Overview of Florida ESEA Waiver as Approved by the U.S ... · 21st CCLC 21st Century Community...

Overview of Florida ESEA Waiver

as Approved by the U.S. Department of Education

April 2012

Penn Hill Group 777 6th Street, NW Suite 650 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 618-3900 www.pennhillgroup.com

http://www.pennhillgroup.com/

Florida, p. 2 Update April 5, 2012

List of Acronyms Common Acronym State Specific Acronym 21st CCLC 21st Century Community Learning Center CELLA Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment ACCESS Assessing Comprehension and Communication to English State-to-

State for English Language Learners ESE Exceptional Student Education

AMO Annual Measurable Objectives FCAT Florida Comprehensive Assessment AMAO Annual Measurable Achievement Objective FDOE Florida Department of Education AP/ APIP Advanced Placement/ Advanced Placement Incentive Program FTCE Florida Teacher Certification Examinations AVID Advancement Via Individual Determination SAI Supplemental Academic Intervention CCR College and Career Ready CCSS Common Core State Standards CELAS Common English Language Acquisition Standards CTE Career and Technical Education ECE Early Childhood Education E/LA English/ Language Arts ELD English Language Development ELDA English Language Development Assessment ELDS English Language Development Standards ELs/ELLs English Learners/ English Language Learners ELP English Language Proficiency EMO Educational Management Organization ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESL English as a Second Language ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages GED General Education Development HB House Bill i3 Investing in Innovation IB International Baccalaureate IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IEP Individualized Educational Program IHE Institute of Higher Education LEA Local Education Agency LEP Limited English Proficient NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress NMSQT National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test


PARCC Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers PD Professional development P.L. Public Law PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study PISA Program for International Student Assessment PSAT Preliminary SAT RTI Response to Intervention RTTT Race to the Top SB Senate Bill SBOE State Board of Education SEA State Education Agency SES Supplemental Educational Services SIG School Improvement Grants SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems SPED Special Education STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics SWD Students with Disabilities TA Technical Assistance TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study UDL Universal Design for Learning UIP Universal Improvement Plan USDOE United Stated Department of Education WIDA Worldwide International Design Assessment


Overview of Florida’s ESEA Flexibility Request

Number of waivers requested: 10 of 10 waivers requested and approved plus the optional 21st century community learning centers waiver. Type of approval: Conditional. One condition is that it needs to make changes to its school grading system to include English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities. This change requires state board policy change. Major Changes from Current Law: • Adding English language learners and students with disabilities into its A-F grading system. • Maintaining Supplemental Educational Services (SES) through state legislation for school year 2012-13. • Using a more rigorous, interim assessment in preparation for the Common Core State Standards

assessment. • Will compare state scores to multiple international assessments. Standards and Assessments: • Florida adopted the Common Core State Standards on July 27, 2010. • Florida is participating in one of the two State consortiums, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College and Careers (PARCC), and serves as a governing state. o Assessments used for accountability purposes: English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science

(grades 5, 8, and at points during high school) and Writing (for grades 4, 8, 11). Accountability Systems: Description of accountability system: Description of accountability system: Florida uses a point system to award a letter grade (A-F) for every school in the state. Elementary and middle schools may earn up to 800 points based half on academic performance on all core subjects and half on growth in reading and math (of which half is for all students and half is of the lowest 25% of students). High schools have a 1,600 point scale, one quarter based on academic performance in core subjects, one quarter on growth of the lowest 25% of students in reading and math, and half on college-and career ready indicators such as graduation rate and participation and performance in AP and IB courses. In addition, schools are subject to having their letter grade lowered by one grade if they miss certain targets, such as not having enough students take the state’s assessment or for failing to make required leaning gains. This year, an elementary/middle school would need 525 points for an “A” (58% of schools last year had an “A”) while high schools need 1,050 points for an “A.” Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs): Florida outlines four AMOs that will be reported for all schools, school districts, and the state. Note that these “goals” are not based on numerical or annual targets. • AMO1 – School Grades (described above). • AMO2 – Performance of All Students and Student Subgroups in Reading and Mathematics. • AMO3 – Progress of Students in the Lowest-Performing 25% in Reading and Mathematics – schools

meet this goal by ensuring learning gains for at least half of the lowest 25% of students. • AMO4 – Comparison of Florida’s Student Performance to the Highest-Performing States and Nations.

Florida will compare its NAEP scores to the top five states and its TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA scores to the ten top-performing nations.

Subgroups: Traditional ESEA subgroups used for AMO2 to identify areas for improvement.


Super subgroups: Florida creates a “lowest-performing 25%” subgroup (See AMO3). Schools must show that 50% of students in the lowest-performing group (lowest 25%) have made learning gains. Graduation Rates/Dropouts: Graduation rate is worth 300 of 1600 points on the high school grading scale. Of this, 200 is for overall graduation rate and 100 is for at-risk student graduation rate. Florida is now using the 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. School Identification and Support:

• Reward Schools – “A” schools and schools that improve one or more letter grade. These reward schools

would be eligible to receive funding appropriated by the State Legislature through the Florida School Recognition Program.

• Prevent Schools – “C” schools. Schools assigned a grade of “C” would be classified in Prevent status. Schools in Prevent status will prepare a school improvement plan and implement appropriate interventions, with school district monitoring and support designed to improve student performance.

• Focus/Correct Schools – “D” schools. All schools (elementary to high schools) assigned a grade of “D”

would be classified in Focus/Correct status, as well as high schools with graduation rates calculated to be the lowest in the state or subgroup grad rates that are significantly lower than the overall school, district or state rate.

Schools above a D with significantly greater achievement gaps than D schools must develop and implement interventions to reduce/eliminate such gaps. School improvement measures for Focus/Correct schools include the following:

o The school implements interventions. o The school district directs interventions. o The school district monitors progress. o The state provides support through regional teams.

• Priority/Intervene Schools – “F” schools. Schools assigned a grade of “F” and the current list of School

Improvement Grant (SIG) schools would be classified in Priority/Intervene status. Florida schools in Priority/Intervene status are subject to more intensive intervention efforts required by FDOE and managed (initially) by the school district. For F schools:

o The state provides support through regional teams. o The school district chooses and begins planning for implementation of the selected school

turnaround option.

No. of Title I Schools: 1,853 No. of Title I Schools in school improvement: 1,159 No. of Title I Schools with grad rates <60%: 26 State est. No. of Reward Schools: 32 State est. No. of Prevent Schools: 777 including approx. 590 Title I schools making up 32% of Title I schools State est. No. of Focus/Correct Schools: 290 including approx. 270 Title I schools that make up 15% of Title I schools State est. No. of Priority/Intervene Schools: 112 including approx. 106 Title I schools that make up 6% of Title I schools Identification for Title I schools or all schools? All


o During a school’s first year in Priority/Intervene status the school district must submit an Intervene Option Plan outlining the school turnaround option it has selected and how that option will be implemented. If a school does not exit Priority/Intervene status during the first year, the district must implement the turnaround option it has selected from the options below. The school district may choose from the following State Turnaround Models: Reopen as a district-managed turnaround school (transformation/turnaround). Reassign students and monitor progress (closure). Close and reopen as a charter school (restart). Contract with a private entity to run the school (restart). Hybrid model as rigorous as other turnaround options. Blends school district control

and external providers. If the school has not exited Priority/Intervene status in two years, the school district must choose a different model, unless they are making progress that would allow them to exit or enter a hold status. Additionally, reading and math teachers cannot be re-hired unless they are effective as evidenced by 65% of their students achieving learning gains. Students with Disabilities: Florida will continue the use of its 1% assessment (for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities), but stated that the state is seeking to provide access to the common core standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities at reduced levels of complexity. Florida does not presently have a 2% (Modified Achievement Standards) assessment. Florida did not address graduation rates for students with disabilities, but students with disabilities will now be included in the performance component of the school grades calculation for Reading, Mathematics, Writing, and Science as well as all other components (see condition on the waiver described above). Also, Florida is participating with the National Center and State Collaborate General Supervision Enhancement Grant to define college and career ready for students with disabilities and analyzing learning factors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. English Language Learners: English Language Learners who have been in the country for more than one year will now be included in all components of the school grading system. • ELP standards and assessments: Florida is working with other states to begin developing ELP standards

in 11-12. Proposed timeline: Standards to be completed by spring 12, approved by summer 12, implemented in K and 1st in fall 2012, and implemented for 2-12 in fall 2013. All ELLs, including those with disabilities, are required to be assessed annually with the Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA), which measures progress of ELL proficiency in English. Accommodations are based upon Individual Educational Plan documentation.

Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice Set-Aside: Florida has no explicit mention of SES or tutoring but did announce plans to create a “creative” way to re-purpose the 20% set-aside that will involve Superintendents and external providers. Expanded Learning: Florida provides Supplemental Academic Intervention (SAI) funds based on the number of students needing an extended school year program. Schools have access to School Improvement and Title I funds to extend the instructional time. School Improvement Grant funds are provided to the lowest-performing 5% of schools in the state and each school is required to develop and have approved a detailed improvement plan that must include the extension of the instruction day and common teacher planning time. All school districts are required to offer summer reading camps for struggling 3rd grade readers who have scored below L3 on grade 3 FCAT reading. Priority/intervene schools must extend the learning day.


Under focus/ correct schools, when a school receives a third consecutive “D” Florida requires implementation of a district-managed turnaround option that entails “Increased learning time of at least 300 hours of additional instructional time for all students. This criterion could be met with 60% of the increased learning time supporting all students (extended day and/or year) and 40% being supported through traditional targeted services including before school, after school, weekend, and summer academies. (p. 123-4; PDF 124-5)

Teacher Evaluation: Florida outlined the implementation of their teacher and principal effectiveness system, which among other components requires: • Annual evaluations for all teachers; twice annual for new teachers (first year of teaching in district) (Note:

Different rules apply to teachers hired BEFORE and AFTER July 1, 2011.) • Weights student growth as 50% of the evaluation (50% value-added growth for all students on statewide

assessments or for non-tested grades/subjects by district assessments) and 50% professional practices (observation).

• Evaluation results to inform professional development. • Florida law and Race to the Top require evaluation results to be used to inform personnel decisions. • By 2014, districts shall adopt a performance salary schedule that provides annual salary adjustments for

instructional personnel and school administrators based upon performance. Charter Schools: Conversion to a charter school would continue to be an option for “F” schools.


State: Florida1

Round: 1 Race to the Top? Yes Type of Approval: Conditional I. CONSULTATION PROCESS

Related Consultation Methods Waiver-Specific Consultation Methods Ongoing Plan Race to the Top (RTTT)-related committees Waiver website Presentations at professional meetings, “many

forms ranging from face-to-face to electronic communication.”

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) reviewers

Commissioner – Facebook, Twitter, blogs

Email to district teachers of the year and ~$180K teachers

Input on draft request via survey Representative Stakeholder Groups Included in Consultation Group Y/N How Many Example Parents Y 4 Florida Parent Teacher Association Business Y 7 Florida chamber of Commerce African-American Y 2 NAACP Latino/Hispanic Y 2 League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Advocates for SWD Y 6 Learning Disabilities Association of Florida Charter Schools Y 2 Charter School Alliance; also Charter School teachers (included in mail-outs to all teachers) Note: Stakeholder groups are not all represented in this table, nor could all groups be categorized. 1 Note: Referenced page numbers refer to the version found on the US Department of Education’s website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/fl.pdf. When page numbers do not correspond to the PDF page number, the PDF page number is also referenced.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/fl.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/fl.pdf


II. ACCOUNTABILITY a. Standards

Type of Standards

Timeline for implementation

Timeline for Professional

Development

Types of Professional Development

Students with Disabilities

English Language Learners

AP/International Baccalaureate/Dual

Enrollment Next Generation Sunshine State Standards, transitioning to Common Core State Standards

Kindergarten instruction aligned with CCSS in 2011-12 1st grade instruction aligned with CCSS in 2012-13 Grades 2-12 instruction aligned with CCSS in 2013-14

Not clear Training on formative assessments Lesson study toolkits Teacher Standards Instructional tool (online standards, resources, model lessons) School-level training materials and tutorials on accessing Teacher Standards Instructional Tool 65 participating RTTT districts signed a memorandum of agreement to focus Professional Development on CCSS

Florida is partner with 18 states, 4 centers to develop Core Content Connectors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Math released winter 2012, training summer 2012 ELA released summer 2012, training fall 2012 Analyzing learning and accommodation factors for SWD Instructional materials must use universal design (p. 29; PDF 30)

Planning to conduct an analysis of the linguistic demands of common core state standards to inform development of the state’s English Language Proficiency Standards.

Florida expanding student access to college-level courses through 5 initiatives: 1. College placement

testing/enrollment in 12th grade postsecondary prep courses for identified students

2. High school accountability (school grades)

3. College board partnership (p. 33; PDF 34)

4. Student performance-based funding – incentive funding for schools and teachers based on number of students who take and score at/above identified scores on AP, IB, AICE exams.

5. Dual enrollment Beginning in 2011-12 all identified 11th grade


Type of Standards

Timeline for implementation

Timeline for Professional

Development

Types of Professional Development

Students with Disabilities

English Language Learners

AP/International Baccalaureate/Dual

Enrollment students (scored Level 1/Level 2 on reading and/or math FCAT) take college readiness assessment. Chart on advanced course enrollments (p. 74; PDF 75)

b. Pre-Service Teachers/Principals and Common Core State Standards

Involvement in Common Core State Standards

Changes in Licensure/Requirements Other

State will procure services of a college/university to develop school-level training materials and tutorials for pre-service programs on accessing CCSS resources. (p.26; PDF 27) Colleges/universities have received training on incorporating state’s newly adopted standards for teachers in English to Speakers of Other Languages and reading in pre-service curricula. Timeline (p. 37-38; PDF 38-39)

Revising Florida Teacher Certification Examinations (FTCE) in all grades and subjects that include CCSS, as well as Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State Standards in STEM areas (science, technology, mathematics, and engineering). All candidates in approved 'traditional' initial teacher preparation programs must pass all portions of the FTCE prior to graduation. Revising the Competencies and Skills (basis for institutional approval) for teacher preparation program certification to focus on the Common Core State Standards

--


c. Assessments included in Accountability System

English/Language Arts

Mathematics Science Social Studies Writing

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Specifics Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test (FCAT) Reading 2.0

FCAT Math 2.0 FCAT Science 2.0 grades 5, 8 High schools - Biology End of course Other end of course exams to be determined

Florida Writes! Grades 4, 8, 11

Weighting Elem/Middle-300 points, or 37.5% of school grade High school – 300 points, or 18.75% of school grade

Elementary/Middle-300 points, or 37.5% of school grade High school-300 points, or 18.75% of school grade

Elementary/Middle – 100 points, or 12.5% of school grade High school -100 points, or 6.25% of school grade

NA Elementary/Middle-100 points, or 12.5% of school grade High school-100 points, or 6.25% of school grade

Note: Other components in Florida’s high school grading system are acceleration (AP, IB, etc.) worth 300 points (18.75%) and college readiness worth 200 points (12.5%). Charts, p. 49, 50; PDF 50, 51.

d. New Accountability System Elements Super Subgroup? No. Uses lowest 25% AND SWD, ELL in grading formula. Other ESEA subgroups included in AMO2 – used to identify schools for improvement . System Specifics Annual Measureable

Objectives (AMOs) Subgroup performance

targets Graduation Rates Timeline

State uses a point system to award a letter grade (A-F) to each school in the state. Elementary and middle schools may earn up to 800 points based half on academic performance on all core subjects

AMO 1-School Grades AMO 2-performance of all students and all subgroups in reading and math.

AMO 2- Schools’ annual target for increasing the performance of all students and all subgroups. AMO targets will be established separately for each

Graduation rate is included in the calculations for school grades, and is worth 300 of 1600 points on the school grading

Annual identification of schools. School grades for elementary/middle released July. Schools categorized


System Specifics Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)

Subgroup performance targets

Graduation Rates Timeline

and half on growth in reading and math (of which half is for all students and half is for the lowest-performing 25% of students). High schools have a 1600-point scale, one quarter based on academic performance in core subjects, one quarter on growth, and half on college- and career-ready indicators such as grad rate and participation and performance in AP and IB courses. School grade is lowered 1 level if misses certain targets, such as not having enough students take the state test or for failing to make learning gains for 50% of the lowest 25% or hits safe harbor calculation (p. 96; PDF 97) Learning gains = student increases achievement level, maintains 3 or higher, or for Level 1/Level 2, student makes more than a year’s worth of learning gains. In 2012, elementary/middle schools need 525 points for an “A” (58% of schools had an A in 2011) while high schools need 1,050 points for an “A.” Sample reports with new AMOs (p. 100-102; PDF 101-103)

AMO 3-Progress in math and reading for the lowest-performing 25% of students AMO 4-Florida’s performance on NAEP, TIMSS, PIRLS, PISA compared to highest-performing states and nations. AMOs are not used in calculating school grades, nor are they used in identifying schools for improvement.

subgroup and all students, and will be calculated at the school, LEA, and state levels. Safe Harbor applies. FL will report for each subgroup at the school whether the target was met, whether the school has improved but not met the target, or whether the subgroup’s performance has maintained or declined. (p. 93-95; PDF 94-96) AMOs for traditional ESEA subgroups are not used in calculating school grades, nor are they used in identifying schools for improvement. However, supersubgroup performance is a factor in school grades, and therefore is a factor in identifying schools for improvement. Subgroup performance is reported and triggers interventions to schools/districts that have consistently decreased in reading AND math. If the state adds SWD and

scale. Of this, 200 points is for overall graduation rate and 100 is for at-risk student graduation rate. Chart (p. 75; PDF 76) on grad rate trends (not clear what method used to calculate) State now using 4-year adjusted cohort grad rate.

August. Compliance review Sept./Oct. School grades for High schools released winter (due to lagged measures such as the inclusion of summer semester high school graduates).


System Specifics Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)

Subgroup performance targets

Graduation Rates Timeline

ELL performance into its grading system as it must per the waiver condition these calculations will change. Intervention details (p. 95; PDF 96).

e. Students with Disabilities

1% 2% Graduation Other Activities Other Florida states that it will continue its use of the 1% assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Florida does not presently administer a 2% assessment based on modified achievement standards.

Not addressed Florida is participating with the National center and State Collaborative General Supervision Enhancement Grant to define college and career ready for SWD, and analyze learning factors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. (p. 23; PDF 24)

Students with disabilities will now be included in the performance component of the school grades calculation for Reading, Mathematics, Writing, and Science as well as all other components. This required a change by the State Board of Education, which has been passed.

Note: SBOE voted 2/28 but mechanism for SWD, ELL inclusion in grading system not yet determined.

f. English Language Learners

Exemption from Regular Tests

Changes to Annual Measureable

Achievement Objectives

English Language Proficiency Standards

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Other

Florida is making changes to its school grading system to include English Language Learners (ELLs) who have

Not addressed Florida working with other states to begin developing English Language Proficiency standards in 11-

All ELLs, including those with disabilities, are required to be assessed annually with the

Every LEA has a plan outlining strategies and interventions available for English language learners


Exemption from Regular Tests

Changes to Annual Measureable

Achievement Objectives

English Language Proficiency Standards

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Other

been in the country for more than one year. ELLs who have been in the country more than one year will be included in all components of the school grading system.

12. State also reviewing standards developed by World Class Instructional Design and Assessment. Standards to be completed spring 12, approved summer 12 Implementation in Kindergarten and 1st grade in Fall 2012 Implementation in grades 2-12, in Fall 2013

Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA), which measures progress of ELL proficiency in English. Accommodations are based upon Individual Educational Plan documentation.

(ELLs) and students with disabilities. Additionally, each ELL student has an ELL student plan. (p. 66; PDF 67) All primary Language Arts teachers, including Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teachers, must become ESOL endorsed, which requires completion of 300 ESOL in-service training hours. (p. 66; PDF 67)

Note: State Board of Education voted 2/28 but mechanism for SWD, ELL inclusion in grading system not yet determined. III. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

a. Identification of High- and Low-Performing Schools Identification for Title I schools or All schools? All Timeline for reporting identified schools: not specified

Category Identification Process Recognition Funding Reward N=1,848

Schools that receive an “A” grade or that increase their grade by 1 level and maintain that level for a year.

Eligible to receive funding from state legislature through the Florida School Recognition Program.

Not addressed in the application. However, such schools typically receive legislatively directed financial rewards each year.

Category Identification Process Services/Requirements/Exit Decision-maker/Oversight Funding

C/Prevent

Elementary/Middle-School scores 435-494 points on an

School improvement plan, implement appropriate interventions. Extensive

LEA monitors and supports. School advisory council receives

Not addressed. Some funding tied to K-12


Category Identification Process Services/Requirements/Exit Decision-maker/Oversight Funding N=777 (590 Title I)

800-point scale. (Scale subject to change if 75% of elementary, middle, or high schools earn an A or B) (p. 51; PDF 52) High schools-not specified

table of requirements (p. 82-85; PDF 83-86). • Review/replace leadership if

necessary • LEA includes school performance in

supervising LEA administrator evaluation

• Numerous teacher quality requirements including performance pay, provision of academic coaches

• Professional development plans for teachers of targeted subgroups include targeted professional development

• Numerous leadership professional development requirements

• Common Core State Standards-based pacing guides

• Students placed in rigorous coursework

• Implement K-12 reading plan • Implement Response to

Intervention • Implement Florida’s continuous

improvement model • Real-time access to student data • Benchmark assessments • Data chats • Quarterly update reports • Comprehensive instructional

monitoring process Exit Requirements: None specified

quarterly reports. LEA develops comprehensive instructional monitoring process.

reading plan.

D/Focus/ Correct

Elementary/Middle schools with grade of D; High schools

Schools must develop implement and include interventions to reduce/

The school implements interventions

LEA ensures that schools demonstrating


Category Identification Process Services/Requirements/Exit Decision-maker/Oversight Funding N=299 (270 Title I)

with grade of D; High schools with grad rates calculated to be the lowest in the state or subgroup grad rates that are significantly lower than the overall school, district or state rate. Schools above a D with significantly greater achievement gaps than D schools. Elem/Middle-School scores between 395-434 points High schools – not specified Gap calculation - percent of students scoring proficient (level 3) or higher in the “all students” group minus the average school percentage of students scoring proficient (Level 3) or higher for students in the applicable subgroup. P. 117

eliminate the gap within their school improvement plan. Extensive table of requirements (p. 82-85; PDF 83-86). IN ADDITION to requirements for “C” schools, D schools/districts must: • Establish a literacy leadership team • Create a District Intervention and

Assistance Plan • Conduct a mid-year analysis • Adhere to requirements for

qualifications of Principal, Assistant Principal and performance pay for administrators

• Adhere to requirements for school staff, and performance pay, and vacancies

• Redesign the master schedule • Ensure common planning time • Ensure an extended school day • Use the FAIR reading assessment

for all level 1 through level 3 students

Exit Requirements: grade of C. Must exit within 2 years of classification as focus/correct. A 3rd consecutive “D” requires implementation of district-managed turnaround option which entails: • Principal/administrator replacement;

reconstitution of staff (50% must be replaced);

The LEA directs interventions: • Must create a LEA

Leadership team • Attend a summer

Professional Development academy

• Create a dedicated position for turnaround

• Create a pool of highly qualified teachers and coaches

The LEA monitors progress: • Attends sample PD

planning meetings • Determines effectiveness of

instruction • Uses problem-

solving/Response to Intervention to review interim assessment data

The state provides support through regional teams - • Reviews alignment of

resources/needs including federal resources

• Reviews effectiveness of instruction

• Monthly meetings with LEA

the greatest need, based on data analysis, receive the highest percentage of resources


Category Identification Process Services/Requirements/Exit Decision-maker/Oversight Funding • Differentiated pay scale to

recruit/retain highly qualified staff; revised curriculum;

• Increased learning time – at least 300 hours of additional instructional time for all students. Can be 60% of time for all students and 40% traditional targeted services (before, after school, weekend, summer). (p. 123-124; PDF 124-125)

F/Priority/ Intervene N=112 (106 Title I)

Most recent school grade of F plus list of current SIG schools Elementary/Middle-School scores less than 395 points on 800-point scale. High schools-not specified

• Year 1: IN ADDITION to both “C” and “D” above, May choose one option from the following:

• Reopening as a district-managed turnaround school (transformation/turnaround, including replacing principal/administration, replacing staff, new curriculum focus, altered governance/autonomy)

• Reassign students and monitor progress (closure)

• Close and open as a charter school (restart – must engage a high-performing charter or EMO with proven track record))

• Contract with a private entity to run the school (restart)

• Hybrid model as rigorous as other turnaround options. Blends LEA control and external providers. After 2 years, if no exit, LEA must choose a different model, unless they are making progress that would allow them to exit or enter a hold

The state provides support through regional teams. State monitors implementation of School Improvement Plan. The LEA chooses and begins planning for implementation of the selected school turnaround option. During a school’s first year in Priority/Intervene status the LEA must submit an Intervene Option Plan outlining the school turnaround option it has selected and how that option will be implemented. If a school does not exit Priority/ Intervene status during the first year, the LEA must implement the turnaround option.

Not addressed. However, it is anticipated that 1003(g) funds will be directed to F/priority/intervene schools.


Category Identification Process Services/Requirements/Exit Decision-maker/Oversight Funding status. (p.80; PDF 81)

Also, reading and math teachers cannot be re-hired unless they are effective as evidenced by 65% of their students achieving learning gains. (p. 106; PDF 107) Table of requirements (p. 82-85; PDF 83-86). Exit Requirements: Improve the school grade to a C or higher. Improve achievement in reading and math to meet criteria to be established by State Board of Education. DOE will review/approve/monitor SIP until the school earns an A, B, or C for 3 consecutive years. “Hold” status – school meets one of the exit criteria. Hold status is for up to 2 years to continue implementation. (p. 81; PDF 82)

Note: • Florida’s waiver is conditional. One condition is that it make changes to its school grading system, a process currently underway. • Also, numbers of schools in each category are projections based on new standards applied to last year’s assessment results. • Current Elementary School/Middle School grading model (p. 49; PDF 50) • Current High School grading model (p. 50; PDF 51)

b. Supplemental Educational Services/Use of 20% – Florida has announced plans to create a “creative” way to re-purpose the 20% set-aside that will involve Superintendents and external providers. No additional information provided.


IV. TEACHER/LEADER QUALITY a. Teacher Evaluation System

Teacher System Measures Ratings & Consequences Achievement Data Timeline Monitoring Annual evaluations for all teachers; twice annual for new teachers (first year of teaching in district) Different rules apply to teachers hired BEFORE and AFTER July 1, 2011.

50% student growth, 50% professional practices (observation) Student growth formula guidelines (p. 148; PDF 149)

All teachers – results used to inform professional development (p. 150; PDF 151) Florida law & RTTT require evaluation results to be used to inform personnel decisions “Must base a portion of each employee’s compensation upon performance.” (p. 151; PDF 152) Highly effective; Effective; Needs improvement/ developing (for personnel in first 3 years); Unsatisfactory. Hired BEFORE 7/1/11: “just cause” includes two consecutive annual performance ratings of unsatisfactory, 2 annual evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory within a 3-year period, 3 consecutive evaluations of needs improvement or combination of needs improvement and unsatisfactory. (p. 151-2; PDF 152-3) If workforce reduction is needed, a district school board

50% value-added growth for all students on statewide assessments or (for non-tested grades/subjects) by district assessments. For classroom teachers, growth = data for students assigned to teacher over at least 3 years. If less than 3 years of data available, the years for which data are available must be used and the evaluation based on student learning growth can be reduced to 40%. (p. 147-8; PDF 148-9) See p. 161 for “non-tested subjects/ grades”

Most elements currently in place. 11-12 – RTTT districts, all teachers; district-developed formula 12-13 – all teachers; state-developed formula July 1, 2014 – districts shall adopt a performance salary schedule that provides annual salary adjustments for instructional personnel and school administrators based upon performance. 2014-15 – all teachers will receive an evaluation that includes student performance results from improved assessments in their content area(s)

SEA reviews/ approves evaluation systems. RTTT evaluation will evaluate and monitor results, transitioning to DOE after grant ends. Specific data elements/ criteria to be published summer 2012.


Teacher System Measures Ratings & Consequences Achievement Data Timeline Monitoring must retain employees at a school or in the school district based upon educational program needs and the performance evaluations of employees within the affected program areas. Employee with the lowest performance evaluations must be the first to be released (and so forth). District may not prioritize retention based upon seniority. Hired AFTER 7/1/11: Annual contract only if employee has not received 2 consecutive ratings of unsatisfactory, 2 annual performance evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory within a 3-year period, or 3 consecutive annual evaluation ratings of needs improvement or a combination of needs improvement and unsatisfactory. Districts may not assign a higher percentage than the school district average of temporarily certified teachers, teachers in need of improvement, or out-of-field teachers to schools in one of the 3 lowest-performing categories. (p. 153; PDF 154)

Note: A list of staffing requirements kicks in for priority/intervene schools (p. 106-7; PDF 107-8).


b. Principal Evaluation System

Principal System

Measures Ratings & Consequences

Achievement Data Timeline Monitoring

Annual evaluations

Student growth – 50% Measures of professional practice - Indicators based on each of the leadership standards adopted by State board of education

All principals – results used to inform professional development (p. 150; PDF 151) Florida law & RTTT require evaluation results to be used to inform personnel decisions “Must base a portion of each employee’s compensation upon performance.” (p. 151; PDF 152)

Student learning growth portion of the evaluation must include growth data for students assigned to the school over the course of at least 3 years. If less than 3 years of data are available, the years for which data are available must be used and the % of evaluation based on student learning growth can be reduced to 40%.

System redesign due to FDOE 5/2012 (p. 160; PDF 161)

SEA reviews/ approves evaluation systems. RTTT evaluation will evaluate and monitor results, transitioning to DOE after grant ends. Specific data elements/criteria to be published summer 2012.

V. OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST

a. 21st Century - Applied for 21st Century Waiver? Yes.

b. Expanded Learning Opportunity- “Florida strongly believes in extending the instructional day, week, and year as a strategy to increase student achievement. Florida provides Supplemental Academic Intervention (SAI) funds based on the number of students needing an extended school year program. Schools have access to School Improvement and Title I funds to extend the instructional time. School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds are provided to the lowest-performing 5% of schools in the state and each school is required to develop and have approved


a detailed improvement plan that must include the extension of the instruction day and common teacher planning time. All LEAs are required to offer summer reading camps for struggling 3rd grade readers who have scored below L3 on grade 3 FCAT reading. Priority/intervene schools must extend the learning day.” (p. 108; PDF 109)

Under focus/ correct schools, when a school receives a third consecutive “D” Florida requires implementation of a district-managed turnaround option that entails “Increased learning time of at least 300 hours of additional instructional time for all students. This criterion could be met with 60% of the increased learning time supporting all students (extended day and/or year) and 40% being supported through traditional targeted services including before school, after school, weekend, and summer academies. (p. 123-4; PDF 124-5)

c. Digital Learning- Not addressed.

d. AP/IB/Dual Enrollment – see Standards

e. Credit Recovery – Not addressed.

f. Dropout – LEA and school improvement plans must incorporate non-academic factors including: retention rates/acceleration programs;

discipline rates (in-school and out-of-school suspension rates by incident type); drop-out prevention; Problem Solving/Response to Intervention team member identification and meeting schedules; attendance rates; and implementation of positive behavior support system.

g. Educational Management Organizations – Rules for re-hiring teachers apply when the priority/intervene school is managed as a charter

school or by an outside educational entity. (p. 106; PDF 107)

“An LEA’s plan for Priority/Intervene schools must…. Provide ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization, such as a school turnaround organization or Education Management Organization (EMO). The plan must identify the partner(s) and provide the qualifications of each in providing support to low-performing schools.” (p. 107; PDF 108)

Intervene Option Plan – for schools exiting priority/intervene. “Currently, the options are closure, district-managed turnaround, charter, or an external management organization. In order to provide LEAs the flexibility to make sustained improvement, Florida is requesting the authority to offer LEAs the ability to implement a fifth option. This option may be a Hybrid Model of the other options (such as a district-operated charter school) or another option altogether as long an LEA demonstrates that the option is as, or more likely, to turn around the school in the same, or in less, time than the current four options.”

Approval of External Providers for School Turnaround (p. 138 ; PDF 139) “Differentiated Accountability regional teams, in collaboration with LEAs/schools, conduct rigorous program reviews prior to partnering with additional external providers. The process begins with the data analysis and review of existing programs and or processes. The Problem Solving/Response to Intervention process is instrumental in evaluating existing programs. The process involves reviewing the need,


implementation, and fidelity in which a program was used. If it is deemed that a new program is needed the regional teams work to ensure that new program(s) is/are research-based and that the LEA and school have a comprehensive plan for implementation, monitoring, and annual evaluation. The regional teams do not endorse programs nor are they involved in the identification of possible programs, but are instrumental in ensuring that programs being considered align with state initiatives and incorporate sound instructional pedagogy.”

“The state has clearly defined criteria that LEAs must use as they recruit external partnerships with either charter operators or management companies for school turnaround. Through the existing Intervene Option Plan timeline LEAs submit specific deliverables that detail the organizations they are engaging for possible contract. Through this process the LEA and partner submit evidence of successful turnaround in similar schools and a sample contract to ensure autonomy. The FDOE defines these partners as an outside entity that: • Operates a school or cluster of schools. • Has experience achieving results with high-poverty student populations and working in a school turnaround environment.

“In order to ensure that the partner is provided with the resources and flexibility to facilitate change the FDOE requires that each partner: • Sign a three- to five-year performance contract for student achievement with an LEA with an annual performance review based upon clearly defined learning goals. The LEA will hold the partner accountable as outlined in the approved contract. • Work with unionized teaching staff under modified contracts, be held accountable for student performance, operate under some but not all LEA procedures and regulations, and use some but not all LEA central office services. • Demonstrate scalability to ramp up capacity quickly, modify an existing school model to meet the needs of a turnaround environment, and open new operations in or expand existing operations. • Design a comprehensive school model including instructional programs and socioeconomic supports, and transform the existing culture to create a positive learning environment. • Execute a full community engagement plan. • Work collaboratively with LEA central office staff. • Education Management Organizations/Lead Partners not be exempt from existing statute(s). • Have the authority to hire a new principal/administrative team or approve the current one. • Support the principal in hiring and replacing teachers and have responsibility for bringing in a meaningful cohort of new instructional staff. • Provide core academic and student support services directly or by aligning the services of other program and support partners and build internal capacity with the schools. • To ensure success the group must clearly demonstrate that they have established an embedded, consistent, and intense relationship within each school. • Provides instructional and operational support directly to school. • Discuss progress and barriers with the principal on a regular basis. • Ensure that appropriate services are procured from LEA offices. • Manage key program functions:

o Human Capital o Curriculum and Instruction o Policy/legal


o Administration and finances o Community advocacy o Socio-emotional support service and partnerships o Data analysis and evaluation”

h. Charters – Rules for re-hiring teachers apply when the priority/intervene school is managed as a charter school or by an outside educational

entity. (p. 106)

“Florida’s interventions provide flexibility in scheduling, staffing, curriculum, and budget once the Priority/Intervene school is turned over to a charter entity. One of the key purposes of charter schools is to encourage the use of innovation. In order to allow for innovation and flexibility, charter schools are exempted in law from most of the statutes and rules that apply to other schools. Except for laws that address student assessment; school grading; the provision of services to students with disabilities; and health, safety, welfare, and civil rights, charter schools are not bound by the requirements the educational code (Section 1002.33(16), Florida Statutes). Therefore, not only is the principal given operational flexibility, the entire school is provided a wide degree of flexibility in order to affect systematic change. P. 107

Intervene Option Plan – for schools exiting priority/intevene. Currently, the options are closure, district-managed turnaround, charter, or an external management organization. In order to provide LEAs the flexibility to make sustained improvement, Florida is requesting the authority to offer LEAs the ability to implement a fifth option. This option may be a Hybrid Model of the other options (such as a district-operated charter school) or another option altogether as long an LEA demonstrates that the option is as, or more likely, to turn around the school in the same, or in less, time than the current four options.”

Leadership pipeline for school turnaround: “Recognizing the role that charter schools can play in operating a turnaround school, or opening a new school within the feeder pattern a chronically low-achieving school, a separate strand will be created to provide leadership training for 20-25 current or aspiring charter school leaders in the seven LEAs. The charter school strand will emphasize knowledge and behaviors that enable school leaders to promote successful teaching and learning, collaborative decision-making strategies, distributed leadership practices, a culture of collegiality in analysis and use of data and instructional technologies to guide school improvement activities. In addition, the strand will focus on the effective use of the flexibility and autonomy provided to charter schools. It is anticipated that this $1,500,000 contract will be awarded in December 2011 in order for the selection process and training to begin in January 2012.” (p. 130; PDF 131)

Teacher evaluation - FDOE also held a special technical assistance academy for charter schools who are participating in Race to the Top to assist their redesign teams in revising their evaluation systems.

“An LEA with a Priority/Intervene school is required to replace the principal, all assistant principals and coaches unless assigned to the school for less than one year where the school is a district-managed turnaround school. If the school is managed by an outside entity or as a charter school, the principal must have experience in turning around a low-performing school and the principal, assistant principals, and coaches from the Priority/Intervene school may not be hired at the school unless assigned to the school for less than one year and the school’s failure to improve cannot be attributed in whole or in part, to the individual.” (p. 105; PDF 106)


i. Early Childhood Education – Not addressed.

j. STEM – The teacher Subject Area tests in STEM and Common Core State Standards content have begun a timeline for revision p. 36

Focus schools receive direct technical assistance in a number of ways including: o Technical assistance provided by the regional Differentiated Accountability instructional coaching staff in the areas of Reading, Mathematics, Science, Data, Response to Intervention, Career and Technical Education (CTE) and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

At the state level, Race to the Top funds resulted in additions to the existing regional support teams. The Race to the Top funding provided for 40 reading coordinators, nine data coaches, five Career and Technical Education specialists, and 20 STEM specialists to better align the state’s initiatives and ensure project outcomes. (p.140; PDF 141)

k. Other of Note

No sample report card provided. Current school report cards are as follows:

2010-2011

A. L. MEBANE MIDDLE SCHOOL (221) ALACHUA (1) 16401 NW 140TH ST, ALACHUA, FL 32615-4422

School Phone: 386-462-1648, Principal: MANDA BESSNER

Subject State of Florida A+ Plan

verifySelctSchoo AYP

01

2010-2011

010221 School

CLRZ 2

Return to Report

Federal No Child Left Behind Act


B This grade is calculated by adding points

earned from each of the performance areas below.

79 % of criteria satisfied NO

This percent is based on a total of 39 criteria that every school must meet, if applicable.

Reading

• 60% of students reading at or above grade level

• 60% of students making a year's worth of progress in reading

• 70% of struggling students making a year's worth of progress in reading

WHITE, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED students in this school need improvement in Reading.

Math

• 61% of students at or above grade level in math

• 69% of students making a year's worth of progress in math

• 66% of struggling students making a year's worth of progress in math

WHITE, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED students in this school need improvement in Math.

SGdetail1

010221

2010-2011

2

010221

01

2010-2011

School

CLRZ

2

Return to Report

School Grade


Writing • 90% of students are meeting state standards in writing.

This school has met this criteria.

Science • 40% of students at or above grade level in Science.

Possible Choice Options

• Your child is not eligible for an opportunity scholarship for public school choice under the A+ Plan.

• A. L. MEBANE MIDDLE SCHOOL has not met federal adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind because it needs improvement in one or more areas. Because this is not a Title I school, your student is not eligible for school choice options under No Child Left Behind.

• Contact your district office at 352-955-7880 for other choice options available to you.

**Title I refers to the federal law that provides funding for low-income students. A school is eligible for Title I status when at least 35% (targeted assistance) or 40% (school wide) of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch based on their families' income levels.

School Efficiency Indicator relates money spent at the school-level with student performance at that school allowing users to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness compared to other schools.

No Return on Investment Data

page 2

State Law – Florida’s A+ Plan, School Grades: School Grades are based on how well students have mastered the Sunshine State Standards – the skills Florida teachers determined our children must learn at each grade level – which are measured by the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Student scores are classified into five achievement levels, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. Schools earn points based on three things: how well students are doing, how much progress they are making (learning gains), and how much progress struggling students are making in reading and mathematics.

Federal Law – No Child Left Behind Act: requires each subgroup (all ethnic groups, students with

http://roi.fldoe.org/


disabilities, students learning English, and economically disadvantaged students) in schools, districts, and the state as a whole to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in reading, mathematics, writing, and graduation rate. Schools that do not make enough progress for two years in a row are in need of improvement, and must provide alternatives to parents – such as transferring to another school or participating in a different program within the school. Schools that need improvement two years in a row (do not make AYP for 3 consecutive years) must provide tutoring.

Staying informed as a parent: For additional information on school grades, adequate yearly progress, and school choice options, please visit the Department of Education’s website at www.fldoe.org or call 1-800-447-1636.

Information on all schools – including which groups of students need to make more progress under federal guidelines – is also available at www.schoolresults.org.

Some questions and resources for parents: Is your child being challenged at his or her school? Has your child’s school given and explained your child’s grades and test results? Have you asked your child’s teacher if your child is on grade level in math and reading? Have you asked for a specific list of skills your child needs to learn?

Information on the Sunshine State Standards is available at www.fldoe.org.

Have you talked with your child’s teacher about his or her progress? Have you asked specific questions about your child’s reading ability and needs? How can you help your child become a better reader?

Helpful information is available at www.justreadflorida.com or www.justreadfamilies.org.

Is your child on track for graduation? Is your child on track for being prepared for college? If not, what needs to be done?

Speak to his/her guidance counselor and register on-line to track his/her progress at www.facts.org.

http://www.fldoe.org/

http://www.fldoe.org/

http://www.justreadflorida.com/

http://www.justreadfamilies.org/

http://www.facts.org/

Overview of Florida ESEA Waiver as Approved by the U.S ... · 21st CCLC 21st Century Community...

Documents

Transcript of Overview of Florida ESEA Waiver as Approved by the U.S ... · 21st CCLC 21st Century Community...