Transcript School and District Accountability Under NCLB

Accountability: Where Are We
Going?
Ira Schwartz, Coordinator
NYS Education Department
This May be the Dawning of the Age
of Accountability
• NYS Enhanced Accountability
System
• NCLB Reauthorization
• Local accountability initiatives
Enhanced Accountability System
– Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 calls for creation of an enhanced
State accountability system, including:
• New accountability standards based on State assessments and
other indicators of progress, such as graduation rates or college
attendance and completion rates to be established by July
2008.
• Growth model by 2008-09.
• Value-added model by 2010-2011 based on new or revised
state assessments.
• Expanded SURR system, resulting in the identification of up to
5% of State school’s by 2011-2012 for restructuring or
reorganization.
• Contracts for Excellence and District Improvement Plans for
Selected School Districts.
Student Enrollment by Accountability Status
NYC
Rest of State
Total
Schools
Enrollment
Schools
Enrollment
Schools
Enrollment
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 1
9
10845
36
40043
45
50888
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 2
6
5957
38
53161
44
59118
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 3
10
21515
17
18481
27
39996
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 4
36
82411
15
19412
51
101823
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 5
14
19748
1
1032
15
20780
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 6
5
1335
0
0
5
1335
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 7
6
1759
0
0
6
1759
In Need of Improvement - Year 1
62
49523
46
28107
108
77630
In Need of Improvement - Year 2
58
49617
33
27957
91
77574
In Corrective Action
44
32074
23
223305
67
54379
Planning for Restructuring
46
61551
31
30436
77
91987
Restructuring - Year 1
22
17050
20
20459
42
37509
Restructuring - Year 2
57
52336
7
3741
64
56077
Restructuring - Year 3
47
46862
10
7460
57
54322
Total Title I SINI
336
309013
170
140465
506
449478
Total SRAP
86
143570
107
132129
193
275699
Grand Total
422
452583
277
272594
699
725177
Note: Enrollment is based on counts from October 2005 BEDS survey.
Statewide Status of SINI and SRAP Schools 2005-06 vs. 2006-07
Status 05-06
Status Improved or
Stayed the Same
Status Became Worse
Total Schools In Status
Percent Improving or
Staying the Same
SINI 1
61
70
131
46.6
SINI 2
33
51
84
39.3
Corrective Action
19
76
95
20.0
Planning for
Restructuring
12
31
43
27.9
Restructuring 1
17
58
75
22.7
Restructuring 2
11
62
73
15.1
SRAP 1
44
28
72
61.1
SRAP 2
28
14
42
66.7
SRAP 3
15
44
59
25.4
SPAP 4
6
9
15
40.0
SRAP 5 or 6
3
1
4
75.0
Total
249
444
693
35.9
Note: A school’s status would improve or stay the same if the school made AYP in the area(s) of identification
which gave the school its status. A school’s status becomes worse if it fails to make AYP in one or more of
the area of identification which gave the school its status.
WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS
3-8 ELA
3-8 Math
HS ELA
HS Math
Acct Status
Acct
Enrol>30
Wtd
PI
Acct
Enrol>30
Wtd
PI
Acct
Enrol>30
Wtd
PI
Acct
Enrol>3
0
Wtd PI
In Good Standing
920,862
163
914,553
168
109,948
183
109,948
185
In Need of Improvement - Year 1
37,283
132
37,069
137
3,694
152
3,694
159
In Need of Improvement - Year 2
41,845
133
41,132
136
4,386
146
4,386
150
In Corrective Action
24,988
127
24,747
125
3,989
144
3,989
149
Planning for Restructuring
32,143
117
31,639
110
9,971
138
9,971
145
Restructuring - Year 1
20,826
119
20,447
114
1,619
122
1,619
130
Restructuring - Year 2
37,304
116
36,921
116
874
132
874
139
Restructuring - Year 3
41,208
116
40,601
111
867
103
867
124
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 1
9,314
154
9,214
154
8,346
180
8,346
184
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 2
16,516
158
16,364
161
8,700
178
8,700
182
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 3
9,700
150
9,602
145
6317
169
6,317
170
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 4
12,526
142
12,418
141
17,151
149
17,151
150
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 5
3,763
125
3,722
113
3,628
132
3,628
141
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 6
443
114
427
99
419
116
419
118
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 7
1,236
94
1,220
91
212
118
212
118
316
145
308
140
0
0
0
0
Total Title I SINI
235,597
123
232,556
122
25,400
140
25,400
147
Total SRAP
53,498
148
52,967
147
44,773
161
44,773
164
Grand Total
1,210,273
154
1,200,384
158
180,121
171
180,121
175
Has No Status - Regulations Do Not
Apply
Enhanced Accountability System:
Learning Standards
– Requirement to periodically review learning standards.
– ELA standards must be reviewed no later than 2007-08.
– Teachers, school administrators, teacher educators, and
others with educational expertise on improvement are
to be consulted.
– Goal for students to be prepared in an appropriate
progression for post-secondary education or
employment.
Status, Growth and ValueAdded Models Defined
Contract for Excellence requires SED implement growth
and value added models meet any Federal requirements for
such models.
Status Models Defined
Status or improvement models, the
current requirement for measuring
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under
No Child Left Behind, measure progress
by tracking the improvement at the same
grade levels within the school over time.
(This year’s grades 3-5 compared to last
year’s grades 3-5.)
Growth Models Defined
Growth models generally refer to
accountability models that assess the
progress of a cohort of individual
students over time with the intent of
measuring the progress these students
have made (Performance in fourth grade
compared to performance in third grade.)
Value-Added Models Defined
Value-added models generally refer to a specific type
of growth model in which student demographic data
or other statistical controls are used to attempt to
analyze the specific effects of a particular school,
program, or teacher on student learning.
These models ask whether the school has increased
the measured achievement of students more than
expected based on data from similar schools.
NYS: Principles for Development of a
Growth Model
•Be consistent with USDE growth models principles.
•Neither require new assessments nor be made unusable by new
assessments.
•Supported by nyStart; not require collection of new data.
•Measure student progress towards proficiency within a timeframe that
shall be established by the Commissioner.
•Use a transparent, “open architecture” that can be clearly and easily
explained to school staff, parents, and the general public.
•Provide information that is useful to districts and schools in planning
school and district improvement efforts.
•Serve as a platform for the development by 2010-2011 of a value added
accountability system based on the next generation of State assessments.
•Be implemented no later than the 2008-09 school year.
NYS: Possible Growth Models
Value Tables Model
Residual Growth Models
Rate of Expected Academic
Change Model

Enhanced Accountability System: Plans for
Intervention
•
School Quality Review Teams conduct resource, program and planning
audits of SINI and SURR schools and assist all SINI and SURR schools in
development of improvement plans.
•
Joint School Intervention Teams, whose members are appointed by
Commissioner and include educators from the district, review and
recommend plans for reorganizing or reconfiguring restructuring or SURR
schools that have failed to demonstrate progress.
•
Distinguished educators assist schools and districts that have failed to
make AYP for four years. Serve on Joint School Intervention Teams
•
Recommendations of School Quality Review Teams and Joint Intervention
Team are advisory.
•
The services of all the above are a charge to the school district.
Plans for Intervention in SURR and Restructuring Schools
That Fail to Demonstrate Progress
• Commissioner shall develop criteria for school closure and processes to
be followed.
• Process shall include research based options, alternatives and strategies
for reorganizing, restructuring or reconfiguring schools.
• Plans shall be identified with input from parents, teachers, administrators
and distinguished educators.
.
District Improvement Plans
• DINIs or districts that have a SINI or SURR must submit action plans to
the Commissioner for approval. District must link plans to the menu of
allowable programs and activities or explain why they are not linked..
• Plans must be subject to public hearing prior to adoption and the transcript
of the hearing must be sent to the Commissioner.
• First plans expected to be required for the 08-09 school year.
School Quality Review Teams
• For 07-08 school year, SQR teams will be comprised of SED staff,
Regional School Support Center Staff, and representatives of District
Superintendents.
• BOCES district superintendents will oversee SQR teams in schools that
are SINI I and SINI 2’s. SED staff will oversee SQR teams in the Big 5
and in schools that are in Corrective Action, Planning for Restructuring or
Restructuring status.
• SQR teams will use a set of Quality Indicators to review school and make
recommendations.
• No charge to districts for SQR teams assigned to districts in 07-08.
• In 08-09 SQR teams will offer a basic, advanced or intensive level of
services based upon needs of schools.
Distinguished Educators and Deficient
Performance
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regents to establish distinguished educator program.
Superintendents, principals, teachers, and other individuals with demonstrated
educational expertise eligible.
Distinguished educators assess the learning environment in schools and assist in
development and implementation of improvement plans.
Distinguished educator may either endorse plans or make recommendations for
change.
District must either modify the plans or explain in writing to the Commissioner
why plans have not been modified.
Unless the Commissioner finds the district’s explanation has compelling merit, the
Commissioner shall direct the district to modify the plans as recommended by the
distinguished educator.
Distinguished educator becomes ex-officio member of the school board.
Superintendent must cooperate fully with the distinguished educator as per
superintendent’s contract.
Other Chapter 57 Provisions
•
•
•
•
•
•
School leadership and school progress report cards.
Student progress reports by July 1, 2008 providing information on
performance on State assessments over multiple years.
Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs and
expand alternative teacher preparation programs.
Explore the development of a P-16 data system to track student
performance.
Regents to develop minimum standards for tenure determinations,
including incorporation of student performance data, and peer and
principal or administrative review.
Raise the cap on charter schools by 100, giving SUNY and Regents 50
new charters each to issue, with up to 50 reserved for New York City.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft
•
•
•
•
Places in law much of the flexibility that USDE has given
States through regulation or policy, including Performance
Indices, multi-year averaging, inclusion of former LEPs and
SWDs (three years instead of two).
Maintains the goal of proficiency for all by 2013-2014.
Allows states under certain conditions to use assessments
other than in reading and math to make a final AYP
determination. Other measures can be a 15% factor for
elementary and middle level schools and 25% for high
schools.
Allows growth models, generally as per USDE rules for
current pilots. Students must be on track for proficiency in
three years.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft
•
•
Permits use of Performance Index, such as
New York’s.
Sets a uniform, maximum national “N” size
of 30 and confidence interval of 95%, same
as New York’s. Sets a safe harbor
confidence interval of 75%.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft (ELLs)
•
•
•
•
•
Requires native language tests where more than 10% of
ELL students in a State share the same language.
Allows States to use English language proficiency tests to
determine AYP for first two years of reauthorization for
students in the lowest two levels of proficiency.
Allows assessments of a LEP students in native language
and using other alternate valid and reliable means for up to
five years, with an additional two years on a case by case
basis.
Continues one year exemption for newly arrived students.
Allows former LEPs to be included in calculation of AYP
for up to the three years following exit from LEP status.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft (SWDs)
•
•
•
•
Provides funding for states to develop appropriate
assessments for SWDs and requires them to do so
within two years of reauthorization.
Continues the “1% rule” for students to participate
in alternate assessments and continues for 3 years
the “2% rule” for modified assessments.
Allows former SWDs to be counted in the SWD
group for three years following declassification.
Allows up to 1% of students with severe
disabilities who graduate with IEP diplomas to be
counted as graduates.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft (Consequences)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Creates two separate and distinct improvement and assistance programs: one for priority
schools that miss AYP for one or two groups and one for “High Priority” schools that
miss AYP for most groups.
Only high priority schools must offer choice and SES.
High priority schools must offer choice and SES, proven instructional programs,
formative assessments, and at the high school level, personalized learning environments.
Creates two separate redesign programs: one for priority schools and one for high priority
schools.
Priority redesign requires significant revision to the instruction, leadership, and support
services provided to the group of students that did not make AYP.
High priority redesign requires a school to be closed and be reopened only after a
comprehensive redesign that includes changes to instructional program, staffing and
school leadership. School districts may have no more than 10 percent of 50 schools,
which ever is less, in high priority redesign.
Identification as a District in Need of Improvement based upon failure of same subgroup
at same level on same measure.
NCLB Reauthorization: The House
Committee on Education and Labor Working
Draft (Graduation Rate)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishes uniform, national definition for how graduation rate to be
calculated.
Permits the rate to be set based upon a four or five year graduation rate.
Requires that groups below the graduation target of 90% increase their
graduation rates by 2.5 percent per year if using a four year rate and 3
percent per year if using a five year rate.
Alternatively, states may using a closing the gap methodology based
upon schools meeting the 90% target for all groups by 2019-2020.
States may develop alternative graduation standards for alternative
education settings.
Allows schools fully meeting graduation standards to get up to 25%
credit towards meeting their ELA and math AYPs.
This may be the Dawning of the Age
of Accountability
Key Questions:
• How do we design accountability models that
compel movement from awful to adequate without
impeding the movement from good to great?
• How do we move from beating the odds to
changing the odds?
• How do we resist the temptation to improve scores
without improving learning?
• How do we take data and turn it into actionable
information that improves teaching and learning?
More Information
Ira Schwartz, Coordinator
Office of School Improvement and Community Services
(NYC)
[email protected]
718 722-2796