1. B UILDING N EXT -G ENERATION A CCOUNTABILITY S YSTEMS March 28, 2011 | 10:00-11:00 a.m.

2.  Continue and broaden the discussion of the Next-Generation State Accountability Taskforce's work.  Communicate that states are leading on establishing these systems and expect federal support for these endeavors. 2

3.  States have a unique and timely opportunity to assert responsibility and authority for improving student achievement.  These new models capitalize on recent state-led reforms to adopt accountability systems that better promote college- and career- readiness for all students and schools.  These models build upon NCLB accountability systems that have introduced important practices, but move beyond such systems to more tightly integrate across the system's components. The focus of the Roadmap is on school and district accountability, with recognition that accountability must be aligned across all elements of the system including emerging teacher and leader evaluation systems and other capacity-building reforms. 3

4.  The Taskforce is composed of roughly 20 state chiefs and SEA leaders.  The Taskforce has participated in robust meetings and discussions to develop a framework for next- generation state accountability systems.  In engaging in this work, the Taskforce has relied on its members' experiences in implementing accountability systems over the past two decades along with the knowledge of various experts and the latest research. 4

5.  Roadmap for Next- Generation State Accountability Systems  Statement of Principles  Federal legislative language 5

6. For each state to advance the goals of college- and career-readiness, we have to establish accountability systems that meet several core principles including the following:  Alignment of accountability with college- and career-readiness  Annual accountability determinations  Determinations focused on student academic outcomes (status & growth)  Continued disaggregation of student data in order to address achievement gaps  Transparent reporting of information in a timely and actionable manner  Diagnostic reviews of schools and districts that inform meaningful supports and interventions  Interventions targeted to the lowest-performing schools & districts  Continuous system evaluation and innovation 6

7. Purpose:  Provide a statement of state leadership in developing more robust, meaningful accountability systems.  Provide a guide for state action in developing and implementing next-generation accountability systems.  Identify recommendations for federal law, especially during this significant period of transition. 7

8. 8 Goal setting Performance Measurements Initial Determinations/Transp arent Reporting Diagnostic Review/Planning Performance Classification and Reporting of Actionable Data Rewards, Consequences, and Supports Evaluation, Review, and Continuous Improvement / Action Cycle of Accountability

9. 9 Current SystemsNext-Generation Systems Goal of student "proficiency"Minimum goal of college and career readiness Focus on proficiency only, with no regard to growth or to advancement beyond proficiency Focus on proficiency and growth as well as growth beyond college and career readiness Belief that measuring and reporting improve student learning Recognition that measuring and reporting must be tightly linked to requisite actions, supports, and interventions Schools and districts receive basic "pass" or "fail" labels without clear context Annual determinations and deeper analysis through diagnostic review provides meaningful information about performance System components are not purposefully linked Systems' elements are purposefully integrated Incentivize action only at the margins of pass/fail Provide incentives for achievement and growth at all levels of performance

10. 10 Current SystemsNext-Generation Systems Unrelated to other education reformsConnect with and balanced by other reforms including educator evaluation systems and capacity-building efforts Primarily focus on the state to school relationship without regard to capacity issues Recognize district to school relationship and seek to build district capacity Not enough effective attention to lowest-performing schools Particular and meaningful focus to lowest- performing schools and districts Disjointed from practice of teaching and learning Place students at center by promoting high- quality instruction and teaching practice Ignore potential for systems' motivational effects Recognize that motivation is a strong component of success Do not exemplify the basics of best educational practice Are dynamic, promoting innovation and improvement

11. Goals of Next-Generation Accountability Systems The goals of next-generation state accountability systems are integrated and mutually-reinforcing. Set high expectations of college and career readiness and beyond to drive behavior at all levels of the system. Meaningfully and specifically distinguish performance of schools & districts based on student outcome data. Empower stakeholders to take action through clear data informed by diagnostic reviews. Continuously innovate and improve the system for higher levels of student achievement 11

12.  The framework is composed of elements that individually and collectively are needed for the accountability systems to meet their goals.  These elements link to a vision of accountability that significantly improves student achievement.  Within each element are the following components:  "Shoulds" – state actions necessary to ensure system integrity  "Coulds" – actions a state might take depending on its particular context  Key issues to address  State exemplars 12 Based on the research and work of CCSSO, among others, the Taskforce has agreed on the following framework for next-generation accountability systems.

13. Should…  Have goal of all students being college- and career-ready upon graduation  Include targets and benchmarks for each grade level  Establish state-approved goals in at least English language arts and math, including both rigorous knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge  Be transparent and clear Could…  Include targets in subjects and for skills beyond English language arts and math and beyond grades with standardized tests  Adopt unique benchmarks for each student subgroup depending on current levels (but with same ultimate goal) Key Issues…  Aligning student accountability with institutional accountability  Assessment of higher order skills 13 Performance objectives must support the goal of ensuring all students are college and career-ready.

14. Should…  Focus on student outcomes  Gauge student achievement through measures including but not limited to (1) improved statewide assessments aligned to college and career readiness and (2) accurate graduate rates  Focus on both status and growth and highlight achievement gaps in student learning  Be disaggregated by student subgroup Could…  Use multiple student outcome measures in addition to the fundamental ones listed above  Use measures of performance in grades other than 3-8 and once in high school  Use measures from multiple subjects  Tie measures of college access, remediation, persistence, and success back to feeder high schools  Focus more heavily on lowest-performing students  Measure advanced status  Focus on productivity Key Issues…  Validity in measures of success in college and careers  Selection of a growth model  District accountability  Incorporating additional data elements 14 Measures focus on student performance outcomes (status & growth) on standardized assessments and graduation rates and are results are disaggregated by student subgroup.

15. Should…  Make annual determinations for all schools and districts and set a high bar for achievement and improvement for all students  Be valid, reliable, and make meaningful distinctions between and within low- performing and high-performing groups and through the identification of underperforming subgroups  Be clear to stakeholders and the public  Value status and progress of schools and districts Could…  Hold schools and districts to same annual standard or vary standard based on unique starting points as long as all are on track to meet same ultimate performance objectives Key Issues…  Weighting of various measures in calculating the overall determination  Compensatory or conjunctive?  Exceptions to the rule and recognizing nuances 15 Determinations must characterize and differentiate between schools and districts based on student achievement outcomes (status & growth).

16. Should…  Communicate goals of system along with context in which school and district results can be interpreted by parents and the public  Present data in a timely manner  Utilizing the latest technology, present data in a variety of accessible ways for multiple stakeholders  Provide stakeholders with actionable data Could…  Include data from the school and classroom level  Report data beyond the measures and metrics used for determinations  Publish data for "families of schools" for comparison purposes Key Issues…  Balancing validity with transparency  Protecting student privacy  Balancing timeliness with accuracy  Interpreting data 16 Results of determinations and diagnostic reviews must be transparently reported in clear, meaningful, and timely ways.

17. Should…  Incorporate key quality standards with outcome determinations to gain a complete picture of strengths and areas for improvement  Be timed in order to inform supports and interventions  Be required at least for low-performing schools (including those with significant achievement gaps) Could…  Utilize existing accreditation procedures/practices that focus on outcomes and processes used to achieve those outcomes  Employ independent, third-party reviewers  Include relevant state and federal monitoring requirements  Inform classifications  Expand scope to encompass examination of early learning opportunities and other community- based supports Key Issues…  Building state and district capacity  Utilizing external reviewers  Incorporating data and instructional improvement systems 17 Diagnostic reviews ensure comprehensive analysis of school and district performance through review of both student achievement outcomes and processes to more meaningfully target supports and interventions.

18. Should…  Identify at least the lowest-performing schools, both by overall student performance and greatest gaps in performance among students  Identify highest-performing schools for recognition and best practices replication  Signal the degree to which state will intervene and mandate a response Could…  Delineate classifications for the whole range of schools Key Issues…  Balancing accuracy and clarity 18 Classifications differentiate schools and districts to inform the provision of supports & interventions.

19. Should…  Target the lowest-performing schools and districts (by student outcomes and performance gaps) for most significant interventions  Be motivational, not just punitive  Be well-matched to school and district needs  Be tied to a strong model of delivery  Focus attention on the most effective interventions Could…  Include interventions and supports for students and teachers  Utilize a cadre of providers beyond the state  Focus significant interventions on moderately low performers  Provide rewards  Consider efforts to mobilize communities and other partners for focused attention on effective interventions Key Issues…  Recognizing high performers  Funding mechanisms 19 Supports and interventions reinforce or redirect school and district efforts to produce college- and career-ready students based on the student achievement outcomes and the results of the diagnostic review.

20. Should…  Evaluate the accountability system as a whole as well as each individual element  Establish expectations for review and improvement  Make evaluations and reviews transparent  Act on the results Could…  Utilize external entities to review effect of the system  Look to other state and international models 20 States must continuously evaluate and improve the elements of the next-generation accountability system to best drive student achievement and determine the degree of congruence between the accountability system's end goal of college and career readiness and the means used to achieve that goal.

21. Federal law should…  Codify where appropriate the broad requirements discussed above but otherwise leave specific design authority to the states.  Encourage innovation along with evaluation and cross-state communication to establish proof points and drive continuous improvement.  Establish a process of rigorous, interactive peer review for proposed state accountability systems.  Afford significant flexibility to states in transitioning assessment and accountability systems as they adopt college- and career-ready standards. Meanwhile to inform reauthorization and if ESEA is delayed, states should exercise their express waiver authority, and the federal government should approve states' education reform proposals that are educationally sound, consistent with this Roadmap. We further recommend that ESEA waiver authority be amended and peer review improved to adopt a "state innovation authority" to approve new policy models in assessment, accountability, supports and interventions, and the like. 21 The federal government should support state-led efforts to design and execute next-generation accountability systems.