting Home Page Performance Reporting Performance Reporting Telephone (512)

27. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW

28. School Improvement Comprehensive Support and Improvement:
Lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools on state accountability index;
High schools with <67% graduation rates, and
Schools with underperforming subgroups that do not improve after a state- determined number of years.
Targeted Support and Improvement:
Schools with consistently underperforming subgroups, as defined by the state.

29. School Improvement NCLB Requirements Removed: SES Corrective Action
Restructuring
Parental Notification
Reconstitution
ESSA replaces these interventions with requirement to develop a state-designed intervention system

30. Current State Intervention System

31. Both plans are developed and implemented under the TAIS framework
Both have a 4 piece foundation
No need to re-invent the wheel: Campuses implementing a turnaround plan will use the same Targeted Improvement Plan template (new tab). Thought about adjusting current tab, but this made the process better. Reduce duplication of efforts.

33. HB 1842
By this point, many of you may have heard of House Bill This year did include a lot of conversation and energy focused on interventions for campuses that do not meet state accountability standards. The conversations led to multiple proposals from across the political and stakeholder spectrum from education associations, higher education, and business groups. As Agency staff we analyzed proposed legislation, offered data and information on programs, and served as a resource to Agency leadership and legislative staff on how our current intervention system works.
The culmination of those conversations was HB 1842.

34. HB 1842 3
While there are many components to the bill related to charter schools, district innovation, and campus interventions. Today I want to focus on three major changes to campus interventions that will directly impact your work.

35. HB 1842
Turnaround Plan
The bill replaces reconstitution with a campus turnaround plan.
What is a school turnaround plan? Well, that is one of the details we are still ironing out. Feel free to look-up and read the bill language but the statute outlines four components of a school turnaround plan: 1) outline the academic programs the campus will implement, 2) have the district decide whether to turn the campus into an in-district charter school, 3) the plan must include written comments from the CIT, parents, and teachers, and 4) the plan must include the budget, staffing, and resources necessary to implement the plan.

36. HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Term of in-district charter(?)
Academic programs
Written public comments
Budget, staffing, & resources

37. HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Parent & Community Engagement
) It increases the requirements for engaging parents and community members in the development of your targeted improvement plan. According to the bill you not must host a public meeting to gather input from these stakeholders on what to include in your plan. We will be following up shortly with more information on this component since the expectation is that it be implemented beginning with the coming school year.

38. HB 1842 Turnaround Plan Parent & Community Engagement
Closure or Board of Managers
Finally, it adjusts the timeline and requirements for campuses that continually miss state accountability standards. Previous statue gave the commissioner the option to close a campus that missed standard for 5 or more years now makes it a requirement that, after five years of not meeting standard, a campus must either be closed or the commissioner must insert a board of managers to oversee operations of the entire district.
Before you get too concerned please know that there is a transition period built into the implementation, so we won’t be closing any campuses based on this legislation immediately. That is one of the details we will be ironing out over the coming months and will certainly keep districts and ESCs updated as we move through the rulemaking process.

39. Timeline for New IR Campuses
1st Year IR
2nd Year IR
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
CIT
Targeted IP
Turnaround Plan
Implement Turnaround Plan
Closure or Board of Managers
The new sequence for interventions under new legislation will look like this…
1st year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP
2nd year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP and develop a school turnaround plan. Based on the review of that plan the commissioner must make a determination to either approve the schools turnaround plan, close the campus, insert a board of managers over the district, or require the campus to be operated by an alternative management organization
3rd year IR will be required to have a CIT/TIP and implement their turnaround plan from the previous year
4th year IR will continue with the requirements from the previous year.
At 5th year IR the campus must either be closed or have a board of managers put in place over the district.

41. Give us your thoughts! By 5pm on October 25th: