1. ESSA Accountability System Workgroup webinar
April 12, 2017

2. Agenda Time Item Presenter 1:30–1:45
95 % Participation Rate Presentation
Dr. Deb Came, Assistant Superintendent, Assessment & Student Information
1:45–2
Tier Names/Labels—Review of Survey Gizmo Results
Dr. Andrew Parr, Research and Data Manager, State Board of Education
2–2:30
Growth Overview
Deb
2:30 -3
ASW TAC Considerations—Review of Survey Gizmo Results
Dr. Michaela Miller, Deputy Superintendent

3. ASW Tasks Identifying tier labels of school performance
Identifying state-determined actions for schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation rate on assessments
Refining the metric (index) for meaningfully differentiating schools (TAC)

4. Participation on Assessments and Accountability

5. Participation: ESSA Section 1111(c)(4)(E)
Each State, for the purpose of school accountability determinations, is required to measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the annual statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
This requirement must be taken into account when determining proficiency on the Academic Achievement indicator by specifying that the denominator used for such calculations must include at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of students in each subgroup enrolled in the school.
Each State also must provide a clear and understandable explanation of how the participation rate requirement will be factored into its accountability system.

6. Proposed Regulations Section 200
Proposed Regulations Section Participation in Assessments and Annual Measurement of Achievement
Requires the State take one of the following actions for a school that misses the 95% participation requirement for all students or one or more student subgroups:
Assign a lower summative rating to the school
Assign the lowest performance level on the State's Academic Achievement indicator
Identify the school for targeted support and improvement; or
Another equally rigorous State-determined action, as described in its State plan, that will result in a similar outcome for the school in the system of annual meaningful differentiation and will lead to improvements in the school's assessment participation rate so that it meets the 95% participation requirement.

7. Previous Recommendation
ASW recommends the Achievement & Accountability Workgroup shall develop details around state-determined actions for schools that do not meet 95% participation rate.
Those actions should be non-punitive supports that do not affect the rating or funding of schools.
The AAW would define and recommend these supports and technical assistance that would be used to help schools meet 95% participation.
AAW would also recommend and define tiered accountability if improvement wasn’t made.

8. Equity: The Focus of Washington’s ESSA Consolidated Plan
“Our state has taken significant steps addressing the opportunity gap through implementation of laws aimed at reducing the time students are excluded from school due to suspensions and expulsions, a focus on equity and civil rights, deeper disaggregation of student data to analyze disproportionality, family engagement, expansion of full-day kindergarten and early grade support, and improved focus on students’ equitable access to educators.”

9. OSPI’s Response to US Department of Education (95% Participation Rate)
Actions Required: State, district, and school assessment participation rates have been calculated and have been posted on the Washington State Report Card website. Districts and Schools must notify parent and community members to this information. Districts/schools must address the issue in their improvement plans by naming the cause and identifying the actions that will be taken to increase participation. Districts/schools with less than 95% participation rate will not be eligible for awards or recognition. Priority and Focus schools must address the participation rate in their Indistar plan. Provide monthly information to each district’s assessment coordinator and these coordinators will continue to focus on the participation rate.

10. Current Participation rate calculation:
# 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 # 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 (𝐴𝑙𝑙)
Proficiency calculation:
# 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 3 𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 4) # 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 (𝐴𝑙𝑙)

11. Examples of six other states’ plans
North Dakota
If a school or district were to evidence participation rates less than 95%, that school or district would be marked as demonstrating insufficient participation on the school’s or district’s public reports, indicating a reduction in program status, and requiring an improvement plan.
Colorado
Require schools and districts that fall below 95% participation in one or more of the state administered English Language Arts or Math assessments to address their low participation rates as part of an improvement plan, including actions that schools and districts will take in response to their low participation rates.
Iowa
As indicated in Table 15, we will include participation rate within our accountability determinations with a weighted calculation of 1, for either met 95% participation in assessments (10 total points), or did not meet 95% participation in assessments (no points).
Illinois
ISBE will incorporate the 95 percent rate into the proficiency academic indicator. If a school does not have 95 percent participation rate, it cannot score at the highest level of proficiency.
Ohio
The test participation rate will continue to be a factor in the Performance Index. Schools that miss the 95 percent participation rate for all students or for one or more subgroups of students must develop an improvement plan that addresses the reason(s) for low participation in the school and include interventions to improve participation rates in subsequent years. The improvement plans are developed in partnership with stakeholders and parents.
Mass-achusetts
A school’s summative performance level will be lowered if that school assesses less than 95% of students in the aggregate or for any subgroup that meets a minimum N size of 20.

12. Options
 Embedding non-participants as non-proficient in proficiency rate calculation, and thus is factored into the index and accountability determinations (IL)(current)
Lower summative rating (MA)
Require improvement plan (CO, ND, OH)
Special designation and implications (ND)
Other index or tier adjustments (e.g., IA gives points for participation rate)
Other?

13. ESSA Revised Template
Annual Measurement of Achievement (ESEA section (c)(4)(E)(iii)): Describe how the State factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments into the statewide accountability system.

14. Decision Point: Participation Rate
Describe how WA factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide math and ELA assessments into statewide accountability system.
Calculation
Lower summative rating
Improvement Plan
Special designation
Other adjustment to calculation
Other ?
# Yes 
# No

15. Tier Names

16. Current Tier Names

17. Input on Tier Labels from SurveyC D E
- Intervention Funding: Comprehensive Award (this is bottom 5% )
- Intervention Funding: Targeted Award (Low performing sub groups)
- No Intervention Funding: Recognition Award (Schools improving, maintaining, or declining. Other supports)
- Intervention Funding : Achievement Award (Top Achievers)
Tier 1: Exemplary Schools
Tier 2: Commendable Schools
Tier 3: Under-performing Schools
Tier 4: Lowest-performing Schools
Labels like "level 1" or "tier 1". These could be associated with "needs most support"
Minimal Support
Average Support
Advanced Support
Intensive Support
In terms of levels of support:
Less
Average
More
Much More
More detail from Suggestion B
Tier 1: Exemplary Schools --funding support for continuing programs and continuing PD for teachers , including cultural competency training.
Tier 2: Commendable Schools--funding support for ELO programs , teacher PD and continuing mentoring programs, cultural competency training.
Tier 3: Under-performing Schools-- High level of funding support for teacher and even principal PD, funding for ELO programs, classroom sizes, additional ESD support, continued oversight by OSPI, cultural competency training .
Tier 4: Lowest-performing Schools--Highest level of Funding support for teacher training--oversight and mentoring by OSPI, staff evaluation and assessment of effective teachers and leadership. Funding for ELO programs

18. ESSA Section 1111 (c)(4)
(C) ANNUAL MEANINGFUL DIFFERENTIATION.—Establish a system of meaningfully differentiating, on an annual basis, all public schools in the State, which shall— (i) be based on all indicators in the State’s accountability system under subparagraph (B), for all students and for each of subgroup of students, consistent with the requirements of such subparagraph;
(ii) with respect to the indicators described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (B) afford—
(I) substantial weight to each such indicator; and
(II) in the aggregate, much greater weight than is afforded to the indicator or indicators utilized by the State and described in subparagraph (B)(v), in the aggregate; and
(iii) include differentiation of any such school in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the State, based on all indicators under subparagraph (B) and the system established under this subparagraph.

19. Washington’s ESSA Consolidated Plan
Describe the State’s system for meaningfully differentiating all public schools in the State…
4.1.D.i Levels of School Performance The distinct levels of school performance, and how they are calculated, under §200.18(b)(3) on each indicator in the statewide accountability system
Each indicator in the Accountability System will be assigned a numeric score on a 10-point scale. The 1–10 score will be based on the school’s performance (or the school’s subgroup’s performance) using the combined data from the most recent three years. The score will also have a corresponding color assignment.
The specifics, including the performance thresholds within the 1–10 range, colors and associated mapping to the scores, will be evaluated and established by SBE and OSPI with input from the Achievement and Accountability Workgroup.

20. Growth Overview
How does “growth” factor into ESSA and accountability? What are different types of growth?
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
11/6/2018

21. Variety of Growth Concepts
Proficiency by grade and subject
Proficiency by cohort
Changes in achievement level
Changes in scale scores
Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)
Adequate Growth

22. Growth Concept: Proficiency by grade/subject
3rd Grade ELA Proficiency Over Two Years
Refer to our Report Card to see how we use/display this kind of ‘growth’ currently.
Percent of students meeting standard on annual state assessments, improving from year to the next.
11/6/2018
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

23. Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)
Example:
If a student receives an SGP of 67, it means she demonstrated more growth than 67% of Washington students in the same grade and subject who had similar prior test scores.
For a helpful visual explanation, click here to meet Anthony.
A student growth percentile describes a student’s growth over the past year compared to other students with similar prior test scores.
11/6/2018
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

24. Individual SGP Report Example
Student Scale Scores
Likely range of next year's scores for a student with this academic history. The fan tells us how much growth will be necessary for this student to achieve the next proficiency goal.
Four proficiency levels; a student is “proficient” if they score in L3 or L4
History of Scores
Student Growth Percentile and Growth Level
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
11/6/2018

25. How SGPs relate to Proficiency
Percent Proficient
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Median SGP
11/6/2018

26. How SGPs relate to Proficiency Quartered
High Proficiency
Low Growth
High Proficiency
High Growth
Percent Proficient
Low Proficiency
Low Growth
Low Proficiency
High Growth
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Median SGP
11/6/2018

27. Adequate Growth
Is the student’s growth adequate to become proficiency?
11/6/2018
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

28. Adequate Growth and Long-Term Goals

29. Other Ways to Measure Growth
Proficiency by Cohort Tracking cohort proficiency year by year For example, 50% of a 3rd grade cohort is proficient in math , 60% of that cohort proficient in as 4th graders.
Changes in Achievement Level Tracking students moving up achievement levels by year For example, a student moves up an achievement level, from L2 to L3.
Changes in Scale Score Tracking changes in a student’s scale score over time For example, a student moves from a scale score of 2477 to 2500.

30. How accountability framework incorporates growth
Proficiency
Growth
(SGPs)
Graduation
English Learner
School Quality and Student Success
School Quality and Student Success
9th Grade On Track
Chronic Absence
Long Term Goal includes Adequate Growth
Improvement over time
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
11/6/2018

31. ESSA goals and growth
(c)(4)(A) ESTABLISHMENT OF LONG-TERM GOALS.—Establish ambitious State- designed long-term goals, which shall include measurements of interim progress toward meeting such goals—
(i) for all students and separately for each subgroup of students in the State
(I) for, at a minimum, improved—
(aa) academic achievement, as measured by proficiency on the annual assessments required under subsection (b)(2)(B)(v)(I); and
(III) that, for subgroups of students who are behind on the measures described in items (aa) and (bb) of subclause (I), take into account the improvement necessary on such measures to make significant progress in closing statewide proficiency and graduation rate gaps.
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
11/6/2018

32. TAC Considerations

33. What are additional considerations the TAC might include as they are doing analyses?
ENGLISH LEARNER PROGRESS
SPECIFIC WEIGHTING OF INDICATORS
INCLUDING TARGETED SUBGROUPS IN OVERALL SCORE
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM
DUAL CREDIT
9th GRADERS ON TRACK
TIERS: Numeric Thresholds and Distributions
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS