Transcript CTA State Council Consultants Meeting Accountability Briefing Norma Sanchez Patricia Rucker Assessment Terms & Vocabulary API A Statewide Accountability System Mandated by NCLB SBAC Levels 1-4 A Level of.

CTA State Council
Consultants Meeting
Accountability Briefing
Norma Sanchez
Patricia Rucker
Assessment Terms & Vocabulary
API
A Statewide Accountability System
Mandated by NCLB
SBAC Levels 1-4
A Level of “High” Achievement under
NCLB
Proficient
Assessment System for California
AYP
At Grade Level
CAASPP
Measures Academic Performance &
Growth of Schools and Provides
Rankings
Who Moved My Cheese?
• ESEA compromise bill
• AB 484 implementation
• Student score report
• CAASSP 2014 - 15
• LCAP rubrics
• ESEA AYP Waiver
Accountability
• Delaying the API
• Limiting the Weights of Statewide
Assessments in the API
• Determining Local Indicators for
the API
• Eliminating Decile Rankings
• Changing Recommended SBAC
Cut Scores
• Eliminating the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
ESEA Reauthorization
What’s In?
• Annual Testing in grades 3-8 and 11
• Title I money and formula
• Standards and assessments
• Disaggregated data
• Multiple measures
• Supplement not supplant
• Comparability
• Maintenance of Effort
• State participation in NAEP
• Charter schools grants
• Limits on the Secretary of Education
• Parent engagement
What’s Out?
• Adequate Yearly Progress
• Sanctions (Mandatory public school choice,
supplemental services)
• Highly qualified teachers
• Reading First
• Race to the Top
• Teacher Evaluations
• Mandate to adopt college and career ready
standards
• Equitable distribution of teachers
• Investing in Innovation
• Vouchers
• Transition to Teaching, School Leadership,
• 21 Century Community Learning Centers
• Elementary and Secondary School Counseling
• Arts in Education
Positives
• Acknowledges the role of all educators in public schools
• Strengthens labor-management collaboration
• Provides for an annual assessment of English proficiency; requires
timelines and annual goals
• Includes teacher evaluation only as an optional—and not a
mandatory—use of overall Title I and Title II funds
• Promotes school leader and teacher residency programs
• Allows funding to be used to improve equitable access
• Requires LEAs to plan for effective transitions (matriculation)
• Requires new kinds of qualitative data for state report cards
NEA’s MAJOR CONCERNS
• Lack of codified multiple measures for elementary and middle
schools.
• Lack of resource indicators in state designed accountability systems,
such as access to advanced coursework, access to school counselors
or nurses, and access to fine arts and regular physical education.
Requiring such indicators would ensure that states report and act
upon the opportunity gaps in the state.
• Maximizing state flexibility under the proposed pilot to design
systems of assessment, including local assessments that are more
driven by teaching and learning rather than just based on
accountability systems.
• Teacher quality incentives include incentives for differential pay
CAASSP 2014-15
STUDENTS
ALL
ALL
ALL
ASSESSMENTS
SBAC ELA & Math - Grades 3-8, 11
No 2nd Grade Testing
List of Diagnostic Assessments Available (CDE)
CST Science Tests - Grades 5, 8, 10
CAA Modified Assessments Field Testing for
Severe Cognitive ELA & Math - Grades 3-8 and 11
Disability
CST CAPA Science - Grades 5, 8, 10
ALL
CAHSEE – High School
Primary Language Assessment (District Policy)
EL
ELPAC under development (replaces CELDT)
SPECIAL ED
Delaying the API
Cancels these Academic
Performance Index (API)
reports:
• 2014 Growth API
• 2014 Base API
• 2015 Growth API
New API Timeline
2014-15
No SBAC School Wide Results
Only Individual Student Scores
Sets Baseline API Data
2015-16
Second year of Student Scores
2016-17
API School Growth Targets
2017-18
API Accountability
By the way……
As a result of not reporting the APIs,
• No new API determination for elementary schools
• The SBE also approved the removal of the API as an
additional indicator for high schools within the AYP.
• The 2014 AYP determinations for high schools were based
on
• achievement results from the grade ten California High School
Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
• the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)
• the cohort graduation rate.
Impact on Federal AYP Reporting
US Department of Education has
offered AYP reporting waivers.
• California application includes a
plan and timeline for
• publicly reporting AYP designations
• the results of the assessments,
including achievement against
Annual Measureable Objectives
(AMOs)
• The State will resume annual
accountability determinations in
2016-2017
If approved
• waives accountability
determinations based on
achievement results for
assessments administered in
the 2014-2015 school year.
• AYP will be based instead on
• For HS participation rate and
graduation rate,
• For elementary and middle
schools participation rate .
Impact on State Accountability
Senate Bill 1458 requires changes in the API by 2016
• The assessments results shall constitute no more than
• No more than 60% of the high school Academic Performance
Index (API) and that the remaining 40 percent must encompass
other indicators such as graduation data and student
preparedness for college and career.
• At least 40% of the value of the API for primary and middle
schools
New indicators may only be added to the API one full
school year after the State Board of Education (SBE)
adopts the indicators
Determining Local Indicators for the API
Moving from using a single index to using multiple measures to parallel
the state priorities:
• How can school performance be communicated effectively to all educational
stakeholders?
• What are some possible options for redesigning the state accountability
system?
• Should a statewide goal be established to provide a standardized comparison
of schools?
• Should performance targets be established to ensure schools can be
compared in a valid and reliable manner in addition to LEAs establishing goals
set through the state priorities?
• If state goals or performance targets are established, when should they be
applied?
Eliminating Decile Rankings
• The API was abused to create metrics like the decile rankings which
had many unintended outcomes.
• No new decile rankings have been computed since AB 484 took effect
on Jan. 1, 2014..
• There is no intent to return to that system.*
*At this time, the legislature seems willing to wait and see what actions
the Board will implement in three years
Changing Recommended SBAC Cut Scores
• The SBAC consortium agreement gives States the flexibility to change
the cut scores.
• Under current law, no agency in California has the authority to change
the SBAC cut scores.
• The issue of the cut scores is tabled for now.
15
16
Student Score Report
• As an intermediate step the State Board of Education adopted an
Individual Student Report (ISR) to report the 2015 SBAC results.
• The score report does not define or explain student outcomes using
the tags Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4.
• The ISR will be revised for reporting the 2016 SBAC results.
• To view the draft individual student report:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/mar15item03a1.p
df
Eliminating the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE)
SB 172 (Liu) – introduced March 2015
• suspends the administration of the high school exit examination
(CAHSEE)
• removes the CAHSEE as a condition of receiving a diploma of
graduation or a condition of graduation from high school for each
pupil completing grade 12, for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19
school years
• requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene an
advisory committee to provide recommendations on the continuation
of the CAHSEE.
*Source: West Ed presentation at March 2015 State Board of Education Meeting: Item
6.
19
3 Part Analysis
• Data Analysis – The evaluation rubrics include the metrics specified
under the LCFF state priorities plus locally selected metrics organized
by LEA, student subgroup, and school level data.
• Outcome Analysis – This section of the evaluation rubrics
complements the data analysis.
• Practice Analysis – Further reflection regarding efforts to support
improvement in outcomes is the final component of the evaluation
rubrics.