New York State’sElementary & Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) Waiver

Presented byWalter WoodhouseDecember 7, 2012

WLWOODHOUSE@GMAIL.COM

Welcome &

Introductions

Some paperwork is involved.

Retired Assistant Superintendent for Instruction

Walter Woodhouse

Brief Overview History & Purpose

Elementary & Secondary Education Act

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA) on April 11, 1965

Goals of ESEA• LBJ: Purpose of the law was to “bridge the gap

between hopelessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.”

• Part of the“ War on Poverty.” Provided federal dollars to schools to help them educate low-income children.

• Achievement gaps did shrink —by a third to a half by the late 1980s.

• Progress on the achievement gaps stalled. • Most of the War On Poverty programs were

dismantled.

President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio

on January 8, 2002.

President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy on signing of No Child Left Behind Act 2002

Goals of NCLB• All students will attaining proficiency or better

in reading and mathematics by 2013–2014.• Highly qualified teachers will teach all students• All students will be educated in schools and

classrooms that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.

• All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English.

• All students will graduate from high school.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND100% Proficiency for all student subgroups

by 2013-14

Obama Administration’s Plan for Reauthorizing ESEA

Goals of A Blueprint for Reform• College and Career Readiness• Great Teachers and Great Leaders• Meeting the needs of English Language

Learners and Other Divers Learners• Fostering Innovation and Excellence –

supporting charter schools and promoting public school choice

• A Complete Education – Literacy, STEM, College Pathways & Accelerated Learning

• Successful, Safe & Healthy Students

Two Percent Property Tax Cap

IS IT A RACE?

OR A TRAIN WRECK?

ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PLAN

BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMRACE TO THE TOP

ESEA WAIVER

Pieces of a Puzzle

·13

·13

Accountability Status

Under ESEA Waiver1. Changes in institutional accountability

2. New accountability designations

3. Institutional vs.

Individual Student Growth

1. Changes in Institutional Accountability

1a. Changes to Institutional Accountability

NCLB (old) ESEA Waiver (new)Overall Target (AMO)

Elementary/Middle School Performance Index Calculation

High School Performance Index Calculation

100% Proficiency in ELA & Math by 2013-14Performance Index of 100 in Science

Performance Index based on achievement (level 1-4)

Full credit for meeting regents diploma requirements and partial credit for local diploma requirements

Cut gap in ELA, math & science Performance Index 200 (100% Proficiency) by 2016-17

PI revised to include both achievement and growth toward proficiency

Full credit for meeting college and career readiness standards & partial credit for regents diploma requirements

1b. Changes to Institutional Accountability

NCLB (old) ESEA Waiver (new)

Subgroups

School & District Accountability Categories

All students and racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learner subgroups.

Schools – In Good Standing, Improvement, Corrective Action or RestructuringDistricts – In Good Standing, Improvement or Corrective Action

No change

Schools – In Good Standing, Local Assistance Plan, Focus or Priority Status

Districts – Focus districts

·13

·13

Discuss Changes in

Institutional Accountability1. What are the changes in accountability?

2. What are their implications?

3.What potential impact could these changes have on your district or school?

2. New Accountability Designations

2a. Accountability Designations

Category How Identified Data Used for Identification

Reward Schools

In Good Standing

Local Assistance Plan Schools

High Performance or High Progress

Not Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan School

Not a Priority or Focus school that a) has large gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students or b) has failed to make APY 3 years in a row for the same subgroup on the same measure or c) is located in a non-focus district but is among the lowest in the state for the performance of one or more subgroups and for which the school is not showing progress.

Annual

Annual

Annual

2b. Accountability Designations

Category How Identified Data Used for Identification

Focus DistrictsDistricts and Charter Schools that are among the lowest performing for a subgroup of students and that fail to show progress, or that have one or more priority schools.

Identified once based on 2010-11 data; districts and charter school(s)that improve performance may be removed from Focus status.

Focus Schools (10% of schools in the state)

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

Priority Schools (5% of schools in the state)

Schools that were awarded a SIG grant in 2011-12; have had graduation rates below 60% for the past 3 years, or are the lowest performing in ELA and math combined & have failed to show progress.

Identified once based on 2010-11 data; schools that improve performance may be removed from priority status.

NYS Model:On Track to Proficiency EL

A Sc

ale

Scor

e

2010 2011 Future

Absolute growth measures tell us if a student’s growth from 10-11 is enough to get them to proficient in the future.

Here, one student is on track to become proficient in future years.

Proficiency

Computation of Performance Index for Grades 3-8 ELA Results

Performance Level

On Track to Proficiency?

Number of Students

Multiplier Total Points

Level 1

Level 1

Level 2

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Total

No

Yes

No

Yes

NA

NA

30

10

40

40

60

20

200

PI = 150 or 30,000/200

0

200

100

200

200

200

0

2,000

4,000

8,000

12,000

4,000

30,000

Computation of Performance Index for High School Math Results

Performance Level

Regents Score Number of Students

Multiplier Total Points

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Total

0-64

65-79

80-89

90-100

30

40

60

20

150

PI=133 or 20,000/150

0

100

200

200

0

4,000

12,000

4,000

20,000

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)

1. AMOs reflect the rigor of college and career readiness standards, while they are at the same time realistic and attainable for schools and districts.

2. AMOs increase in annual increments toward the goal of reducing by half, within 6 years, the gap between the PI for each subgroup and a PI of 200 using baseline data from 2010-11.

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)

MeasureMeasure

GroupGGroup 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Grade & Subject

Accountability Group

All Students 146 150 155 159 164 168 173

Grades 3-8 ELA

SWD 92 101 110 119 128 137 146

Native American 132 137 143 149 154 160 166

Asian 162 165 169 172 175 178 181

Black (not Hispanic) 123 130 136 143 149 155 162

Hispanic 126 132 138 144 151 157 163

White 160 164 167 170 174 177 180

ELL 102 110 118 126 134 143 151

Econ Dis. 128 134 140 146 152 158 164

Mixed Race 154 158 162 166 170 173 177

·13

·13

Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP) Determinations

Determined in a similar manner as currently required under NCLB, with a focus on the academic achievement of the current NCLB subgroups

No longer determined for schools and districts, just for subgroups

Use limited to being only one of the indicators in determining Reward Schools and in determining if districts must complete a Local Assistance Plan for specific schools.

Safe Harbor will no longer require schools and districts to meet the third academic indicator requirement – science (3-8) and graduation rate.

Priority School IdentificationThe following three groups of schools were identified as Priority Schools:1. Were awarded a School Improvement Grant in

the 2011-12 school year.2. Had graduation rates below 60% for the four

year Graduation Cohorts of 2004, 2005 & 20063. Have met all of the conditions described on the following slide:

School Identification Based on Combined ELA & Math Performance

For High School For Elementary-Middle Level

In Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring for the 2011-12 school year.

In Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring for the 2011-12 school year.

Combined PI of 106 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in 2010-11.

Combined PI of 111 or below in ELA and mathematics for the All Students group in 2010-11.

Made a four point gain or less in its 2010-11 combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its 2009-10 PI.

Made a ten point gain or less in its 2010-11 combined ELA and mathematics for the ALL Students group compared to its 2009-2010 PI.

Had a combined median SGP in ELA and mathematics for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years combined for the All Students group of 50% or below.

Had less than 50% of the accountability groups in the school with 2010-11 median SGPs that exceeded the statewide median SGP for that accountability group.

Focus District Identification• Districts are rank ordered on their combined elementary-

middle and high school 2010-11 ELA and math Performance Index (PI) for each of the accountability groups and then the bottom 5% are identified.

• Districts are rank ordered on their 4-Year Graduation rates for each accountability group in the Cohort of 2006, and then the bottom 5% are identified.

• The PI and graduation rate cut points are determined for each accountability group.

Reminder: A district with a priority school automatically becomes a Focus District.

Exception: Accountability groups that have made progress are removed from consideration.

Cut Points for 2012-13 Identification

Accountability Group2010-11 Performance Index for Grades 3-8 and high school ELA & math (at or below)

2006 4 Year Graduation Rate (at or below)

Amer. Indian/Pacific Islander 112 54

Asian 112 54

Black 112 54

Hispanic 112 54

White 112 54

Multiracial 112 54

Students w/ Disabilities 70 26

Limited English Proficient 77 28

Low-Income 122 56

Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups

Student Growth Percentile (SGP) State Median for 2 Years

SWD Am. Ind. Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED

42 4 6 61 43 4 7 52 5 0 47

Progress Measures for Focus District Accountability Groups

2006 4 Year Graduation Rate State Average

SWD Am. Ind. Asian Black Hisp White LEP ED Mixed Race

44

59 83 58 57 84 4 0 64

75

Reward Schools Methodology

Reward Schools – Highest Performing

Elementary/Middle High School

Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress

Gap Closing Gap Closing

Performance Index Graduation Rate

Growth Performance Index

Bottom Quartile Student Growth Graduating At-Risk Students

Reward Schools Methodology

Reward Schools – High Progress

Elementary/Middle High School

Performance Index Performance Index

Gap Closing Graduation Rate

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Gap Closing

Growth Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Bottom Quartile Student Growth Graduating At-Risk Students

·13

·13

New Accountability Designations1. What are the new accountability designations?

2. What are their implications?

3. What impact could these designations have on your district or school?

3. Institutional vs. Student Growth

Criteria Institutional Student

Growth Metric Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

Assessments used in calculations

Grades 3-8 ELA & Math Grades 3-8 ELA & Math

School years used 2009-10 2011-12

Max. # prior yrs. results 3 years 3 years

Min. Req. for Inclusion of student results in comp.

Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive

grades

Current year and immediate prior year in consecutive

grades

3a. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

Criteria Institutional Individual Student

How is it reported?How is it used?

Median Student Growth Percentile:

• To give schools and districts credit for students on track to proficiency

• To remove from consideration schools as Priority Schools & districts as Focus Districts

• To qualify schools as reward schools

Adjusted Mean Growth Percentile:

• To assign a HEDI category and a score 0-20 to the growth component of the APPR composite score for teachers of ELA & math in grades 4-8 and their principals

Are there demographic adjustments?

No. But separate median SGPs are computed for each NCLB accountability subgroup.

Yes. Adjustments for Students with Disabilities, English language learners, or Low Income Students

3b. Institutional vs. Individual Student Growth

Criteria Institutional Individual Student

Are Confidence Intervals Used?

No.Yes, as part of determining HEDI classification for growth in terms of distinguishing between ineffective and developing and effective and highly effective teachers.

Minimum Group size/Critical Threshold

Median SGP computed for ELA or math if there are 30 or more scores for continuously enrolled students.

Combined 2009-10 and 2010 -11 school years SGP for ELA & math combined that are at or above the state median for ESEA accountability subgroups.

Mean adjusted SGP computed if there are 16 or more students results who are continuously enrolled in ELA & math combined.

Mean adjusted growth percentile above 39 for teachers and above 42 for principals , in addition to a high level of statistical confidence.

3c. Institutional vs. Individual Growth

The Future...

·Data

Roll out of Educational Data Portal

New longitudinal data measures

New leading indicator measures

Value-added teacher and principal

evaluation metrics

More focus on Growth vs. Proficiency

The Future...

·Standards and Assessment

·Tests aligned to Common Core

New Common Scales for ELA and Math assessments

New Proficiency standards

New test development and integrity procedures

New tests for special populations

The Future...

·AccountabilityNew school and district accountabilitydesignations

New system of supports and interventions

·Graduation Rates

Predictive High School Success Measures

Multiple pathways to graduation- more

diploma options.

The Future

·13

·13

Review1. History of ESEA

2. Changes in institutional accountability

3. New accountability designations

4. Institutional vs.

Individual Student Growth

5. Future Directions

Ira Schwatrz: Assistant Commissioner of Accountability

For further information on these topics:https://www.p12.nysed.gov/esea-waiver

For archived ESEA Waiver Webinars:http://www.p12.nysed.gov/esea-waiver

For additional APPR and Regents Reform Agenda Resources visit:http://engageny.org

For further information contact:eseathnktank@mail.nysed.gov