1. Melanie Schoeppe, Director Improvement and Accountability Division
Statewide CAASPP Results, 
California Accountability Model, & School Dashboard
Melanie Schoeppe, Director Improvement and Accountability Division

2. System of Support Goal
To assist LEAs and their schools meet the need of each student served, with a focus on building capacity to sustain improvement and effectively address inequities in student opportunities and outcomes.

3. System of Support
Three levels of support, differentiation within those levels
Key LCFF policy decisions
Multiple measures of student success
Resource decisions linked to data
LEA primary focus for local accountability

4. Shifts in California’s Approach to Improvement
Education Improvement Before LCFF
Education Improvement After LCFF 1
Top down transactional exchanges focused on schools in isolation
Support providers work alongside LEAs and their schools to identify key challenges and opportunities 2
Packaged approaches for interventions
Systemic approach tailored to locally identified needs and strengths 3
Isolated team decision making
Engaging with local educators and communities as part of decision making 4
Redundancy and contradictions across state and federal programs
Streamlined and coherent expectations for LEAs across state and federal programs 5
Assistance disconnected from local priorities and focus
Assistance supports LEAs in aligning, prioritizing, and using resources to meet student needs identified in the LCAP

5. Statewide System of Support
State Agency Collaboration:
Cross Agency Collaboration Team has been convened to provide direction and guidance on California’s Statewide System of Support.
The team consists of members from the SBE, CDE, CCSESA, CCEE, WestEd, and select county offices of education.
The team has informed and administered multiple stakeholder engagement sessions.
Melanie

6. Previous School and District Change Efforts
Past improvement efforts “report positive results, but generally showed a lack of overall, sustained effect when compared to a control group.”
Recommendations
Build district capacity to support schools, rather than focus on schools alone.
Balance standardization with customization by allowing differentiation for contextual differences.

7. Stakeholder Feedback
Assistance conducting needs assessments, developing action plans, and monitoring for implementation
Assistance with, and protected time for, data analysis
Sharing of best practices that target identified student groups and consultation on implementation ideas
Networking with other LEAs with similar demographics and opportunities for feedback from other LEAs
Support with understanding how to measure program effectiveness

8. Elements of California’s System of Support
Pathways to Support and Assistance: At least three pathways to differentiated assistance.
Initial Outreach to LEAs: Initial communication by county supt. and joint notification from state agencies.
Needs Assessment and Analysis of Student Outcomes: Support LEAs and stakeholders to identify underlying cause of challenges and options.
Support to Districts and Schools to Improve Student Outcomes: The LCAP is a primary source that identifies needs, goals, and outcomes.

9. Further Discussion on Support Beyond Fall 2017
How does the structure of the system of support ensure that LEAs can connect with resources aligned to their identified needs at the right time?
How does the structure of the system reflect the needs of LEAs and a shift from support being done to a LEA to support working alongside an LEA?

10. Further Discussion on Support Beyond Fall 2017
How can the system of support complement and supplement the work of COEs with LEAs, in part, by leveraging or developing expertise to address identified needs across LEAs?
How can California encourage partnerships among COEs, professional associations, LEAs, institutions of higher education, research organizations, private providers, and others to connect LEAs and schools with resources and supports responsive to locally identified needs?

11. Further Discussion on Support Beyond Fall 2017
How will agencies involved in the system of support be held accountable for providing assistance aligned to the overall goal?
What metrics will California identify to evaluate the effectiveness of our system of support and if it is actually supporting LEAs and students? What implication does this have for the interaction between LEAs and support providers?

12. Assessment Update

14. Current CA Assessments
Smarter Balanced for ELA/Math
Smarter Balanced Interims
ELPAC to replace CELDT
CAA has replaced CAPA
CAST (NGSS) to replace CST
CSA (Spanish test) to replace STS
CAHSEE eliminated (AB 830)
Grade 11 Assessment Update

15. 2017 CAASPP Results
More than 3.2 million students took part in the CAASPP – over 7 million interim assessments given
Less than 1 percent opted out
Less than 200 used paper/pencil
Maintained progress from the previous year

16. ELA Scale Score Ranges and Mean Scale Scores by Grade by Year

17. Math Scale Score Ranges and Mean Scale Scores by Grade by Year

18. Accountability Update

19. Accountability Framework
Performance
Equity
Improvement
Transparency
One system to meet local, state, and federal needs

20. Background
The SBE adopted the new accountability tool required by LCFF (evaluation rubrics) that includes a concise set of state and local measures
The Dashboard is how performance data from the evaluation rubrics are shown to LEAs and the public.
Stakeholders can use the Dashboard to see how LEAs and schools are meeting the needs of their students

21. California School Dashboard
Three Statutory Purposes for the Dashboard:
To support LEAs in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
To assist in determining whether LEAs are eligible for technical assistance
To assist the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in determining whether LEAs are eligible for more intensive state support/intervention.

24. Indicators by Priority Areas
State Indicator
Local Indicator
Basic Services or Basic Condition at schools Priority 1
Basics Conditions at School
Implementation of State Academic Standards Priority 2
Implementation of State Academic Standards
Parental Engagement Priority 3
Parent Engagement
Student Achievement Priority 4
Academic Indicator
English Learner Indicator
Student Engagement Priority 5
Chronic Absence Indicator
Graduation Rate Indicator*
School Climate Priority 6
Suspension Rate Indicator
Local Climate Survey
Access to a Broad Course of Study Priority 7
College/Career Indicator*
Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study Priority 8
Coordination of Services for Expelled Students Priority 9
Coordination of Services for Expelled Students**
Coordination of Services for Expelled Students Priority 10
Coordination of Services for Foster Youth**

25. Key Messages for the Dashboard
More than a single number
Equity
Supports Local Decision-Making
A quality education is defined by more than a single test score
Increased focus on addressing disparities among student groups
More information to support the local strategic planning process
These are key characteristics of our new accountability system that will remain central as the SBE builds on this initial phase of the accountability tool. As we talk about the new system and the Dashboard with stakeholders and the public, this is the core messaging. Sample TPs based on these core messages will be provided to LEAs as part of the roll out (as part of toolkit that will be available Feb 13)

26. Performance Levels for State Indicators
Performance Levels are calculated using percentiles that combine Status and Change using a five-by- five colored table that produced 25 results represented by five colors.
Blue
Highest
Green
Yellow
Orange
Red
Lowest

27. The Five-by-Five Colored Table
Level
Declined Significantly
Declined
Maintained
Increased
Increased Significantly
Very High
Yellow
Green
Blue
High
Orange
Medium
Low
Red
Very Low
Change
The five-by-five colored table demonstrates the importance of continuous improvement in the new accountability system.
Status
For example, a school with a Status of “high” and yet “declined significantly” in Change will receive an Orange performance level, while a school with a Status of “medium” and “increased” in Change will receive a Green performance level.
The State Board approved the methodology for measuring performance on state indicators:
Status (outcome) is based on the current year performance.
Change (improvement) is the difference between performance from the prior year and current year, or between the current year and a multi-year average—if available.
This slide displays the 5x5 or what is known as the reference chart, and this is based on a methodology that uses equally weighted percentile cut scores for status and change to make an overall determination of performance for each of the state indicators
Jenny Singh and her team that the Department completed many data simulations to set cut scores for each state indicator with extensive input from their Technical Design Group, in addition to other key stakeholder groups like the California Practitioners Advisory Group, our partners at the county offices, and many others provided input on the analyses completed.
Status is determined using current performance, the results for all LEAs are ordered from highest to lowest and four cut scores were selected to create five status levels were are very high, high, medium, low, and very low
Change is the difference between the current year performance and past performance. For some of the state indicators this is just prior year but for the indicators with multiple years of data collection, like graduation rate, it can subtracted from the average of prior performance, the results for LEAs were ordered on a distribution to identify four cut points to create five change levels that range from declined significantly, declined, maintained, increased and increased significantly
So by combining the five status levels and the five change levels you have the 5x5 grid which tell you the performance level
In this example an LEA with a high status and increased change will result in a green performance level

28. What is the Relationship Between the Dashboard and the Local Control and Accountability Plan?

29. Linking the LCAP and the Dashboard
LEAs are required to use data from the Dashboard to inform the development of the:
Annual Update
Goals, Actions, and Services
Plan Summary
Greatest Progress
Greatest Needs
Performance Gaps

30. LCAP: Plan Summary
For each of the LEAs goals from the prior LCAP year:
Describe the overall implementation of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal
Describe the overall effectiveness of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal as measured by the LEA
Explain material differences between Budgeted Expenditures and Estimated Actual Expenditures
Describe any changes made to this goal, expected outcomes, metrics, or actions and services to achieve this goal
Analysis of Dashboard information, as applicable
Analysis of actual measurable outcome data

31. LCAP: Plan Summary (Cont.)
The LEAs graduation rate indicator is in the Orange performance category.
Moving forward, the LEAs will continue to build on the success in attendance rates and the decrease in suspension rates.
Greatest Needs
Referring to the Dashboard, identify any state or local performance indicator for which overall performance was in the “Red” or “Orange” category or where the LEA received a “Not Met” or “Not Met for Two or More Years” rating; and
Identify areas that need significant improvement (based on review of state and local indicators)
What steps is the LEA planning to address areas with the greatest need for improvement?

32. LCAP: Plan Summary (Cont.)
What is contributing to the Orange performance level for Homeless students on the ELA Progress Indicator?
How will the LEA address those performance gaps?
Performance Gaps
Referring to the Dashboard, identify any state indicator for which performance for any student group was two or more performance levels below the “all student” performance.
What steps is the LEA planning to address these performance gaps?

33. Contact Information
Melanie Schoeppe Director, Improvement and Accountability Division (916)