NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTOffice of AccountabilityIra Schwartz, Assistant Commissionerfor Long Island Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development

October 05, 2012

2

OVERVIEW

Big Picture Highlights of Changes to Institutional Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) Computation of Performance Index Growth Models Institutional Accountability Metrics College- and Career-Readiness 2012-13 School and District Accountability Summary Identification of Reward Schools Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness Accountability Going Forward What Districts Need to be Thinking About

3

ESEA WAIVER INITIATIVE “Regulatory Flexibility”

Flexibility in the following areas was requested:•2013-14 Timeline for All Students Becoming Proficient

•School and District Improvement Requirements

•Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement Plans

•School-wide Programs

•Transferability of Funds

•Rural Schools

•Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers program (optional)

•Use of School Improvement Grant Funds

•Rewards for Schools

•Determining Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for each school and district (optional)

•Rank Order Funding Allocation for districts (optional)

In exchange for flexibility, states were required to:•Set College- and Career-Ready Standards for All Students and Develop and Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth.

•Develop Systems of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support.

•Support Effective Teaching and Leadership, including the implementation of Teacher and Principal Evaluation in which student growth is a significant factor.

•Reduce Duplication and Unnecessary Burden.

On September 23, 2011, President Obama announced an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) regulatory flexibility initiative to revise No Child Left Behind (NCLB). On May 29th, the NYS waiver request was approved. On June19th, the Board of Regents adopted emergency regulations to carry out the provisions of the waiver.

4

ESEA Flexibility Request Big Picture Overview of ESEA Waiver

1. Sunset Prior Designations and Interventions.2. Revise the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) and use of AYP.3. Use School and District Accountability Standards that are Better

Aligned to College- and Career- Readiness. 4. Use Proficiency and Growth Measures to Make Accountability

Determinations for Elementary and Middle Schools.5. Replace Identification of Districts for Improvement and Corrective

Action with Identification of Focus Districts.6. Replace Identification of Schools for Improvement, Corrective

Action and Restructuring with Identification of Priority and Focus Schools.

7. Replace Identification of Schools As High Performing/Rapidly Improving With Identification of Reward Schools.

8. Create a Single Diagnostic Tool ("The Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness") to Drive Improvement; Reframe the District Comprehensive Education Plan, Comprehensive Education Plan, and Consolidated Application to align with the tool.

9. Reframe the Existing Set-Asides in ESEA and provide additional flexibility in use of Title funds.

10. Implement existing plans pertaining to Common Core Learning Standards and Assessments and Teacher and Principal Evaluation.

5

Highlights of Changes to Institutional Accountability

NCLB (old) ESEA Waiver (new)

Overall Target (AMO)

• 100% Proficient by 2013-14 in ELA and mathematics• Science Fixed Target of a Performance Index of 100

• Cut gap to in ELA, mathematics and science in goal of Performance Index of 200 (i.e., 100% proficient by 2016-17)• Separate targets for ESEA Accountability Groups• Cut gap to 100% in Science

Elementary/Middle School Performance

Index Calculation

• PI based on achievement (Levels 1-4)

• PI Revised to include achievement and growth to proficiency

High School Performance

Index Calculation

• Full credit for achieving Regents diploma requirements and partial credit for local diploma requirements

• Full credit for meeting College- and Career- Ready Graduation Standards and partial credit for meeting Regents diploma requirements

Subgroups

• All students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English language learners student subgroups

• All students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English language learners student subgroups

School and District

Accountability Categorization

• Schools – In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action, Restructuring (includes PLA/SURR)• Districts – In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action

• Schools – In Good Standing, Focus and Priority (includes PLA/SURR)• Districts – Focus Districts

6

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations

What happens to AYP? No longer determined for schools and districts, just for

subgroups. Determined in a similar manner as currently required under NCLB, with

a focus on the academic achievement of the current NCLB subgroups.

How will AYP be used going forward? One of the indicators in determining Reward Schools; and Determining whether districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan

for specific schools. Also, no Longer primary determinant of accountability status. It must be publicly reported each year.

Does Safe Harbor still apply? Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the

third academic indicator requirement, i.e., science and graduation rate.

7

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)Revised:

1. To reflect the rigor required of college- and career- readiness standards, while at the same time making them realistic and attainable for schools and districts.

2. To increase them in annual equal increments toward the goal of reducing by half, within six years, the gap between the PI for each accountability group and a PI of 200 (Baseline = 2010-11 school year results).

8

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)

    Targets by Year Measure Group

2010 - 2011

Baseline 2011 - 2012

2012 - 2013

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

2015 - 2016

2016 - 2017

Subject and Grade Level

Accountable Group              

Grades 3-8 ELA

All Students 146 150 155 159 164 168 173Students with Disabilities 92 101 110 119 128 137 146American Indian/Native American 132 137 143 149 154 160 166Asian or Pacific Islander 162 165 169 172 175 178 181Black (not Hispanic) 123 130 136 143 149 155 162Hispanic 126 132 138 144 151 157 163White 160 164 167 170 174 177 180English Language Learners 102 110 118 126 134 143 151Economically Disadvantaged 128 134 140 146 152 158 164Mixed Race 154 158 162 166 170 173 177

NOTE: The subgroup with the lowest PI in 2010-11, in this case students with disabilities (SWD), must meet the All Students PI from 2010-11 in 2016-17.

9

Computation of Performance Index for Grades 3-8 ELA Results

Performance Level

On Track to Proficiency?

Number of Student

sMultiplier

Total Points

1 (Below Standards)

No 30 0 0

1 (Below Standards)

Yes 10 200 2,000

2 (Meeting Basic Standards)

No 40 100 4,000

2 (Meeting Basic Standards)

Yes 40 200 8,000

3 (Meeting Proficiency Standards)

NA 60 200 12,000

4 (Exceeding Proficiency Standards)

NA 20 200 4,000

Total 200 30,000

PI = 150 or 30,000/200

10

Computation of Performance Index for High

School Mathematics ResultsPerformance

LevelRegents

ScoreNumber of

StudentsMultiplier Total Points

1 (Below Standards) 0 – 64 30 0 0

2 (Meeting Basic Standards)

65 - 79 40 100 4,000

3 (Meeting Proficiency Standards)

80 – 89 60 200 12,000

4 (Exceeding Proficiency Standards)

90 -100 20 200 4,000

Total 150 20,000

PI = 133 or 20,000/150

11

Growth Models Elementary & Middle Levels

Growth towards proficiency & growth compared to state median growth are used in the process of making accountability determinations for elementary and middle schools.

Schools and districts will get “full credit” for students who are either proficient or on track to become proficient within three years or by grade 8, using a “proficiency plus” model (with grades 4-8 ELA and math results).

12

Institutional Accountability Metrics

Performance Index Achievement is still a majority component. Growth to proficiency can improve a school’s PI. New PIs affect a school’s categorization as priority,

focus or rewards.

Normative Growth Growth vs. similar students. Schools showing high growth may be removed

from priority or focus status; schools must demonstrate above average for rewards.

13

College- and Career-ReadinessSTANDARDS Defined as the knowledge and skills a student should

have to pursue college or career successfully upon graduation from high school.

For the purpose of computing the High School Performance Index that is used as part of the process of determining Focus Districts and Focus, Priority and Reward Schools, “full credit” for students performance required students to score 75 of higher on the ELA Regents or 80 or higher on a Math Regents.

One of the criteria for Reward School status is that the school must have either its percentage of students graduating with a Regents diploma with advanced designation or its percentage of students graduating with a Regents diploma with Career and Technical Education (CTE) endorsement exceed the State average.

14

ESEA Waiver Accountability Designations

Category How IdentifiedData Used for Identification

Reward Schools

High Performance or High Progress Annual

Good Standing

Not Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan School Annual

Local Assistance Plan Schools

School that is not a Priority of Focus School that:a)Has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students orb)Has failed to make AYP for three consecutive years with same subgroup on same measure orc)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

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 10-11 data; districts and charter schools that improves performance may be removed from Focus status

Focus Schools (10% of schools in the state)

Schools that are in Focus Districts and have either the greatest numbers or greatest percentage of not proficient or non graduation results in the group(s) for which their district is identified as Focus

Identified by Districts based on lists provided by Commissioner. District may request to modify annually the list of Focus Schools in the District.

Priority Schools (5% of State Schools)

Schools that were awarded a SIG grant in 11-12; have had graduation rates below 60% for the past three years; or are the lowest performing in ELA and math combined and have failed to show progress.

Identified once based on 10-11 data; schools that improve performance may be removed from Priority status

15

2012-13 School and District Accountability Summary

ESEA Waiver CategoryStatewide, including

NYCNYC Only

Focus Districts 70 31*

Focus Schools 496 232

Priority Schools 221 122

Total Focus and Priority Schools 717 354

Reward Schools 250 55

Focus Charter Schools 8 2

Priority Charter Schools 2 1

Reward Charter Schools 2 1* The New York City School District is one of the 70 that has been identified as a Focus District. Under the ESEA waiver, each of the 32 community school districts is then analyzed to determine if it will be subject to the Focus District requirements. All community school districts, except for Community School District 31 (Staten Island) were determined to be subject to Focus District requirements.

16

Identification of Reward Schools SED identified 250 schools in 164 districts as Reward

Schools. Reward Schools are either schools that have made the

most progress or schools that have the highest achievement in the State and do not have significant gaps in student achievement that are not being closed.

Reward Schools can either be: among the top 10% of schools in the state in combined ELA and

mathematics Performance Index, or among the top 10% in terms of improvement in the combined

Performance Index.

Reward Schools are eligible to compete for a Commissioner's Schools Dissemination Grant of up to $100,000, which is currently funded through RTTT.

Identification of Reward Schools, cont.

Highest Performing Elementary Schools Made AYP for Two Academic Years Gap in Performance Smaller than Three

Years Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

PI is in Top 20% of All Schools with Elementary School PIs

Above Average School Student Growth Percentile in both ELA and Math

Above Average Bottom Quartile Student Growth

High Progress Elementary Schools Made AYP for Two Academic Years Gap in Performance Smaller than Three

Years Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

PI is in Top 10% in the State in Terms of Gains

Above Average School Student Growth Percentile in both ELA and Math

Above Average Bottom Quartile Student Growth

17

Highest Performing High Schools

Made AYP for Two Academic Years

Gap in Performance Smaller than Three Years Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

Graduation Rate Above 80% and Exceeded the State Average for students graduating with advanced designation or CTE for 2010-11

PI is in Top 20% of All Schools with High School PIs

Exceeded State Average of Graduating At-Risk Students

High Progress High Schools Made AYP for Two Academic Years Gap in Performance Smaller than Three

Years Prior for the Accountable Group with the Largest Gap

Graduation Rate Above 80% and Exceeded the State Average for students graduating with advanced designation or CTE for 2010-11

PI is in Top 10% in the State in Terms of Gains

Exceeded State Average of Graduating At-Risk Students

18

Diagnostic Tool for School and District

Effectiveness Beginning in the 2012-13 school year, SED will implement the

Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness (DTSDE) for Priority and Focus Districts and Schools.

Replaces current requirements for School Quality Reviews, Curriculum Audits and Joint Intervention Team visits to schools.

Comprehensive diagnostic tool that provides clear, actionable recommendations for improvement.

Used to determine district and school effectiveness in six areas: district leadership and capacity; school leadership practices and decisions; teacher practices and decisions; curriculum development and support; student social and emotional developmental health; and family and community engagement.

Serves as the starting point for all District Comprehensive Improvement Plans, Comprehensive Education Plans, and all other funding plans.

Each Focus District will be assessed by an SED led Integrated Intervention Team using the tool. Some schools in each Focus District will be visited by the SED team; others will have a district led self-review using the tool.

19

19

District Leadership &

Capacity

1.1 Recruiting, hiring and retaining human capital1.2 Fiscal, facility and fiscal resources1.3 District vision1.4 Comprehensive professional development1.5 Data-Driven Culture

School Leadership

Practices and Decisions

2.1 District support of school leader2.2 School leader’s vision2.3 Systems and structures for school development2.4 School leader’s use of resources2.5 Use of data and teacher and mid-management effectiveness

Curriculum Development and Support

3.1 District support concerning curriculum3.2 Enacted curriculum3.3 Units and lesson plans3.4 Teacher collaboration3.5 Use of data and action planning

Teacher Practices and

Decisions

4.1 District support of teachers4.2 Instructional Practices and strategies4.3 Comprehensive plans for teaching4.4 Classroom environment and culture4.5 Use of data, instructional practices and student learning

Student Social and Emotional Developmental

Health

Family and Community Engagement

5.1 District support of student growth5.2 Systems and partnerships 5.3 Vision for social and emotional developmental health5.4 Safety5.5 Use of data and student needs

6.1 District support of family and community engagement6.2 Welcoming environment6.3 Reciprocal communication6.4 Partnerships and responsibility6.5 Use of data and families

DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS

SIX TENETS: BIG IDEAS

20

New York State Assessment Transition Plan: ELA and MathematicsAs of March 12, 2012 (Subject to Revision)

2012-13: the content of the grade 3-8 tests will be aligned to the Common Core. Sample Common Core questions are available:

http://engageny.org/news/common-core-sample-questions-are-now-available/

2013-14: some Regents Exams will be aligned to the Common Core

2014-15: all ELA and math Regents will be aligned to the Common Core

2014-15: transition to PARCC pending BOR approval

1 The PARCC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the New York State Board of Regents. The PARCC assessments are still in development. All PARCC assessments will be aligned to the Common Core.2 The PARCC consortium is developing ELA and mathematics assessments that will cover grades 3-11. New York State will continue to monitor the development of these assessments to determine how the PARCC assessments might intersect with the Regents Exams. Note that all new Regents Exams and PARCC assessments will be implemented starting with the end-of-year administration, rather than the winter or summer administrations.3 The names of New York State’s Mathematics Regents Exams are expected to change to reflect the new alignment of these assessments to the Common Core. For additional information about the upper-level mathematics course sequence and related standards, see the “Traditional Pathway” section of Common Core Mathematics Appendix A (http://engageny.org/news/traditional-course-pathway-for-high-school-mathematics-courses-approved/).4 This transition plan is specific to the NYSAA in ELA and mathematics.5 New York State is a member of the NCSC national alternate assessment consortium that is engaged in research and development of new alternate assessments for alternate achievement standards. The NCSC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the New York State Board of Regents.

Assessment – Subject / Grade

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15

ELA

Grades 3–8 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core PARCC1

Grade 11 Regents Aligned to 2005 Standards Regents Exam Aligned to the Common Core2

Regents Exam Aligned to the Common Core / PARCC1, 2

Math

Grades 3–8

Aligned to 2005 Standards

Aligned to the Common Core PARCC1

Algebra I

Aligned to 2005 Standards Regents Exams Aligned to the Common Core2,3 Regents Exams Aligned to the

Common Core / PARCC1, 2, 3 Geometry

Algebra II Aligned to the 2005 Standards

Additional State Assessments

NYSAA4 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core NCSC5

NYSESLAT Aligned to 1996 Standards Aligned to the Common Core

21

State-Provided Value-Added

in 2012-13 for APPR The State will move to a value-added model for

educator evaluation in 2012-13, upon the approval of the Board of Regents, which will count for 25% of an evaluation.

Additional considerations may be made with the state’s value-added model, and could include: Classroom and school-level characteristics, like

percent poverty or students with disabilities or average prior achievement of the classroom.

Value-Added indicators will cover Grades 4-8 ELA and Math teachers and their principals, and depending on findings of feasibility analysis: High School Principals Teachers with students taking Regents exams

22

Accountability Going Forward Whatever Adjustments are necessary as

assessments of proficiency standards or scales change or evolve.

Seeking to maintain coherence between institutional and individual accountability.

Determining whether and how to integrate new metrics into the accountability system.

23

What Districts Need to be Thinking About

Understand and turnkey accountability metrics being used under the ESEA waiver.

Take advantage as appropriate of new flexibility.

Diagnose, plan and resource, implement, adjust.

24

For General Information about the ESEA Waiver Please Email:ACCOUNTINFO@MAIL.NYSED.GOV

For further information, contact:

Office of Accountability Ira Schwartz, Assistant Commissioner

(718) 722- 2797

or