1. 1 Accountability Information Session 2010 Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP), NCLB Accountability Status Determinations State Level & Commendation Designations & Required Actions September 17, 2010 Karla Brooks Baehr, Deputy Commissioner Kenneth Klau, Center for Targeted Assistance

2. 2 Overview Accountability Reporting Timeline Context Framework for District Accountability and Assistance School and District Level Designations Commendation Designations Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements A Closer Look at Level 3 Where to Go for More Information

3. 3 Accountability Reporting Timeline August 11: Notice sent to superintendents and principals whose district and schools ESE expects to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on Preliminary 2010 AYP data September 7: Public release of Official statewide MCAS data September 10: Official Accountability reports* posted to security portal for school and district review September 14: Public release of Official Accountability reports September 17: Drive-in AYP and Accountability information session at Marlborough High School. Register at www.doe.mass.edu/conference/?ConferenceID=953www.doe.mass.edu/conference/?ConferenceID=953 * Due to the inclusion in 2010 of certain state-level accountability information for some schools and districts (i.e., Accountability and Assistance Levels and Commendation Designations), ESE has changed the overall name of the report from the school or district's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report to its Accountability Report. AYP remains a fundamental component of the report.

4. 4 Massachusetts vision will be realized when every student: Receives the understanding, encouragement, support and knowledge necessary to succeed Is taught by highly competent, well educated, strongly supported and effective educators Is truly prepared for postsecondary education, careers, and lifelong economic, social, and civic success

5. 5 Massachusetts Key Goals Close proficiency gaps at all grade levels Close college and career readiness gaps High school drop out rates High school graduation rates College/university entry rates College/university completion rates

6. 6 Framework for District Accountability and Assistance Key Design Principles (2008-2010) A system built in partnership with the field will have credibility and will be implemented more effectively. The district, not the individual school, is ESEs entry point. A district is only as strong as its weakest school. Accountability is essential, but not sufficient. Assistance and intervention are proportional to need. The number of districts and schools identified for the strongest intervention needs to be proportional to ESEs capacity to assist and intervene.

7. 7 Framework for District Accountability and Assistance District Actions State Actions AccountabilityAssistance 1 2 3 4 5

8. 8 Relationship between District Standards and Indicators and Conditions for School Effectiveness District Standards and IndicatorsConditions for School Effectiveness Leadership and Governance I.Effective district systems for school support and intervention II.Effective school leadership Curriculum and Instruction III.Aligned curriculum IV.Effective instruction Assessment V.Student assessment Human Resources and Professional Development VI.Principals staffing authority VII.Professional development and structures for collaboration Student Support VIII.Tiered instruction and adequate learning time IX.Students social, emotional, and health needs X.Family-school engagement Financial and Asset Management XI.Strategic use of resources and adequate budget authority

9. 9 Intervention Assistance Tiered Assistance and Intervention Some Most A Few

10. 10 Accountability Linked to Assistance State Actions linked to District Actions District Actions State Actions AccountabilityAssistance * At Level 5 the state assumes major authority and responsibility to intervene to require changes in district policy and practice 1 2 3 4 5 Co-Govern*

11. 11 School and District Level Designations* Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Districts with no schools in corrective action or restructuring Districts with schools in corrective action or in restructuring Districts with one or more schools among the lowest- performing 20% based on quantitative indicators Districts identified by quantitative and qualitative indicators through a district review; districts with one or more schools among the lowest-performing and least improving 2% based on quantitative indicators Districts or schools declared by the Board as requiring "Joint District-ESE Governance" *Does not include charter schools

12. 12 Distribution of Schools* - 2010 1021 (60.9%) Of these, 704 (about 70 percent) have no NCLB Status 307 (18.3%) 315 (18.8%) 35 (2%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 *Does not include Charter Schools

13. 13 Distribution of Districts* - 2010 156 (47.6%) Of these, 80 (about 51 percent) have no schools in NCLB Status 111 (33.8%) 49 (14.9%) 12** (3.7%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 *Does not include Charter Schools **4 districts were placed in Level 4 for district-wide issues and 8 districts were placed in Level 4 for one or more Level 4 schools

14. 14 Commendation Designations for 187 Schools Beginning in 2010, Accountability reports for some schools will display a Commended For label followed by a note indicating the reason(s) why the school is being commended. 187 schools are being commended this year. Narrowing proficiency gaps* (69 schools) Schools that substantially narrowed proficiency gaps for low income, limited English proficient, formerly limited English proficient, and special education students over a two-year period. High growth* (83 schools) Schools that demonstrated median growth of 60 or higher for two consecutive years. Exiting 2009 NCLB Accountability Status (62** schools) Schools that exited their NCLB accountability status based on current year AYP determinations. * Not dependent on whether the school made AYP in 2010, as long as it met the 2010 AYP participation rate and additional indicator (attendance / graduation rate) requirement for all reportable student groups in both subjects ** One school exiting NCLB accountability status closed after the 2009-10 school year, for a total of 63 schools exiting status.

15. 15 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 1 Schools and Charter Schools Level 1 and Charter Schools: Occurs when school has no NCLB Accountability Status or is identified for Improvement Year 1 or Improvement Year 2 under NCLB (Aggregate or Subgroups) Planning RequirementsCommunication RequirementsFiscal Requirements Review the Conditions for School Effectiveness Self-Assessment and revise the School Improvement Plan accordingly. Notify parents/guardians of schools NCLB Accountability Status, if necessary. Notify parents/guardians of NCLB Choice options (Title I schools in Improvement or higher) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) options (Title I schools in Improvement Year 2 or higher). Dedicate 10 percent of each schools Title I allocation to professional development (Title I schools identified for Improvement Year 1 or 2 only). Reserve 20 percent of districts Title I allocation for NCLB Choice and/or SES, if the district any Title I schools with an NCLB Accountability Status.

16. 16 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 2 Schools and Charter Scho Level 2 and Charter Schools: Occurs when school is identified for Corrective Action or Restructuring under NCLB (Aggregate or Subgroups) Planning RequirementsCommunication RequirementsFiscal Requirements Consider using the Conditions for School Effectiveness Self- Assessment and other models and tools to strengthen their implementation. Revise the School Improvement Plan accordingly to reflect the planning or implementation of one or more corrective actions or restructuring steps based on NCLB Accountability Status. Notify parents/guardians of schools NCLB Accountability Status. Notify parents/guardians of NCLB Choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) options (Title I schools only). Reserve 20 percent of districts Title I allocation for NCLB Choice and SES, if the district has any Title I schools with an NCLB Accountability Status.

17. 17 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 3 and 4 Schools Level 3: Occurs when school in any NCLB Accountability Status scores in the lowest 20 percent statewide of schools serving common grade levels Planning RequirementsCommunication RequirementsFiscal Requirements Complete the Conditions for School Effectiveness Self-Assessment with assistance from the appropriate District and School Assistance Center (DSAC), and use this information to inform revision of the School Improvement Plan. Continue to address all planning, communication, and fiscal responsibilities according to NCLB Accountability Status. Level 4: Occurs when Level 3-eligible school is placed in Level 4 by the Commissioner Planning RequirementsCommunication RequirementsFiscal Requirements Develop a redesign plan (that incorporates the state Turnaround Plan required by law) that address the implementation of Conditions for School Effectiveness. Continue to address all planning, communication, and fiscal responsibilities according to NCLB Accountability Status.

18. 18 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 1 Districts Level 1: Occurs when the most serious designation of any school in the district is Level 1 Planning RequirementsCommunication RequirementsFiscal Requirements Review and revise District and School Improvement Plans with respect to the level of implementation of District Standards and Indicators and the Conditions of School Effectiveness. Districts identified for Improvement or in Corrective Action must notify parents/guardians of each child enrolled in the district of districts NCLB Accountability Status. Districts identified for Improvement must reserve not less than 10 percent of their Title I, Part A funds for high-quality professional development specifically designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused the district to be identified. Districts identified for Improvement may transfer no more than 30 percent of the funds allocated to them under Titles II-A, II-D, and IV. Moreover, all transferred funds must be used for improvement activities as outlined in the districts improvement plan. Districts in Corrective Action may not transfer funds between Titles II-A, II-D, and IV while in Corrective Action.

19. 19 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 2 Districts Level 2: Occurs when the most serious designation of any school in the district is Level 2 Planning Requirements Communication Requirements Fiscal Requirements Use online models and tools such as the District Analysis and Review Tool (DART) to review and revise District and School Improvement Plans with respect to the level of implementation of District Standards and Indicators and the Conditions of School Effectiveness. Consider using ESEs District Self-Assessment (available winter 2010- 2011). Districts identified for Improvement or in Corrective Action must notify parents/guardians of each child enrolled in the district of districts NCLB Accountability Status. Districts identified for Improvement must reserve not less than 10 percent of their Title I, Part A funds for high-quality professional development specifically designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused the district to be identified. Districts identified for Improvement may transfer no more than 30 percent of the funds allocated to them under Titles II-A, II-D, and IV. Moreover, all transferred funds must be used for improvement activities as outlined in the districts improvement plan. Districts in Corrective Action may not transfer funds between Titles II-A, II-D, and IV while in Corrective Action.

20. 20 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 3 Districts Level 3: Occurs when the most serious designation of any school in the district is Level 3 Planning Requirements Communication Requirements Fiscal Requirements Review and revise District and School Improvement Plans with respect to the level of implementation of District Standards and Indicators and the Conditions of School Effectiveness. With assistance from the appropriate District and School Assistance Center (DSAC), use ESEs Conditions for School Effectiveness Self- Assessment to fulfill the requirement to complete an ESE-approved self-assessment process at the district level. Districts identified for Improvement or in Corrective Action must notify parents/guardians of each child enrolled in the district of districts NCLB Accountability Status. Districts identified for Improvement must reserve not less than 10 percent of theirTitle I, Part A funds for high-quality professional development specifically designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused the district to be identified. Districts identified for Improvement may transfer no more than 30 percent of the funds allocated to them under Titles II-A, II-D, and IV. Moreover, all transferred funds must be used for improvement activities as outlined in the districts improvement plan. Districts in Corrective Action may not transfer funds between Titles II-A, II-D, and IV while in Corrective Action.

21. 21 Relationship between State and Federal Accountability Requirements for Level 4 Districts Level 4: Occurs when the most serious designation of any school in the district is Level 4, or the district is placed in Level 4 as the result of a district review Planning Requirements Communication Requirements Fiscal Requirements If the district has been placed in Level 4 based on findings from a district review, collaborate with ESE in revising the District Improvement Plan to implement strategies for meeting priority District Standards and Indicators. For Level 4 schools, create and implement the state Turnaround Plan. Districts identified for Improvement or in Corrective Action must notify parents/guardians of each child enrolled in the district of districts NCLB Accountability Status. Districts identified for Improvement must reserve not less than 10 percent of theirTitle I, Part A funds for high-quality professional development specifically designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused the district to be identified. Districts identified for Improvement may transfer no more than 30 percent of the funds allocated to them under Titles II-A, II-D, and IV. Moreover, all transferred funds must be used for improvement activities as outlined in the districts improvement plan. Districts in Corrective Action may not transfer funds between Titles II-A, II-D, and IV while in Corrective Action.

22. 22 A Closer Look at Level 3 Ch. 69 M.G.L. (1)(J)(a) Ch. 69 M.G.L. (1)(J)(a) Schools that score in the lowest 20 per cent statewide among schools serving common grade levels on a single measure developed by the department that takes into account student performance data and, beginning on July 1, 2011, improvement in student academic performance, shall be deemed eligible for designation as underperforming or chronically underperforming. Not more than 4 per cent of the total number of public schools may be designated as underperforming or chronically underperforming at any given time. N.B. The legislation in this context does not include charter schools.

23. 23 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Overview The law states that a school scoring in the lowest 20 percent statewide should be considered eligible for designation as an underperforming, or Level 4, school. In school year 2009-2010, the Commonwealth had 1,768 schools in operation (excluding charter schools). The lowest 20 percent, therefore, would consist of 354 schools. Of the lowest performing 20 percent of schools (354 schools), 35 were designated as Level 4 schools in 2010. The rest of those 20 percent (319 schools) are being designated as Level 3 schools A district is placed in Level 3 when any school in the district is placed in Level 3

24. 24 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Identification 1.As the law states, these schools must serve common grade levels, because it would not be valid to compare an elementary schools test results to those of a high school. Thus, to facilitate valid performance comparisons, ESE placed schools into six common grade categories: Elementary Schools, Elementary/Middle Schools, Middle Schools, Middle/High Schools. High Schools, and K-12 Schools: Elementary Schools:Usually grades K-5 or K-6 Elementary/Middle Schools:Usually grades K-8 Middle Schools:Usually grades 6-8 or 7-8 Middle/High Schools:Usually grades 7-12 High Schools:Usually grades 9-12 K – 12 Schools:Grades K-12

25. 25 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Identification 2.ESE compared the schools within each of these categories to determine the lowest 20 percent in terms of performance using CPI and the percentage of students scoring Warning/Failing on MCAS ELA and mathematics tests over the past four years. 3.ESE ensured that the schools selected were proportionate to the number of schools in each common grade category, producing 194 elementary schools, 23 elementary/middle schools, 62 middle schools, 12 middle/high schools, 60 high schools, and three K – 12 schools. 4.The 35 Level 4 schools were selected from among these schools, and the 319 remaining schools are being designated as Level 3 schools.

26. 26 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Accountability State designation of a Level 3 district or school does not preclude any responsibilities of the school and district in response to their federal AYP status. Due to the fact that Level 3 district and school designations are made independent from federal AYP determinations, each Level 3 district and school must meet their responsibilities under federal law. The requirements for Level 3 districts and schools are outlined in the Framework for District Accountability and Assistance. For example, Level 3 districts are required to conduct a self-assessment process aligned with the District Standards and Indicators and Conditions for School Effectiveness. The self assessment process is intended to inform the districts and schools strategies for improvement and will incorporate corrective actions (for schools and districts in corrective action) or fundamental reforms (for schools in restructuring) being planned in response to federal AYP determinations, as necessary.

27. 27 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Assistance Level 3 districts are given priority for targeted assistance through the ESEs six regional District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs). DSAC staff will contact each Level 3 district to provide further guidance about conducting self assessments and available support.

28. 28 Berkshires Pioneer Valley CentralNortheast Greater Boston Southeast 6 District and School Assistance Centers Give Priority Assistance to Level 3 Districts

29. 29 A Closer Look at Level 3 (Continued) Assistance The 2010-2011 school-year represents a transition for ESE implementation of the self-assessment requirements under the new state regulations. During this transition, ESE will have a greater focus on targeted assistance rather than accountability for Level 3 districts. A comprehensive accountability structure for Level 3 districts and schools will be in place in the 2011-2012 school year to ensure effective district intervention in their Level 3 schools. The new state accountability and assistance system was designed to help prioritize assistance for those districts and schools requiring the most intervention. The introduction of Level 3 schools and districts presents an opportunity for more resources and supports to be invested in the students most at risk of falling behind.

30. 30 Where to Go for More Information http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ Framework for District Accountability and Assistance http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/default.html 2010-11 Massachusetts School & District Accountability and Assistance Levels & Required Action: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/statuschart.doc http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/statuschart.doc School Leader's Guide to the 2010 Accountability Reports: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/schleadersguide.doc http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/schleadersguide.doc For a list of all accountability-related federal guidance, type guidance into the ESE search box at http://www.doe.mass.edu/http://www.doe.mass.edu/

31. 31 Questions? Comments? Suggestions?