Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) PROGRAM UPDATES REVISED AUGUST 4, 2015...

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)

PROGRAM UPDATESREVISED AUGUST 4, 2015

Veronica Tate, Director

Office of Program Administration and Accountability

Virginia Department of Education

2015 Coordinators’ Academy

Updates Regarding:

- ESEA Reauthorization- ESEA Flexibility- Title I Annual Measurable Objectives - Federal Program Monitoring Updates- Title II Teacher Equity Plan- Title III Statewide Consortium

REAUTHORIZATION

ESEA Reauthorization – As of July

Two bills approved in respective chambers: House: H.R. 5 – Student Success Act of 2015 Senate: S. 1177 – Every Child Achieves Act of

2015 Contentious issues up for debate in conference

committee: Governance – federal, SEA, Governor? Assessment – same as NCLB or flexible? Accountability for school improvement Title I funding formula and portability Parent opt-out

ESEA FLEXIBILITY

ESEA Flexibility Plan – 2015 Renewal

January 2015 – Virginia submits 4-year renewal application

March 2015 – Plan is approved through 2018-2019 school year

Changes: Revision to focus school exit criteria Replacement of Student Growth Percentiles

with Value Tables

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

MATHEMATICS AMOs (Percent Passing) Year 1 AMO Year 2

AMOYear 3 AMO

Year 4 AMO

Year 5 AMO

Year 6 AMO

Gap Points Closed

Accountability Year 2012-2013 2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016 2016-2017

2017-2018

Assessment Year 2011-2012 2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015 2015-2016

2016-2017

All Students 61 64 66 68 70 73 12

Gap Group 1 (Combined)

47 52 57 63 68

73

26

Gap Group 2 (Black) 45 51 56 62 67 28

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) 52 56 60 65 69 21

Students with Disabilities

33 41 49 57 65 40

English Language Learners

39 46 53 59 66 34

Economically Disadvantaged

47 52 57 63 68 26

White 68 69 70 71 72 5

Asian 82 Continuous progress

AMOs Remain the Same

READING AMOs (Percent Passing) Year 1 AMO

Year 2 AMO

Year 3 AMO

Year 4 AMO

Year 5 AMO

Year 6 AMO

Gap Points Closed

Accountability Year 2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016 2016-2017

2017-2018

Assessment Year 2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015 2015-2016

2016-2017

All Students 85 66 69 72 75 78 12

Gap Group 1 (Combined)

76 52 59 65 72

78

26

Gap Group 2 (Black) 76 49 57 64 71 29

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) 80 53 60 66 72 25

Students with Disabilities

59 30 42 54 66 48

English Language Learners

76 44 52 61 69 34

Economically Disadvantaged

76 52 59 65 72 26

White 90 74 75 76 77 4

Asian 92 80 Continuous progress

ESEA Flexibility Plan – AMOs

AMOs Remain the Same

A subgroup can meet an AMO by achieving a pass rate:• In the current year equal to or higher than the

current year’s target; • Using a three-year average equal to or higher

than the current year’s target; or• That reduces the failure rate 10% or more as

compared to the prior year.

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Meeting AMOs

Continuous Improvement (CI) Provision

Subgroups with a higher Year 1 AMO target than the Year 6 target that:

Then…

Receive a status of Yes – CI.

Meet the Year 1 AMO target

Make continuous improvement

Maintain Progress (MP) Provision - “No Backslide”

Subgroups that performed higher in the prior year than the current year’s AMO target and:

Or…

Meet or exceed the prior year’s pass rate

Stay within five percent of the prior year’s pass rate

Receive a status of Yes – MP.

ESEA Flexibility Plan – School Status

• Preliminary reports for 2015-2016 available in the Single Sign-On for Web Systems (SSWS) in the Federal Annual Measurable Objectives (FAMO) application

• Schools designated as:• Met All Federal AMOs; or• Met All Federal AMOs – HE*; or • Did Not Meet All Federal AMOs

* All subgroups meet the AMOs and at least one subgroup meets the continuous improvement or maintain progress provision (known as the Higher Expectations as approved in the 2014 ESEA Flexibility Plan Submission)

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria Amendment

A focus school may exit the status after two years if:

The proficiency gap group(s)for which the school was originally identified meet(s) the AMOs for two consecutive years; and

The school no longer falls into the bottom 10 percent of Title I schools for the subsequent school year based on proficiency gap points.

ELIMINATE

KEEP

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria Amendment

U.S. Department of Education Request:

At least one measure of academic progress must be included in the criteria to exit

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Focus School Exit Criteria

Virginia’s Response to U.S. Department of Education Request:

The school has made academic progress by decreasing the overall proficiency gap points at the end of the second year of identification; and

The school no longer falls into the bottom 10 percent of Title I schools for the subsequent school year based on proficiency gap points.

ESEA Flexibility Plan – Student Growth Data

SGPs measure norm-referenced growth by comparing individual student performance to that of other students with similar score histories. Must be calculated annually Cannot be prepared until all statewide data are

available Data not available until the early fall of the year

following assessments Cannot be calculated for alternate assessments

Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) Discontinued


Value tables measure growth based the number of sublevels an individual student moves on state assessments from one year to the next. Easier to understand and explain than SGPs Available earlier than SGP data Account for each student who is closing the

achievement gap by moving one step closer to demonstrating proficiency

Can be applied to alternate assessments

Value Tables Available in 2015-2016


Example of Value Table

Gray – No MovementGreen – Moved one levelYellow – Moved two levelsBlue – Moved three levels

FEDERAL PROGRAM MONITORING

Federal Program Monitoring Updates

Beginning with the 2014-2015 monitoring year: Title I, III, and Homeless – 3-year cycle Title II – 5-year cycle

Risk factors used to determine schedule. Examples: Improvement status of schools Previous monitoring findings Date of last monitoring Failure to spend down funds in a timely fashion Number of denied reimbursement requests

Risk-Based Monitoring Schedule

Federal Program Monitoring Updates

47 Divisions monitored for Title I, III, and Homeless

24 Divisions had one or more findings, such as: Failure to submit funding applications,

revisions, or amendments in a timely fashion Initial submission deadline – July 1 Reallocation amendments, as necessary

Title I Teachers not highly-qualified

2014-2015 Frequent Findings

TEACHER EQUITY PLAN

2015 Teacher Equity Plan

ESEA required all students to be taught by highly qualified teachers by 2006.

States were required to create plans to ensure that students from low-income families and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by underqualified, inexperienced, or out-of-field teachers.

Historical Background


New plans due to USED by June 1, 2015, with the following components:• Analysis of state data to identify equity gaps• Consideration of root causes of equity gaps• Identification of strategies linked to root

causes • Engagement of stakeholders• Process for ongoing monitoring and reporting

Historical Background


Since 2006, Virginia school divisions have reduced the gap of highly qualified teachers between high-poverty and low poverty…

Elementary schools by 1.3%

Secondary schools by 3.3%

Encouraging Progress since 2006

1.9% to .6%4.6% to

1.3%


Since 2006, Virginia school divisions have reduced the gap of highly qualified teachers between high-minority and low minority schools by 2%

Encouraging Progress since 2006

2.2% to .2%


Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) by School, Division, State

Free/Reduced Lunch Data Student Enrollment by Ethnicity Title I Schools – Focus/Priority School and division level performance:

Meeting Federal AMOs State Accreditation

Special Education Enrollment by School/Division

English Learner Enrollment by School/Division

Data Elements Analyzed


Data Analysis Results

Percent Inexperienced

All Schools 4.8

High-poverty school divisions

5.8

Low-poverty school divisions 4.5

Gap 1.3

High-minority school divisions

5.8

Low-minority school divisions

3.8

Gap 2.0

Experienced Teachers by Poverty and Minority Quartiles



In 2013-2014: Sixteen divisions served English Language

Learners (ELLs), but had zero teachers with ESL endorsement

Number of ELL students ranged from 1-84; Mean of 19.8

ELL population growth (1 year) in these divisions ranged up to 76%

Fourteen other divisions had at least one endorsed ESL teacher, yet still had some classes taught by non-endorsed teachers



Endorsed teachers on staff, but some ELLs taught by unendorsed teachers

Zero endorsed ESL teachers

Percent Divisions With Unendorsed ESL Teachers - 2013-2014

All School Divisions 21.9

High-poverty school divisions

24.2

Low-poverty school divisions

18.2

Gap 6.0

High-minority school divisions

21.2

Low-minority school divisions

18.2

Gap 3.0


Data Analysis ResultsESL-Endorsed Teachers by Poverty and Minority Quartiles



Highly Qualified Teachers According to Content Area

and LEA Poverty QuartileArt Elementa

ryEnglish

Foreign Language

History/ Social Science

Mathematics

Music Science

Special Education

State 99.4

99.3 98.9 99.1 98.7 97.8 99.9 97.8 99.1

High-Poverty LEAs

99.0

99.0 98.9 97.3 98.6 98.9 99.7 96.0 97.3

Low-Poverty LEAs

99.5

99.6 99.2 99.6 98.8 98.1 99.8 98.7 99.7

Gap .5 .6 .3 2.3 .2 -.8 .1 .7 2.4



Art Elementary

English

Foreign Languag

e

History/ Social Scienc

e

Mathematics

Music Science Special Educati

on

State 99.4

99.3 98.9

99.1 98.7 97.8 99.9 97.8 99.1

High-Minority LEAs

99.3

99.0 98.8

98.9 98.3 96.5 99.7 97.2 98.2

Low-Minority LEAs

99.6

99.6 98.9

98.0 99.0 97.8 99.7 96.1 100

Gap .3 .6 .1 -.9 .7 1.3 0 -1.1 1.8

Highly Qualified Teachers According to Content Area

and LEA Minority Quartile


FOCUS AREAS

Experience: Inexperienced teachers in high-minority divisions

Out of Field: ESL endorsed teachers in high-poverty divisions Foreign language teachers in high-poverty divisions Special education teachers in high-poverty and high-

minority divisions Mathematics teachers in high-minority divisions


Root Cause Analysis

External Stakeholder Meeting – Friday, April 24 Facilitated by the national Center for Great Teachers and

Leaders 59 attendees:

Division administrators, specialists, teachers, and support personnel Higher education representatives Professional and parent organizations State staff

Purpose: To determine… Likely root causes of teacher equity gaps; and Possible strategies to address gaps


Common Root Causes: Categories

Teacher Preparation Programs

Recruitment Challenges

Working Conditions

Professional Development

Offerings


Potential Strategies to AddressCommon Root Causes: Highlights

Teacher Preparation Programs:• Strengthen prep

programs• Strengthen regulatory

oversight

Recruitment Challenges:• Public service campaign

and recruitment tools• Diversify hiring practices

Working Conditions:• Strengthen leadership at

high-needs schools• Identify sources of stress

Professional Development Offerings:• Strengthen pre- and in-

service support• Collaborate with

regionally-based IHE to enhance offerings

TITLE III STATEWIDE CONSORTIUM

Title III Statewide Consortium

Title III Consortium Rule

• Any division receiving less than $10,000 in Title III funds must join a consortium with other divisions

• Member funds must total or exceed $10,000

• One division must serve as the fiscal lead


2014-2015 Participation: FIRST YEAR

• 8 divisions remained in independent consortia

• 5 divisions had:• No ELLs in 2013-2014 – no Title III allocation; or• Rejected funding for 2014-2015

• 62 divisions joined statewide consortium

• Virginia Tech is the fiscal leadTotal Allocation = Approx. $267,000


2015-2016 Participation: Second Year

• 4 divisions remained in independent consortia• 13 divisions had:• No ELLs in 2014-2015 – no Title III allocation; or• Rejected funding for 2015-2016

• 63 divisions joined statewide consortium• Virginia Tech remains the fiscal lead

CONTACT INFORMATION

Office of Program Administration and Accountability

VERONICA TATE - Director

(804) 225-2870 or [email protected]

DIANE JAY - Associate Director

(804) 225-2905 or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) PROGRAM UPDATES REVISED AUGUST 4, 2015...

Documents

Transcript of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) PROGRAM UPDATES REVISED AUGUST 4, 2015...