Update: Georgia s Quest for Accountability Under NCLB

1. Update: Georgia�s Quest for Accountability Under NCLB Presentation to GAPSC Advancing Teacher Quality Conference February 19, 2004 Martha R. Reichrath, Ph.D. Executive Director Governor�s Office of Student Achievement

2. Governor Sonny PerdueGreater Rome Chamber of CommerceJanuary 7, 2004 �We will care for and educate our children. We will plant the seeds for jobs and long-term economic growth. We will restore our divided communities. And we will live within our means. Most importantly, we will keep our promise to this and future generations that our children will be safe, healthy, and educated.�

3. OSA�s Affiliation Governor Perdue renamed the Office of Education Accountability (OEA) the Office of Student Achievement (OSA). While OSA�s direct affiliation remains with the Governor�s Office, this agency is dedicated to working closely with the Georgia Department of Education (GDOE).

4. OSA GOALS OSA was established to address two major goals that affect all students: Improving Student Achievement Improving School Completion

5. Two-Thirds of Georgians Think Public Schools Should Be Held More Accountable

6. �While accountability measures for schools have garnered much attention, 65 percent of Georgians polled said they think schools should be held more accountable for the academic success of their students. This finding is similar to that of national polls, which find U.S. citizens in support of stronger accountability measures for educators. Over the last several years, we have made great efforts to hold teachers, parents, and school leaders accountable for the academic achievement of their students. More work remains to be done. It is important that we continue advocating for high standards and strong accountability.�

7. �. . . . most teachers welcome accountability because they realize that those who shine brightest do so in the light of their students� successes.� Dr. Kathryn Collins Assistant Superintendent McDuffie County Schools

8. GEORGIA�S ACCOUNTABILITY LAW House Bill 1187 in 2000 established a state system of school accountability. HB 1187 authorized the creation of the Office of Education Accountability (OEA). OEA was renamed the Office of Student Achievement (OSA). OSA must annually report the status for all five education entities. HB 1187 includes a provision for grades for K-12 schools based on student performance (both absolute and progress). HB 1187 requires the development of a system of rewards as well as a system of escalating consequences for K-12 schools.

9. State Accountability To hold all five educational entities accountable through annual status reporting To serve as staff for the Education Coordinating Council (consists of head of agency and chair of governing board for each entity) Educational entities include: Office of School Readiness, Department of Education, Department of Technical and Adult Education, University System of Georgia, and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission

10. Federal law in education as it relates to accountability: Federal law should reinforce sound educational practices Federal law sets an agenda for state policy action Federal requirements must fit within each state�s unique educational system

11. Both Programmatic & Civil Rights Federal Laws Focus on Teaching and Learning: Examples of Programmatic Laws: NCLB, IDEA, (disability & FAPE), & Perkins Examples of Civil Rights Laws: 14th Amendment, Title VI (race, ethnicity), Title IX (gender), & Section 504

12. NCLB calls for states, districts, and schools to issue annual report cards to the public. Title I and Non-Title I schools must be judged on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each state must develop and implement a Single Statewide Accountability System (SSAS) in which AYP is one component. Each state must establish a system of �rewards and sanctions� applicable to all public schools and districts. (This system must include specific, escalating consequences for Title I schools and districts that do not make AYP for consecutive years.) FEDERAL LAW ON ACCOUNTABILITY

13. The No Child Left Behind Act: NCLB requires substantial state action in several areas Accountability/AYP, with Rewards and Consequences Standards and Assessments Teacher Quality and Professional Development English Language Learners Students with Disabilities [primarily in IDEA] School Safety Data and Reporting

14. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) contains several provisions related to teacher quality. These requirements challenge states to: examine the teacher certification processes; ensure teachers have mastery of their content areas; create high standards for paraprofessionals; develop mechanisms for tracking and disclosing information on teacher qualifications; and promote ongoing professional development for teachers.

15. The Role of Accountability:Toward a Theory of Action Accountability is a strategy! Theory of Action IF the state has a certain accountability system for schools/districts, THEN the state will better achieve its educational objectives/goals Theory of action depends on the notion that the state accountability system is valid/reliable in the sense that: performance indicators/decision rules, lead to accurate/consistent accountability classifications, which lead to appropriate educational interventions/consequences, which promote achievement of state objectives/goals Integration is key! Accountability is one strategy among many (e.g., curriculum, resources, professional development, etc.) Accountability has several dimensions (e.g., state accountability determinations, data transparency, accreditation, student accountability, etc.)

16. Major Accomplishments and/or Initiatives During OSA�s Third Year: Development of Georgia�s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Plan Execution of 2003 AYP Plan and production of school-level results Development and implementation of AYP Appeals Process Production of 2002-2003 P-16 Annual Education Accountability Reports (Report Card) Development of a Single Statewide Accountability System (SSAS) Involvement with P-16 Initiatives

17. OSA�s Website Address www.gaosa.org

23. AYP Clarification Guide AYP central to a state�s accountability system Guide with information relevant for 2003-04 process Beginning February 2, 2004, initial release Monthly updates

24. AYP Clarification Guide To highlight issues most often noted during 2002-03 appeals process To include procedures and changes to the AYP process that will impact 2003-04 school year

25. AYP Clarification Guide For process questions, e-mail: Ms. Nancy Haight at nhaight@doe.k12.ga.us Ms. Joanne Leonard at jleonard@doe.k12.ga.us For data calculations, e-mail: Dr. Melodee Davis at medavis@doe.k12.ga.us

26. OSA�s Website Address www.gaosa.org Annual Accountability Reports

31. Georgia�sSingle Accountability System Merging State & Federal Requirements

32. Process for Building a Single Statewide Accountability System Over the last few months, OSA, in collaboration with DOE, has worked with the SSAS Advisory Committee as well as other key stakeholders to develop an SSAS proposal. Developed guiding principles Designed SSAS models Drafting rewards & sanctions

33. Georgia�s Guiding Principles Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Accountability Fairness Clarity/Simplicity Progress/Growth Promising Practices High Standards Continuous Improvement Flexibility/Autonomy Capacity Integration Resiliency

36. Principles Relative to Integration Clarity/Simplicity/Transparency: Establish system that is clear and understandable. Distinctions: Establish system that is valid, reliable, and fair in terms of making more fine, appropriate distinctions within school performance. Consistency: Establish system that treats similarly situated schools similarly (especially with respect to the rewards and consequences).

37. Key Design Questions for Building a Single Statewide Accountability System AYP: How should AYP be defined? State Criteria: What additional state criteria should be considered? Integration: How should AYP and state criteria be integrated? Rewards and Consequences: What rewards or consequences should apply?

38. Components of Accountability System AYP: Determine AYP based on (1) 95% participation on assessments, (2) academic proficiency, and (3) performance on an additional academic-related indicator. State Score: Include school progress score based on percentage of students improving/scoring �advanced.� Phased-in subjects and method of measuring progress. Report other indicators. Integration: Combine AYP and the state score in a meaningful representation to form the Single Statewide Accountability System. Rewards and Consequences: Apply educational interventions (rewards and consequences) consistently for all schools based on accountability determinations.

39. DRAFTAYP and State Progress Score Notes: Comments: Pros: Cons: Notes: Comments: Pros: Cons:

40. Contact Information Martha R. Reichrath, Ph.D. Executive Director Governor�s Office of Student Achievement Phone: 404.463.1150 E-mail: mreichra@doe.k12.ga.us Website: www.gaosa.org

41. Governor Sonny PerdueGreater Rome Chamber of CommerceJanuary 7, 2004 �We will care for and educate our children. We will plant the seeds for jobs and long-term economic growth. We will restore our divided communities. And we will live within our means. Most importantly, we will keep our promise to this and future generations that our children will be safe, healthy, and educated.�