California state board of education




старонка1/5
Дата канвертавання19.04.2016
Памер211.87 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5


California Department of Education

Executive Office

SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011)

dsib-amard-jan16item02



ITEM #02





CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
JANUARY 2016 AGENDA

SUBJECT

Developing a New Accountability System: Update on the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics, including, but not limited to, a discussion on standards and expectations for improvement as specified in California Education Code Section 52064.5 and Implications for State and Federal Accountability.





Action



Information



Public Hearing



SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)
California’s new accountability system will build on the foundations of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) consisting of the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), Annual Update, evaluation rubrics, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) support structure. On June 24, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 104 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015), extending the deadline for adoption of the evaluation rubrics to October 1, 2016.
The recent enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), gives states greater discretion to implement academic content standards, administer statewide and local assessments, and set ambitious performance goals to direct evidence-based improvement strategies and interventions to improve student performance.
This item is the sixth in a series of regular updates on California’s progress on transitioning to a new accountability system that coherently supports the goals of multiple measures and continuous improvement as defined by the LCFF. To ensure that the new accountability system and the components of the state and federal accountability requirements are cohesive and well aligned, the State Board of Education (SBE) will need to phase in policy changes as the federal requirements are finalized.
The focus of this item is to review the accountability components of ESSA in relation to California’s emerging work supporting accountability system coherence. The item includes an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics using graduation rate as an example of standards, and a discussion of this approach in the context of aligning the ESSA with the LCFF.


RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the SBE take action as deemed necessary and appropriate but recommends no specific action at this time.
BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES
California’s path to developing a new statewide accountability system originates from the statutory enactment by the Legislature to establish the LCFF signed by the Governor in 2013. The state priorities embedded throughout LCFF provide the foundation for accountability by defining what the state seeks to accomplish for its students and measures the progress of local educational agencies (LEAs) relative to these priorities (Attachment 1). Consisting of the LCAP, Annual Update, evaluation rubrics, and CCEE support systems, the LCFF enhances the allocation of resources by integrating LEA budgets with locally approved goals, services, and actions for LEAs to improve student outcomes.
Recent efforts to align the existing state academic and fiscal accountability components with the LCFF culminated in a draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system. The draft framework and implementation plan was presented to the SBE (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/nov15item11.doc). As California continues on its path to developing the new accountability system, the enactment of the ESSA introduces an opportunity to integrate federal and state accountability components, including the LCFF, to develop one coherent and unified accountability system. The new accountability system will be designed to strengthen teaching and learning, improve the individual capacity of teachers and school leaders, and increase institutional capacity for continuous improvement for schools, districts, and state agencies.
The SBE envisions a new integrated and comprehensive accountability system that supports continuous improvement. As California transitions to this new system, the following questions should be considered:


  • What are the primary goals and purposes of the new accountability system?




  • How can California best create one integrated state and federal accountability system?




  • What specific technical issues will need to be addressed in aligning the federal accountability requirements with the state accountability system?




  • How will data from multiple measures and indicators reflecting the state priorities be used to differentiate the needs of schools and districts needing technical assistance? Will the accountability system use differentiation to acknowledge continuous improvement and systems of local and state support?




  • How will the accountability system provide both status and growth information for all indicators, in addition to growth on summative assessments (e.g., Smarter Balanced assessments)? How will information on how well schools and districts are performing and making satisfactory progress be determined?




  • What is the necessary timeframe to create a single accountability system? How will the development of the ESSA requirements (e.g., State Plan) fit together with the implementation of the LCFF (e.g., completion of the evaluation rubrics)?

Attachment 1 presents a comparison of the ESSA and LCFF on select accountability components. As the components of the ESSA evolve through the regulatory and public comment process, the California Department of Education (CDE) and SBE staff will continue to report out to the SBE on the implications of these federal requirements on developing one coherent accountability system.


The ESSA and LCFF comparison provides the context for the update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics. Attachment 2 introduces the development of quality standards and expectations for improvement using graduation rate as an example. The four-year cohort graduation rate is included in both the ESSA and LCFF requirements and serves as a relevant example to clarify the technical issues and additional analyses that are necessary to align ESSA with the state’s accountability system to support continuous improvement.
Attachment 3 provides an updated timeline to reflect the additional time that will be necessary to align the federal system with the state’s accountability system. Prior to the enactment of the ESSA, the SBE was on track to adopt the evaluation rubrics in July 2016. The timeline now reflects a revised plan to utilize the entire amount of time authorized in statute (California Education Code (EC) Section 52064.5) to adopt the rubrics by October 1, 2016. In addition, the timeline reflects the process to revise the draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system that includes the development of the ESSA State Plan. This attachment also provides updated information on communication and outreach strategies to support the new accountability system, in addition to specific resources to support the LCAP.
Finally, Attachment 4 contains EC sections referencing the LCFF.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
In November 2015, the SBE received a draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system and an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that included an overview of the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) pilot (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/nov15item11.doc). The UAT is designed for select LEAs to provide input on local data management practices, design options for data displays, and analyses.
In September 2015, the SBE received an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that included a conceptual approach for organizing the indicators and metrics identified in statute for each of the state priorities for inclusion in the development of the rubrics (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14.doc). Using graduation content as the example, the SBE reviewed a process for defining standards and expectations for improvement using an approach similar to the evidence-based approach used in Alberta, Canada.
In August 2015, the SBE received an Information Memorandum on the review of existing state academic and fiscal accountability components relative to the LCFF state priorities (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug15item01.doc).
In July 2015, the SBE received an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that included a discussion on the policy framework to develop the evaluation rubrics based on the following: (1) align with state priorities and values related to certain learning conditions (i.e., Williams settlement legislation), graduation, and college and career readiness; (2) incorporate into the evaluation rubrics descriptions of practices for each of the state priorities grounded in research and best practices; and (3) conduct further research to identify relationships and correlations among metrics that will be included in the evaluation rubrics. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/jul15item01.doc).
In June 2015, the SBE received the following Information Memoranda: (1) research to inform the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-jun15item01.doc); and (2) review of measures being used by other states for college and career readiness (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-jun15item01.doc).
FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE)
LCFF: When the LCFF was adopted in the 2013–14 budget year, the budget projections for 2015–16 were approximately $47 billion. With rising state revenues, the 2015–16 state budget signed by the Governor allocates $53 billion this year. This provides an increase of $6 billion to support the continued implementation of LCFF and build upon the investment of over $6 billion provided over the last two years. As a result of this increase, the 2015–16 Budget Act provides an opportunity to correct historical inequities and implement the formula well ahead of schedule. Specifically, this investment translates to approximately $3,000 more per student in 2015–16 over the 2011–12 levels and closes more than 51 percent of the remaining LCFF funding target. Additionally, $40 million will be provided to county offices of education (COEs) to support their new responsibilities required under the evolving accountability structure of the LCFF and develop greater capacity and consistency within and between COEs.
ESSA: While it is still too early in the process to determine how all of the funding mechanisms will work for California, some of the significant changes include the following:

Title I Formula


  • To date, it is projected that overall authorizations for Title I, Part A will increase by 12.3 percent over the next four years. The fiscal year 2015 appropriation is approximately $15 billion to support school improvement and direct student services activities.




  • The 1 percent cap to support state administrative support remains, while the School Improvement Grant has been eliminated and the current law of 4 percent set-aside of Title I, Part A for states to support school improvement activities is increased to 7 percent.




  • States may also reserve 3 percent of Title I, Part A to support direct services.




  • States can set aside 20 percent of budget for state and local assessments from Title I, Part B.




  • Over time, more funding will be allocated to states with a higher proportion of migrant student population from Title I, Part C.


Weighted Student Funding Pilot


  • This is a pilot program that will include up to 50 districts nationally to consolidate some of their federal funds with state and local dollars to establish a weighted student funding formula. The federal funds for this pilot include Title I, II, and III, in addition to portions of Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants) and Part B of Title V (Rural Education Initiative).



ATTACHMENT(S)

Attachment 1: Comparison of Select Accountability Components from the Every Student

Succeeds Act and the Local Control Funding Formula (8 Pages)
Attachment 2: Introduction to the Quality Standards for Graduation Rate and Preliminary Summary of the User Acceptance Testing Pilot (6 Pages)
Attachment 3: Timeline for the Proposed Transition to a New Accountability System,

Including Communication, Resources, and Outreach (4 Pages)


Attachment 4: California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5, 52072, 52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052 (15 Pages)

Comparison of Select Accountability Components from the Every Student Succeeds Act

and the Local Control Funding Formula
The recent enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) introduces significant changes in federal accountability by allowing States to develop and implement accountability systems that meet minimum federal requirements and augment a State approach to technical assistance and intervention that will support continuous improvement. California is currently developing a statewide accountability system using a conceptual framework that is similar in many respects to the requirements proposed by ESSA. Many of the components of the developing state accountability system, such as the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) evaluation rubrics, will be the central drivers in California’s development of one coherent and comprehensive system that incorporates the federal accountability requirements. The table below describes select ESSA components on accountability in relation to the LCFF requirements. Given the enhanced discretion in ESSA for states to define accountability systems that meet minimum federal requirements, this comparison provides a preliminary review of ESSA to frame the discussion on aligning the federal requirements with California’s developing accountability system.


Timeline

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

The ESSA accountability system and related interventions will take effect in 2017–18.


The State Board of Education (SBE) must adopt the LCFF evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2016.


The ESSA State Plan will go into effect August 2017. Attachment 3 presents the timeline to support the planning and engagement strategies that will be used to develop the ESSA State Plan. Based on this timeline, the California Department of Education (CDE) will present the draft ESSA State Plan to the SBE no later than November 2016.





Number of Indicators

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

Elementary and Middle Schools

Academic Achievement

  • English language arts and mathematics in grades 3 through 8, inclusive

  • Science in grades 4 and 8

English Proficiency

  • Progress of English learners (ELs) in achieving English proficiency

Another Academic Indicator

  • Other academic factor that can be broken out by subgroup (this could include growth on assessments)

At Least One Other Indicator

  • Additional indicator (e.g., student engagement and school climate/safety)

LCFF State Priorities for School Districts, Charter Schools, and County Offices of Education1

Basic: degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned pursuant to Education Code (EC) Section 44258.9, and fully credentialed in the subject areas and for the pupils they are teaching; pupils have access to standards-aligned instructional materials pursuant to EC Section 60119; and school facilities are maintained in good repair pursuant to EC Section 17002(d). (Priority 1)

Implementation of State Standards: implementation of academic content and performance standards and English language development standards adopted by the state board for all pupils, including English learners ELs. (Priority 2)

Parental involvement: efforts to seek parent input in decision making at the district and each school site, promotion of parent participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and special need subgroups. (Priority 3)

Pupil achievement: performance on standardized tests, score on the Academic Performance Index (API), share of pupils that are college and career ready, share of ELs that become English proficient, EL reclassification rate, share of pupils that pass Advanced Placement exams with 3 or higher, share of pupils determined prepared for college by the Early Assessment Program. (Priority 4)



  • Consistent with California’s accountability system, ESSA proposes multiple measures to assess more than just performance on standardized tests.

  • Measures of growth to reflect continuous improvement are also consistent between ESSA and LCFF.

  • What has yet to be determined is the methodology for weighting certain indicators more than others, and whether these weights must aggregate into one index or composite score.

  • The State must determine the selection of the additional academic achievement indicator for elementary and middle schools. Growth scores on assessments is one example.

Number of Indicators

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

High Schools

Academic Achievement

  • English language arts and mathematics assessed one time in grades 9 through 12

  • Science in grade 11

English Proficiency

  • Progress in achieving English proficiency

Another Academic Indicator

  • 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (states can add extended rate)

At Least One Other Indicator

  • Additional indicator (e.g., opportunity to learn and readiness for post-secondary)

Participation rate of 95% on state tests is a standalone measure



LCFF State Priorities for School Districts, Charter Schools, and County Offices of Education

Pupil engagement: school attendance rates, chronic absenteeism rates, middle school dropout rates, high school dropout rates, high school graduation rates. (Priority 5)

School climate: pupil suspension rates, pupil expulsion rates, other local measures including surveys of pupils, parents and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness. (Priority 6)

Course access: pupil enrollment in a broad course of study that includes all of the subject areas described in EC Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable. (Priority 7)2

Other pupil outcomes: pupil outcomes in the subject areas described in EC Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of EC Section 51220, as applicable. (Priority 8)

Expelled pupils (for county offices of education only): coordination of instruction of expelled pupils pursuant to EC Section 48926. (Priority 9)

Foster youth (for county offices of education only): coordination of services, including working with the county child welfare agency to share information, responding to the needs of the juvenile court system, and ensuring transfer of health and education records. (Priority 10)



  • Under ESSA, the State must also determine at least one other indicator for elementary, middle, and high school.

  • Under LCFF, LEAs may select local indicators in addition to the State priority indicators/metrics.

  • What criteria should be used to make the final selection of metrics for the purpose of identifying highest need schools? For example, among the LCFF metrics, using state defined and state collected metrics is preferred when using these data for comparative purposes.




Identification for Technical Assistance and Intervention

ESSA

LCFF

Comments


Identification of Lowest Performing LEAs for Intervention


  • Must “meaningfully differentiate” all schools and subgroups in state; more “substantial” weight on academic indicators

  • Must establish methodology for identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement that are at least- the lowest-performing 5 percent (of Title I schools) and all high schools graduating less than 2/3 of students

  • Identification of students must start in 2017–18 and occur at least once every three years


Identification for Technical Assistance


  • For school districts, EC Section 52071 specifies that if an LCAP or Annual Update is not approved by the county superintendent of schools or if a local governing body requests assistance, then the county superintendent of schools shall provide technical assistance. Using the evaluation rubrics, the county superintendent shall provide technical assistance to any district that “fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority…for one or more pupil subgroup identified pursuant to Section 52052.”

  • For county offices of education, EC Section 52071.5 specifies that if an LCAP or Annual Update is not approved by the SPI, or the county board of education requests assistance, the SPI shall provide technical assistance. Using the evaluation rubrics, the SPI shall provide technical assistance to any county office that “fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority…for one or more pupil subgroup identified pursuant to Section 52052.”

  • For charter schools, EC Section 47607.3 specifies that the chartering authority shall provide technical assistance, using the evaluation rubrics, to the charter school if the charter school “fails to improve outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052, or, if the charter school has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the charter school’s pupil subgroups, in regard to one or more state or school priority identified in the charter pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605 or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605.6, in three out of four consecutive school years.”




  • Once the indicators have been determined, the state must define the methodology to assign more weight to the academic factors when using performance on the indictors to differentiate LEAs.




  • How will the state assign weights within a multiple measures system for identification without creating a composite or single index score?




Identification for Technical Assistance and Intervention

ESSA

LCFF

Comments





Identification for Intervention
EC Section 52072 specifies that the SPI may, with the approval of the SBE, identify school districts in need of intervention if a district meets both of the following criteria:
(1) The school district “did not improve the outcomes” for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to EC Section 52052 or, if the school district has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the school district’s pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years.
(2) The CCEE has provided advice and assistance to the school district pursuant to EC Section 52071 and submits either of the following findings to the SPI:
(A) That the school district has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the CCEE.
(B) That the inadequate performance of the school district, based upon the evaluation rubrics, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the SPI.
(A parallel set of conditions is set forth in EC Section 52072.5 for county offices of education and similar conditions in EC Section 47607.3 for charter schools that also include possible revocation of a charter school)




  • Beyond the identification and weighting of indicators to identify the needs for intervention, what are the state and local goals from which to evaluate performance to determine the needs for technical assistance?




  • Should the new accountability system also include identification to support continuous improvement, such as acknowledgement for improvements (e.g., California Distinguished Schools) and providing service and support (e.g., serving as an exemplary peer provider through the CCEE)?

Technical Assistance and Intervention

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

Intervention- Comprehensive Support and Improvement

States must annually notify LEAs of schools that are identified for comprehensive support; LEAs must develop and implement a comprehensive and support improvement plan that:



  • Is informed by all indicators in the statewide accountability system, including student performance against state goals

  • Includes evidence-based interventions

  • Is based on a school-level needs assessment

  • Identifies resource inequities to be addressed

  • State must approve plan and monitor intervention


Technical Assistance

EC sections 52071 and 52071.5 specifies that the technical assistance may include, among other things, any of the following:

  • Identification of LEA strengths and weaknesses in regard to the applicable state priorities, including a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the LEA’s goals;

  • Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts to assist the LEA in identifying and implementing effective programs designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified in EC Section 52052;

  • Solicitation of another LEA to act as a partner to the LEA in need of technical assistance; and

  • Request that the SPI assign the CCEE to provide advice and assistance to the LEA (or in the case of the SPI, assign the CCEE to advise and assist the COE).

Intervention

EC sections 52072 and 52072.5 specifies that school districts and county offices of education identified as needing intervention, the SPI may, with the approval of the SBE, do one or more of the following:

  • Make changes to an LCAP adopted by the governing board of the school district.

  • Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the LCAP, that the SPI determines would allow the school district to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to EC Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities.



  • ESSA primarily focuses on schools while LCFF is LEA-directed.

  • The LCFF designs a multi-tiered system of support that includes the COE, the CCEE, and the SPI/CDE.




  • What is the role of the state systems of support in ESSA?




  • What are the similarities and differences between the ESSA comprehensive support and improvement plan and the LCAP?

Technical Assistance and Intervention

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

Intervention-Targeted Support and Improvement

State must notify LEAs of schools where any subgroup is persistently underperforming for targeted support; schools must develop a targeted support and improvement plan that:



  • Includes all indicators in the statewide accountability system, including student performance against state goals

  • Includes evidence-based interventions

  • Is approved and monitored by the LEA

  • Will result in additional action if unsuccessful after an LEA-determined number of years

  • Identify resource inequities for subgroups




Intervention

  • Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the school district from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to EC Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities.

  • Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf.






  • What is the relationship between the school level plans, the ESSA Targeted Support and Improvement Plan and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA)?

  • What is the role of the state in the Targeted Support and Improvement Plan?

Numerically Significant Subgroups

ESSA

LCFF

Comments

Definition of Student Group

Includes minimum number of students for disaggregation of students by subgroup (e.g., n–size or sample size) that is universal and statistically sound



ESSA State Plan must include achievement data disaggregated by subgroup that includes the following:

  • Each major racial and ethnic group

  • Economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged

  • Children with disabilities as compared to children without disabilities

  • English proficiency status

  • Gender

  • Migrant Status

Definition of Student Groups

EC Section 52052 specifies…numerically significant pupil subgroups at the school or school district, including:

  • Ethnic subgroups.

  • Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils.

  • English learners.

  • Pupils with disabilities.

  • Foster youth.

  • Homeless youth.

  • For purposes of this section, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that consists of at least 30 pupils, each of whom has a valid test score.

  • …for a subgroup of pupils who are foster youth or homeless youth, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that consists of at least 15 pupils.

Note: “n” is defined as the sample size. For example, the “n-size” of 30 designates that a subgroup sample with 30 or more students may be included in the analysis that disaggregates data by subgroup.



  • Does the state want to report out a consistent “n-size” for all student groups? ESSA recommends the minimum number of students by subgroup is universal across all groups, LCFF requires an n-size of 30 for all subgroups except foster and homeless youth can be reported with a minimum number of 15.

  • Will the accountability system include consistent reporting of subgroups for all accountability components (e.g., not just achievement data)?

  • In what ways will the accountability system measure performance, equity, and improvement for all student groups?

  • Will there be a universal definition for proficiency in English for ELs that will meet the federal and state accountability requirements?

12-30-15 [State Board of Education and California Department of Education]

Introduction to the Quality Standards for Graduation Rate and Preliminary Summary of the User Acceptance Testing Pilot
The evaluation rubrics are an integral part of the new accountability system. Once developed, the rubrics will direct attention to areas in need of additional support to meet the adopted standards for district and school performance relative to the state priorities. Specifically, the evaluation rubrics will: (1) assist local educational agencies (LEAs) in evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement; (2) assist county superintendents of schools in identifying LEAs in need of technical assistance and providing resources for technical assistance; and (3) assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) in identifying LEAs for which technical support and/or intervention is warranted. The State Board of Education (SBE) must adopt the evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2016.
In September, the SBE reviewed a sample structure for the rubrics that organized the indicators and metrics into three policy areas: (1) Access and Opportunity, (2) Graduation, and (3) College and Career Readiness. The SBE also discussed an approach for defining standards and expectations for improvement through two types of standards within the evaluation rubrics: (1) Practice Standards, defined as qualitative narrative statements that convey research supported practices, and (2) Quality Standards, defined as measurement-based data displays that demonstrate local progress on the state priorities. These standards align to the SBE’s evaluation rubrics policy areas and provide specific reference to practices and measurements against which an LEA may assess strengths, areas in need of improvement, and local performance.
To review the organizing structure of the evaluation rubrics from the LEA perspective, the SBE recommended that a statewide sample pilot review select components of the LCFF evaluation rubrics to help inform its development. The User Acceptance Testing (UAT) pilot consisted of over 30 LEAs (county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools). The UAT affords LEAs with an opportunity to provide input in three different phases that review the content and structure, standards and design, and online prototype of the evaluation rubrics system. The pilot LEAs provided information on the proposed content and structure using the Graduation policy area as an example in Phase I of the pilot. LEAs reviewed the example to determine its relevance, usefulness, and applicability to support local planning and evaluation of performance relative to the LCFF state priorities. The pilot also included a draft structure map of the evaluation rubrics that defined the key and associated indicators and a complete draft of the practice standards that cover each of the state priority areas.
Defining and Approaching Quality Standards

The sample structure for the quality standards references an approach used by Alberta, Canada (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14a3rev.doc). This sample was presented to the SBE and reviewed by the UAT Phase I pilot as an option to support a continuous improvement framework within an accountability system. Beyond the focus on outcomes, this system includes a measure of improvement that allows for growth to be considered as part of the overall performance.


The Alberta system supports the analysis of Improvement that reflects the percentage change (e.g., growth or decline) in LEA performance. Improvement is classified in one of five ways – Improved Significantly, Improved, Maintained, Declined, and Declined Significantly. The Alberta system also supports the analysis of Outcome that reflects LEA performance relative to the statewide distribution. The Outcome five-point classification includes – Very High, High, Intermediate, Low, and Very Low. The system then combines Improvement and Outcome to create an overall rating. This overall rating or Composite classification includes – Excellent, Good, Emerging, Issue, and Concern that can serve to identify where technical assistance or intervention may be warranted.
The table below presents an overview of the Improvement and Outcome Classifications and how these can be combined to create the overall rating or Composite Classifications. For example, an LEA that scores Maintained on Improvement and Low on Outcome would yield Issue, designated by the color orange, on the overall rating. This designation could then be used to determine the need for technical assistance.


Improvement

Outcome

Very High

High

Intermediate

Low

Very Low

Improved Significantly

Excellent

Good

Good

Good

Emerging

Improved

Excellent

Good

Good

Emerging

Issue

Maintained

Excellent

Good

Emerging

Issue

Concern

Declined

Good

Emerging

Issue

Issue

Concern

Declined Significantly

Emerging

Issue

Issue

Concern

Concern


Overview of UAT Phase II
The recent enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) presents an opportunity to align the new federal requirements with local and state accountability and improvement. The broadening of indicators in the ESSA used for accountability is consistent with the concept and approach under development for the evaluation rubrics. The evaluation rubrics development process continues, and will be coordinated with the development of new approaches to local, state, and federal accountability.
Given the references to graduation rate in both the LCFF state priorities and ESSA, the Phase II UAT expanded upon the graduation rate example provided in Phase I. Specifically, this example provided the calculation of Improvement and Outcome using statewide data based on the methodology that is used by Alberta, Canada. LEAs received a packet of materials that are located on the WestEd LCFF Web site (http://lcff.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/EvalRubricsUAT_PhaseIIReviewerGuidance.pdf).

Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with each UAT LEA participant to collect responses to the following questions:




  • Does the color-based classification approach support local accountability? Continuous improvement? Please explain.




  • What aspect(s) of the rationale/analysis used to determine the quality standard is most compelling?




  • Based on what you know about ESSA, should local, state, and federal standards used for accountability be the same or different? In other words, should the quality standards for the evaluation rubrics be the same as federal accountability standard? Please explain.




  • What additional advice or questions do you have at this time?

Excerpts from the UAT Phase II packet are presented below to display the graduation rate example that is based on the Alberta accountability system. The example begins with the basis for collecting and reporting the graduation rate followed by an analysis and proposed recommendations for establishing a quality standard for graduation rate.


Example Analysis of Graduation Rate to Inform Quality Standard
Background: In order to graduate from California public high schools, students must complete specified state and local graduation requirements. Local school districts have the authority and responsibility for establishing high school graduation requirements. These requirements vary among school districts. However, California Education Code (EC) Section 51225.3 specifies that students must pass a minimum set of required courses and an exit examination3. These requirements should be viewed as minimums and support for the regulations are specified by local school boards.4

Since 2009–10, the CDE has reported four-year cohort graduate rates, which identify a "cohort" or group of students that could potentially graduate during a four-year time period (grade nine through grade twelve). This cohort is then "adjusted" by adding students who transfer in to the cohort and subtracting the students who transferred to another school that offers a high school diploma, emigrated to another county, or died during the years covered by the cohort rate. Students who drop out during the four-year period remain in the adjusted cohort, as well as students who complete grade 12 and exit the educational system without graduating. Students who take longer than four years to graduate or remain enrolled after four years are also included as part of the cohort.


Students from the cohort who: (1) pass the General Education Development (GED) test, (2) complete requirements necessary to obtain a special education certificate of completion, or (3) remain enrolled in the 9–12 instructional system without a high school diploma are included in the total cohort population (denominator), but they are not included as graduates or dropouts in the cohort outcome calculations in either the cohort graduation or cohort dropout rates. However, these groups of students receive separate completer rates (GED Completer Rate, Special Education Completer Rate, and Still Enrolled Completer Rate). Thus, the cohort graduation rate and the cohort dropout rate will not sum to 100 percent when one or more of these other completer rates exist within the cohort.5
Analysis: Graduation rates are a commonly collected metric with most states using comparable definitions. California has shown a steady increase in graduation rates over time, yet gaps between student groups persist. The table below shows California’s

4­­­­-­year cohort graduation rate from 2009–10 through 2013–14.







2009–10

2010–11

2011–12

2012–13

2013–14

All Students

74.7%

77.1%

78.9%

80.4%

81.0%

Hispanic

68.1%

71.4%

73.7%

75.7%

76.6%

American Indian

67.3%

68.5%

72.4%

72.8%

70.6%

Asian

89.0%

90.3%

91.1%

91.6%

92.4%

Pacific Islander

72.3%

74.9%

77.0%

78.4%

80.4%

Filipino

87.4%

89.9%

90.8%

91.6%

92.2%

African American

60.5%

62.8%

66.0%

68.1%

68.2%

White

83.5%

85.7%

86.6%

87.7%

87.6%

Low Income

68.0%

71.1%

73.0%

74.8%

75.6%

English Learner

56.4%

61.5%

62.0%

63.1%

65.4%

Foster Youth

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Students with Disabilities

56.7%

59.5%

61.1%

61.9%

62.3%

In order to demonstrate the classification system that is consistent with the Alberta accountability methodology, statewide data were analyzed to calculate Outcome and Improvement. Outcome was derived from the three-year average of the cohort graduation rate while Improvement was calculated by measuring the three-year percentile change in cohort graduation rate (e.g., percent growth or decline).


Based on the three-year averages of Outcome and three-year Improvement calculations, the table below shows the statewide distribution of results by decile.6 This provides a measure of relative standing for each LEA performance on Outcome and Improvement relative to the statewide distribution.


Percentile

Outcome –

3-Year Average

Improvement –

3-Year Percentile Change

90th

96.1%

6.5%

80th

94.3%

3.9%

70th

92.3%

2.3%

60th

90.7%

1.4%

50th

88.8%

0.7%

40th

86.4%

-0.2%

30th

83.3%

-1.2%

20th

78.7%

-2.8%

10th

44.8% and below

-6.2%


Recommended Evaluation Rubrics Standard: California’s current federal accountability standard/target for graduation rate is 90 percent. Based on the analyses presented above, the 60th percentile corresponds to the 90 percent graduation rate for Outcome. The percent change at the 60th percentile is 1.4 percent growth for Improvement. Therefore, the current policy of a 90 percent graduation rate could be adjusted to correspond to the 60th percentile as the quality standard. Achieving at the 60th percentile or greater for Outcome and Improvement is then classified as “Very High and High.” Based on current data, approximately 40 percent of LEAs would meet or exceed this standard.


Outcome

Very Low

Low

Intermediate

High

Very High

78.6% or below

78.7 to 83.2%

83.3 to 90.6%

90.7 to 96.0%

96.1% or above

Improvement

Declined Significantly

Declined

Maintained

Improved

Improved Significantly

-2.9% or below

-1.3 to
-2.8%%

-1.2% to 1.3%

1.4% to 6.4

6.5% or above


Preliminary Summary and Next Steps
To solicit input from LEAs on the process to align the ESSA with the LCFF, the UAT participants responded to the following:


  • Based on what you know about ESSA, should local, state, and federal standards used for accountability be the same or different? In other words, should the quality standards for the evaluation rubrics be the same as federal accountability standard? Please explain.

A preliminary review of the responses reveals that users were generally in favor of aligning the federal accountability requirements with the state accountability requirements to create one coherent statewide accountability system. Although, given what is known at this time, the respondents clarified that the system must include multiple measures and local measures to generate meaningful results. Users also reported that one coherent system that does not require the duplication of submission of information and separate generation of reports for multiple accountability reports should be a goal for the new statewide accountability system.


Overall, the LEAs were pleased to see the ESEA reauthorized and viewed this as an opportunity to “get it right” this time. Therefore, the UAT participants support the proposal to add another phase to the pilot testing of the rubrics in order to have more time to review the research on all of the indicators and metrics to make a final selection for the “other” indicators as required by the ESSA. Further information and discussion on the specific alignment of standards and the role of growth in the context of a continuous improvement accountability system is necessary to ensure the final selection of indicators is relevant for the rubrics and state accountability system.
To establish the context for moving forward with aligning the federal and state accountability systems, a comprehensive summary of the UAT responses from Phase I and II will be shared with the UAT participants. A final summary of these responses will be posted on the WestEd LCFF Web site. The summary of responses will be also presented at future SBE meetings to help frame the conversation and direction of developing the evaluation rubrics system. Given the revised timeline to adopt the LCFF evaluation rubrics (Attachment 3), the UAT pilot process will be revised from the initial schedule of three phases to include a Phase IV. This will allow for an additional phase to present further options for growth and outcome on all of the proposed indicators and metrics for the ESSA and LCFF to support a coherent statewide accountability system.

12-30-15 [State Board of Education]


Timeline for the Proposed Transition to a New Accountability System,

Including Communication, Resources, and Outreach
The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), along with the Annual Update, the evaluation rubrics, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) support structure all function as components of the new accountability system. The California Department of Education (CDE) is developing more resources to support districts with the implementation of the funding formula that are available on the CDE Web site. These include questions and answers to commonly asked questions, an electronic template, funding snapshots, and the CDE LCAP Support Team. Below is additional information about best practices, including examples of executive summaries that succinctly describe local goals and planned actions to improve student outcomes.
In November, the State Board of Education (SBE) reviewed a draft implementation plan and requested the CDE provide a detailed work plan to outline the next steps to implement specific action items to transition to the new accountability system. Given the passage in December 2015 of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the CDE will develop a draft work plan to integrate the required components for the federal accountability system. The timeline below will be revised to reflect the additional time that is necessary to integrate the federal accountability requirements with the draft framework and work plan for the new accountability system as the components of ESSA evolve through the regulatory process.
Timeline for the Proposed Transition to the New Accountability System

SBE Meeting

Proposed Transition to

ESSA Requirements

Development of LCFF

Evaluation Rubrics

January 2016

Solicit applications for the Title I Committee of Practitioners (COP).
Anticipate U.S. Department of Education (ED) providing guidance with intent to publish rules and regulations within six months.
Public hearing on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) on January 11, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.(EST) and January 19, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (PT).



Present example of quality standards and expectations for improvement using graduation rate as the example (Attachment 2).

SBE Meeting

Proposed Transition to

ESSA Requirements

Development of LCFF

Evaluation Rubrics

March 2016

The State Board of Education Screening Committee recommendations for appointments to the Title I COP.

Present the SBE with final design features of the evaluation rubrics based on User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and feedback.


May 2016

California Department of Education (CDE) solicits input from stakeholders.

Present the SBE with update on use and evaluation of the rubrics prototype.

July 2016

CDE drafts ESSA State Plan to conform to rules and regulations.
CDE solicits input from stakeholders.
Proposed concepts for integrating federal requirements with state accountability.

Finalize evaluation rubrics based on guidance from the SBE, feedback from local educational agencies (LEAs), county offices of education (COEs) and as appropriate input from stakeholders.

September 2016

CDE revises early draft of ESSA State Plan based on stakeholder input.

Final Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Evaluation Rubrics for SBE Adoption.

November 2016

Draft ESSA State Plan for SBE Review.




January 2017

CDE revises ESSA State Plan based on stakeholder feedback and submits to SBE for approval at January meeting.
CDE then submits approved ESSA State Plan to ED; ED has up to 120 days to review ESSA State Plan.




June 2017 (or earlier)

Accepted ESSA State Plan is published.




July 2017

New Accountability System begins August 2017.






Communication and Outreach
A summary of the communication and outreach sessions that have been completed since the November 2015 SBE meeting are presented below. The new accountability system will support continuous learning and improvement, equity, and transparency and will be grounded in state and local partnerships to sustain its implementation.


  • Policy Stakeholder Session – On December 18th 2015, WestEd convened representatives from statewide and community-based organizations to review the draft quality standards for the proposed key indicators in the draft evaluation rubrics. The mock-ups shared with the group were the same sections reviewed and tested through the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Phase II pilot process. The input provided will be used to help inform the development of the standards and display options of the evaluation rubrics.



  • User Acceptance Testing (UAT) – representatives from over 30 LEAs participated in the UAT Phase I. These LEAs provided input on draft practice and quality standard content for the Graduation section of the evaluation rubrics (http://lcff.wested.org/local-control-funding-formula-evaluation-rubrics-examples-october-2015/). Participants provided information on local data management practices, design options for data displays and analyses that are user friendly, helpful for local reflective processes, and to determine if technical assistance is necessary. LEAs responded to structured interview questions to help clarify the connection points to the workflow process through their anticipated use of the rubrics (http://lcff.wested.org/evaluation-rubrics-phase-i-user-acceptance-testing-reflection-questions/). Specifically, participants explained the potential interaction between the evaluation rubrics and the planning and development processes for the LCAP and Annual Update development, in addition to other strategic plans and school site plans. Representatives from COEs provided input on the process completing mock district reviews as the role of the service provider. The review of the example evaluation rubrics content helped clarify from the LEAs perspective, what is necessary for planning, reflecting, and evaluating processes to support county, district, and school plans. A preliminary overview of the UAT Phase II is presented in Attachment 2.


Resources
Implementation of the new funding formula and LCAPs have dramatically changed the budgeting process for LEAs. The elimination of more than 40 state categorical programs and a shift away from compliance means less time tracking categorical funds and more time creating systems of support for local students. Recent and substantial funding increases are accelerating improvements. There is evidence of more parent and community engagement, greater collaboration between fiscal and curriculum leaders, improved three-year planning processes, and a focus on the State’s educational priorities.
The SBE and the CDE are continuing to gather feedback on the LCAP template and process with the goal of making another round of improvements before the 2017–18 school year. To date, the vast majority of stakeholders have urged the SBE to keep the current template in place for this year. Future changes will build on existing strengths and address identified barriers to the LCAP serving as a meaningful planning tool that results in clear communication of how local strategic resource decisions are intended to reach specific student outcome goals.



  • To support local planning and budgeting, the online posting of resources specific to LCFF information and implementation is located on the CDE LCFF Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/index.asp. Additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been posted to help clarify the LCAP process.




  • Information on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics is located on the WestEd LCFF Web site at http://lcff.wested.org/.




  • Regular information updates are distributed to local educational agencies (LEAs) and interested stakeholders through the CDE LCFF listserv. To receive updates regarding the LCFF via e-mail notification, subscribe to the LCFF listserv by sending a "blank" message to join-LCFF-list@mlist.cde.ca.gov.

The list of resources below provides some examples of LEAs that coordinated and synthesized LCAP content through the use of executive summaries.


LCAP Executive Summaries

  • Chula Vista Elementary School District (http://www.cvesd.org/Documents/LCAP%20Executive%20Summary%20Template.pdf)

  • Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (http://www.fuesd.k12.ca.us/cms/lib5/CA01000513/Centricity/Domain/1/LCAP%20Executive%20Summary%202015-16%20updated.pdf)

  • Huntington Beach Unified School District (http://www.hbuhsd.edu/ourpages/auto/2015/6/10/43671366/LCAP%202015%20Executive%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf)

  • Jurupa Unified School District (http://www.jusd.k12.ca.us/departments/education/Funding%20and%20Program%20Accountability/SiteAssets/SitePages/LCAP/JUSD%20Executive%20Summary%20LCAP%2015-16%2006.04.2015.pdf)

  • Piedmont Unified School District

(http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LCAP-Executive-Summary-15-16-FINAL.pdf)

  • San Diego Unified School District (http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/sandi/Board.nsf/files/9XR3AR05F66E/$file/LCAP%20Executive%20Summary%20June%20-%202015.pdf)

12-30-15 [State Board of Education and California Department of Education]
California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5, 52072, 52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052

  1   2   3   4   5


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка