State Board of Education Retreat: Assessment, Accountability, Performance, and

Evaluation Presentation

Penny Schwinn, Chief Accountability and Performance Officer

Chantel Janiszewski, Branch Officer

Topics for Discussion

Priority Schools Update

Accountability System Update

Smarter Balanced

Other Branch Work and Updates

1

Priority Schools: Fast Facts

Schools were named on September 4th (71 days into the process)

120-day planning period is what is currently listed in the regulation and ESEAAlso provides time to ensure implementation of planning

for the start of the year

Two City Council meetings, multiple Red Clay and Christina community meetings, multiple DOE engagement

Red Clay began engaging with DOE immediately

Christina would not engage with DOE until mid-October (40 days into the process)

2

Priority Schools: Update on the MOU

Red Clay and DOE have been in ongoing negotiations for the last 6 weeks

Christina is still in the process of determining what they want included in the MOU

Benchmark 1 for “On Track” would be that an MOU is signed with collective bargaining units and the LEAs within 75 days

Benchmark 2 for “On Track” would be that an MOU is signed with the DOE and the LEA by November 17th in order to ensure sufficient time for planning in alignment with the MOU

3

Priority Schools: Update on the Plans

Planning money is being processed by OMB ($40,000 per school in advance of the MOU being signed)

Red Clay is planning to use for teacher stipends, but currently has no plans to bring-in experts to support research or drafting of the plans

Christina is not sure if board will allow use of the planning money and has no plans on how to spend it

Neither district has provided any plans or partial plans for feedback in any of the 3 open windows that have passed

DOE has expanded planning review opportunities to include every week, in addition to office hours on Mondays, and weekly meetings on Fridays (two per week with CSD)

4

Priority Schools: LEA Landscape

Both districts are significantly behind where one would expect them to be given that 10 weeks have passed

Red Clay is partnering with UVA, and has included DOE, which will allow for ongoing collaboration

Christina appears to be dealing with internal politics that is preventing significant forward movement in the process

5

Priority Schools: Next Steps

We have provided minor extensions to the planning process: new submission date is January 7th

Developing plans based on approvable plans

Developing systems to monitor planning year activities to ensure the schools are “first-day ready”

6

Accountability System: Brief Review

What We are Developing:

Accountability system with Parts A and B (both are reported; the AFWG will provide guidance on any rating system)

A School and District Performance Framework (1-pager) that clearly and efficiently communicates the information

An interim-level system that will provide you with the information in real-time and not just EOY data

Links to supports and tools that align with what is being measured (long-term)

Accountability System - Part A Review

1. Academic Achievement• Proficiency and Growth in Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies

2. College and Career Readiness• High School - As measured by % of students who have demonstrated CCR

by senior year as measured by SBAC proficiency or the new SAT (school/district choice)

• Middle School – As measured by % of students on track to be proficient in 3 years

• Elementary School – As measured by % of students on track to be proficient in 3 years

3. Chronic Absenteeism• As measured by the reduction in the average days missed of the bottom

10% attendance (cutoff at X days)

4. On-Track• % of students on-track to graduate as measured by the reduction in the rate

of off-track by cohort

Accountability System - Part B Review

Nothing has been decided – we will take community feedback on this through the Community Planning Process

The AFWG will analyze the data and make recommendations to the Secretary

Districts will receive the information on the results, as well as the analytics on participation

Accountability System– Part B Review

Ideas on what Part B could include: Academic Achievement

Post-secondary enrollment (including military)

% of high school graduates with college credit upon graduation

Dual enrollment, AP, IB

% of high school students who graduate with industry-recognized credential

Graduation rates

Culture and Climate Surveys (staff, families, students)

Suspensions and expulsions (not recommended)

Social-emotional learning

Other Measures Parent attendance at conferences

Similar schools comparison

Input measures (HQT, staff to student ratios, etc.)

Space to indicate school-specific programs and narrative

Community Planning Process

The AFWG decided to remove capacity restraints on districts

The State will sponsor 25 State Survey Representatives, allocated proportionally throughout the state, to solicit feedback

Chiefs will receive an email to designate a primary contact person for survey reps to call (to learn about any district or school events for survey purposes)

Chiefs memo will include information on participation

Survey can be emailed and should be sent to all school stakeholders

Press release, publicity in the newspaper, etc.

Town Halls are scheduled in each county

November 5, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Carvel Building, Wilmington

November 12, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – John Collette Education Resource Center, Dover

November 13, 2014 (6:30 – 8:00) – Waters Middle School, Middletown

November 19, 2014 (6:00 -7:30) – Sussex County Council Chamber Auditorium, Georgetown

Current Metrics

In first two weeks: 2,168 survey responses

Results by county NCC – 65.5% (59.4%) Kent – 14.1% (18.3%) Sussex – 20.4% (22.3%)

Results by school type District public school 37% Public charter school 10% Private school 6% No children in school 50%

Results by grade band Elementary 28% Middle 19% High 20% Children graduated 9% NA 45%

12

Current Metrics

13

Type Percent of Respondents

Race/Ethnicity Percent of Respondents

State Census Demographics

Parent 26.8% White/Caucasian 83.9% 64.1%

Teacher 39.6% Black/African-American 5.3% 22.1%

Principal/Assistant Principal 3.6% Hispanic/Latino 3.4% 8.7%

Other School Staff 10.7% Asian 0.9% 3.6%

District Administrator/Superintendent

2.4% Multi-racial 1.9% 2.4%

Community Member 10.8% Native-American 0.5% 0.7%

Other 6.1% Other 4.1% -

Current Metrics

Initial results show: Name: School Success Framework (59%) Reasons to use accountability system:

Strengths and challenges of my school (76.5%) Choice (58%) Professional Development (40%) Other (9%)

How to reflect performance: Performance ratings (73.74% ranked as #1 or #2) Letter grades (73.26% ranked as #1 or #2)

Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive rankings) Graduation rate Closing the achievement gap Industry recognized credential Literacy Drop out rate

14

Current Metrics

Initial results show:

Culture Priorities (that had 85% or greater positive rankings)

School surveys

Parent attendance at conferences

Social Emotional Learning

Staff attendance

15

Timeline October – December (2014):

Community Planning Process

AFWG meets to finalize Part A methodology

Initial technology work is completed for online system

December (2014):

Community Planning Process ends

Data analysis conducted

Final metrics are produced with methodology

January – March (2015):

Online platform is developed and tested

April – May (2015):

Beta versions are tested by users, districts, etc.

Edits are made

Resources linked

June (2015):

Soft launch

July – August (2015):

Hard launch

Community Input: Process and How the SBE Can Help

Publicize survey broadly

Public events

Op-Eds

Connect with Community Leaders

CBOs

Faith groups

Political organizations

Business leaders

Take the Survey individually

17

Growth Overview

Growth is student performance over 2+ points in time

Measured for individual students and/or groups

Interpretations that Growth Models can support:Growth Description – How much growth?

Growth Prediction – Growth to where?

Value-added: What caused growth?

Models in greatest use in accountability under ESEA waivers:Value Table

Projection

Student Growth Percentile

18

Summary of Options

Characteristics Value Table Projection SGP

Ease of explanation of model Easy Hard Medium

Ease of explanation of growth results Medium Hard Easy

Provide detailed information about growth across performance spectrum

No Yes Yes

Incorporate past student performance No Yes Yes

Can be aligned to Proficiency Yes Yes Yes

Can be used to measure growth through transition to SBAC in 2014-15

Yes Yes Yes

Can be used to measure growth-to-proficiency through transition to SBAC in 2014-15

No No No

Data burden Easy Hard Medium

19

RFP - Growth Methodology

Timeline

Public Notice 11/10/14

Deadline for Questions 11/17/14

Response to Questions Posted by 11/18/14

Deadline for Receipt of Proposals 11/25/14 at 3:00 PM (Local Time)

Estimated Notification of Award 12/30/14

20

SBAC

Update on where we are

Questions

21

Questions?

22