1. New York State’s Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver Presented by Walter Woodhouse December 7, 2012 WLWOODHOUSE@GMAIL.COM

2. Welcome & Introductions

3. Some paperwork is involved. Retired Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Walter Woodhouse

4. Brief Overview History & Purpose Elementary & Secondary Education Act

5. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on April 11, 1965

6. Goals of ESEA LBJ: Purpose of the law was to “bridge the gap between hopelessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.” Part of the“ War on Poverty.” Provided federal dollars to schools to help them educate low- income children. Achievement gaps did shrink —by a third to a half by the late 1980s. Progress on the achievement gaps stalled. Most of the War On Poverty programs were dismantled.

7. President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002.

8. President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy on signing of No Child Left Behind Act 2002

9. Goals of NCLB All students will attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013–2014. Highly qualified teachers will teach all students All students will be educated in schools and classrooms that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English. All students will graduate from high school.

10. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 100% Proficiency for all student subgroups by 2013-14

11. Obama Administration’s Plan for Reauthorizing ESEA

12. Goals of A Blueprint for Reform College and Career Readiness Great Teachers and Great Leaders Meeting the needs of English Language Learners and Other Divers Learners Fostering Innovation and Excellence – supporting charter schools and promoting public school choice A Complete Education – Literacy, STEM, College Pathways & Accelerated Learning Successful, Safe & Healthy Students

14. Two Percent Property Tax Cap

15. IS IT A RACE?

16. OR A TRAIN WRECK?

17. ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PLAN

18. BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM RACE TO THE TOP ESEA WAIVER Pieces of a Puzzle

20. 13 Accountability Status Under ESEA Waiver 1.Changes in institutional accountability 2.New accountability designations 3.Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth

21. 1. Changes in Institutional Accountability

22. 1a. Changes to Institutional Accountability NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) Overall Target (AMO) Elementary/Middle School Performance Index Calculation High School Performance Index Calculation 100% Proficiency in ELA & Math by 2013-14 Performance Index of 100 in Science Performance Index based on achievement (level 1-4) Full credit for meeting regents diploma requirements and partial credit for local diploma requirements Cut gap in ELA, math & science Performance Index 200 (100% Proficiency) by 2016-17 PI revised to include both achievement and growth toward proficiency Full credit for meeting college and career readiness standards & partial credit for regents diploma requirements

23. 1b. Changes to Institutional Accountability NCLB (old)ESEA Waiver (new) Subgroups School & District Accountability Categories All students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learner subgroups. Schools – In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring Districts – In Good Standing, Improvement or Corrective Action No change Schools – In Good Standing, Local Assistance Plan, Focus or Priority Status Districts – Focus districts

24. 13 Discuss Changes in Institutional Accountability 1.What are the changes in accountability? 2.What are their implications? 3.What potential impact could these changes have on your district or school?

25. 2. New Accountability Designations

26. 2a. Accountability Designations CategoryHow IdentifiedData Used for Identification Reward Schools In Good Standing Local Assistance Plan Schools High Performance or High Progress Not Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan School Not a Priority or Focus school that a) has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students or b) has failed to make APY 3 years in a row for the same subgroup on the same measure or c) is located in a non-focus district but is among the lowest in the state for the performance of one or more subgroups and for which the school is not showing progress. Annual

27. 2b. Accountability Designations CategoryHow IdentifiedData Used for Identification Focus Districts Districts and Charter Schools that are among the lowest performing for a subgroup of students and that fail to show progress, or that have one or more priority schools. Identified once based on 2010-11 data; districts and charter school(s)that improve performance may be removed from Focus status. Focus Schools (10% of schools in the state) Schools that are in focus districts and have the greatest numbers or greatest percentage of not proficient or non graduation results in the group(s) for which their district is identified as a Focus District. Priority Schools (5% of schools in the state) Schools that were awarded a SIG grant in 2011-12; have had graduation rates below 60% for the past 3 years, or are the lowest performing in ELA and math combined & have failed to show progress. Identified once based on 2010-11 data; schools that improve performance may be removed from priority status.

28. NYS Model: On Track to Proficiency ELA Scale Score 2010 2011 Future Absolute growth measures tell us if a student’s growth from 10-11 is enough to get them to proficient in the future. Here, one student is on track to become proficient in future years. Proficiency

29. Computation of Performance Index for Grades 3-8 ELA Results Performance Level On Track to Proficiency? Number of Students MultiplierTotal Points Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total No Yes No Yes NA 30 10 40 60 20 200 PI = 150 or 30,000/200 0 200 100 200 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 4,000 30,000

30. Computation of Performance Index for High School Math Results Performance Level Regents ScoreNumber of Students MultiplierTotal Points Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 0-64 65-79 80-89 90-100 30 40 60 20 150 PI=133 or 20,000/150 0 100 200 0 4,000 12,000 4,000 20,000

31. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) 1.AMOs reflect the rigor of college and career readiness standards, while they are at the same time realistic and attainable for schools and districts. 2.AMOs increase in annual increments toward the goal of reducing by half, within 6 years, the gap between the PI for each subgroup and a PI of 200 using baseline data from 2010-11.

32. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Measure Group GGroup 10-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-17 Grade & Subject Accountability Group All Students 146150155159164168173 Grades 3- 8 ELA SWD 92101110119128137146 Native American 132137143149154160166 Asian 162165169172175178181 Black (not Hispanic) 123130136143149155162 Hispanic 126132138144151157163 White 160164167170174177180 ELL 102110118126134143151 Econ Dis. 128134140146152158164 Mixed Race 154158162166170173177

33. 13 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations  Determined in a similar manner as currently required under NCLB, with a focus on the academic achievement of the current NCLB subgroups  No longer determined for schools and districts, just for subgroups  Use limited to being only one of the indicators in determining Reward Schools and in determining if districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan for specific schools.  Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the third academic indicator requirement – science (3-8) and graduation rate.

34. Priority School Identification The following three groups of schools were identified as Priority Schools: 1.Were awarded a School Improvement Grant in the 2011-12 school year. 2.Had graduation rates below 60% for the four year Graduation Cohorts of 2004, 2005 & 2006 3. Have met all of the conditions described on the following slide:

35. School Identification Based on Combined ELA & Math Performance For High SchoolFor Elementary-Middle Level In Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring for the 2011-12 school year. Combined PI of 106 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in 2010-11. Combined PI of 111 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in 2010-11. Made a four point gain or less in its 2010-11 combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its 2009-10 PI. Made a ten point gain or less in its 2010-11 combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its 2009-2010 PI. Had a combined median SGP in ELA and mathematics for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years combined for the All Students group of 50% or below. Had less than 50% of the accountability groups in the school with 2010-11 median SGPs that exceeded the statewide median SGP for that accountability group.

36. Focus District Identification Districts are rank ordered on their combined elementary- middle and high school 2010-11 ELA and math Performance Index (PI) for each of the accountability groups and then the bottom 5% are identified. Districts are rank ordered on their 4-Year Graduation rates for each accountability group in the Cohort of 2006, and then the bottom 5% are identified. The PI and graduation rate cut points are determined for each accountability group.

37. Reminder: A district with a priority school automatically becomes a Focus District. Exception: Accountability groups that have made progress are removed from consideration.

38. Cut Points for 2012-13 Identification Accountability Group 2010-11 Performance Index for Grades 3-8 and high school ELA & math (at or below) 2006 4 Year Graduation Rate (at or below) Amer. Indian/Pacific Islander11254 Asian11254 Black11254 Hispanic11254 White11254 Multiracial11254 Students w/ Disabilities7026 Limited English Proficient7728 Low-Income12256

39. Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups Student Growth Percentile (SGP) State Median for 2 Years SWDAm. Ind.AsianBlackHispWhiteLEPED 424 661434 7525 0 47

40. Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups 2006 4 Year Graduation Rate State Average SWDAm. Ind.AsianBlackHispWhiteLEPEDMixed Race 4459835857844 06475

41. Reward Schools Methodology Reward Schools – Highest Performing Elementary/MiddleHigh School Adequate Yearly Progress Gap Closing Performance IndexGraduation Rate GrowthPerformance Index Bottom Quartile Student GrowthGraduating At-Risk Students

42. Reward Schools Methodology Reward Schools – High Progress Elementary/MiddleHigh School Performance Index Gap ClosingGraduation Rate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)Gap Closing GrowthAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Bottom Quartile Student GrowthGraduating At-Risk Students

43. 13 New Accountability Designations 1.What are the new accountability designations? 2.What are their implications? 3.What impact could these designations have on your district or school?

44. 3. Institutional vs. Student Growth

45. CriteriaInstitutionalStudent Growth MetricStudent Growth Percentile (SGP) Assessments used in calculations Grades 3-8 ELA & Math School years used2009-102011-12 Max. # prior yrs. results3 years Min. Req. for Inclusion of student results in comp. Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive grades 3a. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

46. CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student How is it reported? How is it used? Median Student Growth Percentile: To give schools and districts credit for students on track to proficiency To remove from consideration schools as Priority Schools & districts as Focus Districts To qualify schools as reward schools Adjusted Mean Growth Percentile: To assign a HEDI category and a score 0-20 to the growth component of the APPR composite score for teachers of ELA & math in grades 4-8 and their principals Are there demographic adjustments? No. But separate median SGPs are computed for each NCLB accountability subgroup. Yes. Adjustments for Students with Disabilities, English language learners, or Low Income Students 3b. Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth

47. CriteriaInstitutionalIndividual Student Are Confidence Intervals Used? No. Yes, as part of determining HEDI classification for growth in terms of distinguishing between ineffective and developing and effective and highly effective teachers. Minimum Group size/Critical Threshold Median SGP computed for ELA or math if there are 30 or more scores for continuously enrolled students. Combined 2009-10 and 2010 -11 school years SGP for ELA & math combined that are at or above the state median for ESEA accountability subgroups. Mean adjusted SGP computed if there are 16 or more students results who are continuously enrolled in ELA & math combined. Mean adjusted growth percentile above 39 for teachers and above 42 for principals, in addition to a high level of statistical confidence. 3c. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

48. The Future... ·Data Roll out of Educational Data Portal New longitudinal data measures New leading indicator measures Value-added teacher and principal evaluation metrics More focus on Growth vs. Proficiency

49. The Future... ·Standards and Assessment ·Tests aligned to Common Core New Common Scales for ELA and Math assessments New Proficiency standards New test development and integrity procedures New tests for special populations

50. The Future... ·Accountability New school and district accountability designations New system of supports and interventions ·Graduation Rates Predictive High School Success Measures Multiple pathways to graduation- more diploma options.

51. The Future

52. 13 Review 1.History of ESEA 2.Changes in institutional accountability 3.New accountability designations 4.Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth 5. Future Directions

53. Ira Schwatrz: Assistant Commissioner of Accountability For further information on these topics: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/esea-waiver For archived ESEA Waiver Webinars: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/esea-waiver For additional APPR and Regents Reform Agenda Resources visit: http://engageny.org For further information contact: eseathnktank@mail.nysed.gov