1. CTA State Council Consultants Meeting Accountability Briefing Norma Sanchez Patricia Rucker

2. Assessment Terms & Vocabulary API SBAC Levels 1-4 Proficient AYP CAASPP A Statewide Accountability System Mandated by NCLB A Level of “High” Achievement under NCLB Assessment System for California At Grade Level Measures Academic Performance & Growth of Schools and Provides Rankings

3. Who Moved My Cheese? ESEA compromise bill AB 484 implementation Student score report CAASSP 2014 - 15 LCAP rubrics ESEA AYP Waiver Accountability Delaying the API Limiting the Weights of Statewide Assessments in the API Determining Local Indicators for the API Eliminating Decile Rankings Changing Recommended SBAC Cut Scores Eliminating the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

4. ESEA Reauthorization What’s In? Annual Testing in grades 3-8 and 11 Title I money and formula Standards and assessments Disaggregated data Multiple measures Supplement not supplant Comparability Maintenance of Effort State participation in NAEP Charter schools grants Limits on the Secretary of Education Parent engagement What’s Out? Adequate Yearly Progress Sanctions (Mandatory public school choice, supplemental services) Highly qualified teachers Reading First Race to the Top Teacher Evaluations Mandate to adopt college and career ready standards Equitable distribution of teachers Investing in Innovation Vouchers Transition to Teaching, School Leadership, 21 Century Community Learning Centers Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Arts in Education

5. Positives Acknowledges the role of all educators in public schools Strengthens labor-management collaboration Provides for an annual assessment of English proficiency; requires timelines and annual goals Includes teacher evaluation only as an optional—and not a mandatory—use of overall Title I and Title II funds Promotes school leader and teacher residency programs Allows funding to be used to improve equitable access Requires LEAs to plan for effective transitions (matriculation) Requires new kinds of qualitative data for state report cards

6. NEA’s MAJOR CONCERNS Lack of codified multiple measures for elementary and middle schools. Lack of resource indicators in state designed accountability systems, such as access to advanced coursework, access to school counselors or nurses, and access to fine arts and regular physical education. Requiring such indicators would ensure that states report and act upon the opportunity gaps in the state. Maximizing state flexibility under the proposed pilot to design systems of assessment, including local assessments that are more driven by teaching and learning rather than just based on accountability systems. Teacher quality incentives include incentives for differential pay

7. CAASSP 2014-15 STUDENTSASSESSMENTS ALL SBAC ELA & Math - Grades 3-8, 11 ALL No 2 nd Grade Testing List of Diagnostic Assessments Available (CDE) ALL CST Science Tests - Grades 5, 8, 10 SPECIAL ED Severe Cognitive Disability CAA Modified Assessments Field Testing for ELA & Math - Grades 3-8 and 11 CST CAPA Science - Grades 5, 8, 10 ALL CAHSEE – High School EL Primary Language Assessment (District Policy) ELPAC under development (replaces CELDT)

8. Delaying the API Cancels these Academic Performance Index (API) reports: 2014 Growth API 2014 Base API 2015 Growth API New API Timeline 2014-15 No SBAC School Wide Results Only Individual Student Scores Sets Baseline API Data 2015-16 Second year of Student Scores 2016-17 API School Growth Targets 2017-18 API Accountability

9. By the way…… As a result of not reporting the APIs, No new API determination for elementary schools The SBE also approved the removal of the API as an additional indicator for high schools within the AYP. The 2014 AYP determinations for high schools were based on achievement results from the grade ten California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) the cohort graduation rate.

10. Impact on Federal AYP Reporting US Department of Education has offered AYP reporting waivers. California application includes a plan and timeline for publicly reporting AYP designations the results of the assessments, including achievement against Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) The State will resume annual accountability determinations in 2016-2017 If approved waives accountability determinations based on achievement results for assessments administered in the 2014-2015 school year. AYP will be based instead on For HS participation rate and graduation rate, For elementary and middle schools participation rate.

11. Impact on State Accountability Senate Bill 1458 requires changes in the API by 2016 The assessments results shall constitute no more than No more than 60% of the high school Academic Performance Index (API) and that the remaining 40 percent must encompass other indicators such as graduation data and student preparedness for college and career. At least 40% of the value of the API for primary and middle schools New indicators may only be added to the API one full school year after the State Board of Education (SBE) adopts the indicators

12. Determining Local Indicators for the API Moving from using a single index to using multiple measures to parallel the state priorities: How can school performance be communicated effectively to all educational stakeholders? What are some possible options for redesigning the state accountability system? Should a statewide goal be established to provide a standardized comparison of schools? Should performance targets be established to ensure schools can be compared in a valid and reliable manner in addition to LEAs establishing goals set through the state priorities? If state goals or performance targets are established, when should they be applied?

13. Eliminating Decile Rankings The API was abused to create metrics like the decile rankings which had many unintended outcomes. No new decile rankings have been computed since AB 484 took effect on Jan. 1, 2014.. There is no intent to return to that system.* *At this time, the legislature seems willing to wait and see what actions the Board will implement in three years

14. Changing Recommended SBAC Cut Scores The SBAC consortium agreement gives States the flexibility to change the cut scores. Under current law, no agency in California has the authority to change the SBAC cut scores. The issue of the cut scores is tabled for now.

15. 15

16. 16

17. Student Score Report As an intermediate step the State Board of Education adopted an Individual Student Report (ISR) to report the 2015 SBAC results. The score report does not define or explain student outcomes using the tags Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4. The ISR will be revised for reporting the 2016 SBAC results. To view the draft individual student report: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/mar15item03a1.p df

18. Eliminating the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) SB 172 (Liu) – introduced March 2015 suspends the administration of the high school exit examination (CAHSEE) removes the CAHSEE as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school for each pupil completing grade 12, for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene an advisory committee to provide recommendations on the continuation of the CAHSEE.

19. 19 *Source: West Ed presentation at March 2015 State Board of Education Meeting: Item 6.

20. 3 Part Analysis Data Analysis – The evaluation rubrics include the metrics specified under the LCFF state priorities plus locally selected metrics organized by LEA, student subgroup, and school level data. Outcome Analysis – This section of the evaluation rubrics complements the data analysis. Practice Analysis – Further reflection regarding efforts to support improvement in outcomes is the final component of the evaluation rubrics.