Virginia’s Federal Annual Measurable Objectives Under ESEA Flexibility July 2013

1. Virginia’s Federal • Annual Measurable Objectives • Under ESEA Flexibility • July 2013 • Veronica Tate, Director • Christopher Kelly, Education Coordinator • Office of Program Administration and Accountability • Virginia Department of Education

2. Presentation Goals • Review: • Purpose of ESEA flexibility • Status of Virginia’s ESEA flexibility plan • Recent Revisions to Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) methodology

3. Purpose of Flexibility • Promote state-led reform efforts under three main principles • Provide relief from restrictive requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) • Ten mandatory and three optional waivers available

4. Flexibility Timeline • Approved states may: • Implement ESEA flexibility provisions for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 (two years). • Request a waiver for one additional year of implementation in 2014-2015. • Flexibility provisions are automatically superseded by a reauthorization of ESEA • Three bills recently introduced in Senate and House committees – two Republican bills / one Democratic bill

5. Flexibility Principles Today’s Focus

6. Principle 2:Differentiated Supports and Interventions for Underperforming Schools

7. Flexibility Includes a Waiver from… • Prescriptive AMO methodology, which includes that by 2013-2014: Targets advance in equal increments up to 100% proficiency All students and subgroups reach 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics

8. And a Waiver from… • Improvement status and sanctions for schools that fail to meet AMOs Public School Choice Supplemental Educational Services Other School Improvement Sanctions

9. System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support 2012-2013 School Year Implement revised federal accountability requirements

10. Revised AMOs • Replace former Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets • Used to: • Identify schools in improvement • Inform interventions

11. Revised AMOs Schools – Divisions – State

12. Revised AMOs For All Students, Proficiency Gap Groups, and Other Individual Subgroups:

13. Establishing AMOs Performance AMOs established based on available data from… Mathematics Reading Year 1 targets: 2010-2011 assessments Year 1-6 targets: Revised 2011-2012 assessments Year 2-6 targets will be set based on data from revised 2012-2013 assessments

14. Establishing AMOs: Methodology GOAL: Reduce proficiency gaps by half over the next six years • Rank order schools by percent proficient on state assessments and: • Determine the pass rate of the school at the 20th and the 90th percentile of enrollment • Calculate the point difference in the pass rates • Divide the point difference in half to calculate the gains in pass rates and divide again by six • Set increasing pass rates at six equal intervals for mathematics and reading

15. Establishing AMOs:Methodology USED approved Virginia’s application in June 2012. Following approval: • AMOs were established with different end points for each subgroup • USED advised Virginia in August 2012 that the AMOs did not: • significantly reduce achievement gaps; or • require lower-achieving subgroups to make greater progress over time

16. Establishing AMOs: REVISED Methodology Changes approved by: Virginia Board of Education - October 2012 U.S. Department of Education - March 2013 • Previous methodology steps still used, except: • Methodology now uses performance of “all students” to establish end points for all subgroups

17. Establishing AMOs: REVISED Methodology 20th Percentile 90th Percentile All Students 61% Pass Rate 85% Pass Rate Difference: 85% - 61% = 24% Divide in half: 12% Divide by six: 2 or 3% (to account for rounding)

18. Establishing AMOs: REVISED Methodology Mathematics Example Year 6 AMOs Year 1 AMOs All Students 61% Pass Rate 73% Pass Rate Proficiency Gap Group 1 47% Pass Rate 73% Pass Rate Students with Disabilities 33% Pass Rate 73% Pass Rate

19. REVISED Mathematics AMOs Same as approved by USED on June 29 • Intermediate Progress Measures  in Relatively Equal Increments to 73% Same for all subgroups

20. REVISED Mathematics AMOs Continuous Progress

21. Reading AMOs Same as approved by USED on June 29 • Intermediate Progress Measures  in Relatively Equal Increments Same for all subgroups

22. Existing Provisions Remain • A subgroup may meet an AMO* by achieving a pass rate: • In the current year equal to or higher than the current year’s target; • Using a three year average equal to or higher than the current year’s target; or • That reduces the failure rate 10% or more as compared to the prior year. • * Exceptions apply under new provisions.

23. Continuous Improvement Provision • Mathematics AMOs for Asian subgroup: • If subgroup pass rate in prior year is82% or higher, the subgroup must make progress in the current year to meet the AMO. • If subgroup pass rate in prior year is below 82%, the subgroup may meet on the current year pass rate (82%), using 3 year average, or 10% reduction in failure rate.

24. Continuous Improvement Provision • Examples for mathematics: • * Can also meet using 3 year average or a ten percent reduction in the failure rate of the previous year

25. Maintain / No Backslide Provision • New provision approved by Board in October: • A subgroup that performed higher in the prior year than the current year’s AMO target is expected to meet the prior year’s pass rate or be within five percent of the prior year’s pass rate

26. Maintain / No Backslide Provision • Provision effective beginning in:

27. Maintain / No Backslide Provision • Examples for mathematics: • (chart represents assessment years)

28. Maintain / No Backslide Provision • Important to note: • The “within five percent” provision may not be used for more than two consecutive years • The maintain / no backslide provision does not applyif the subgroup’s pass rate meets or exceeds 90%- subgroup meets AMO

29. Maintain / No Backslide Provision • Example for mathematics of “within five percent” rule:

30. 90% Rule • Example for mathematics of 90% rule:

31. Priority Schools • Virginia identifies a number of schools equal to five percent of the state’s Title I schools based on: • Low reading and mathematics performance of the “all students” group • Federal graduation rates • Total: 36 schools • System of Support for Priority Schools • Provide meaningful interventions designed to improve the academic achievement of students • Implement interventions aligned with federal “turnaround principles” • Contract with Lead Turnaround Partner to assist with interventions

32. Focus Schools • Virginia identifies ten percent of the state’s Title I schools as focus schools based on: • Low proficiency gap group performance in reading or mathematics • Total: 72 schools • System of Support for Focus Schools • Identify and implement interventions that will increase achievement of low-performing students • Contract with instructional coach to assist with interventions

33. Other Schools Not Meeting One or More AMOs for Any Subgroup • Schools not identified as priority or focus schools must implement an improvement plan to increase the academic achievement of any subgroup not meeting one or more AMO(s)

34. Schools Not Meeting Provisions Focused on Maintaining High Performance… • Will not be identified as priority, focus, or needing an improvement plan

35. ESEA Flexibility Web Page

36. Questions?Veronica Tate, DirectorOffice of Program Administration and Accountability(804) 225-2869 or veronica.tate@doe.virginia.govChris Kelly, Education CoordinatorOffice of Program Administration and Accountability(804) 225-2122 or christopher.kelly@doe.virginia.govGeneral ESEA Questions:ESEA@doe.virginia.gov