370 likes | 522 Views
Update on ESEA Flexibility Waiver. September 19, 2012. Information & Contact. ESEA Flexibility Website: http ://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5075 Click on Icon on Main KSDE Web Page (Right Side) www.ksde.org Contact: waiver@ksde.org. Why Was ESEA Waiver Available?.
E N D
Update on ESEA Flexibility Waiver September 19, 2012
Information & Contact • ESEA Flexibility Website: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5075 • Click on Icon on Main KSDE Web Page (Right Side) www.ksde.org • Contact: waiver@ksde.org
Why Was ESEA Waiver Available? • Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • U.S. Department of Education (ED) offered states opportunity for relief from certain provisions of ESEA • In order to improve academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction for all students through state and local reforms
Why Kansas Sought a Waiver? • To move away from the narrowly defined accountability system in NCLB (100%proficient) • To have a new accountability system that uses multiple measures with goals that are unique to each school/district • To have results which are more meaningful measures of the success and progress of Kansas schools • KS is already doing many of the parts, i.e. common core standards
Numerous Waivers within Waiver • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Use 2011 targets in 2012 • No more determinations beginning 2012-2013 • No identifying Title I Schools on Improvement nor having Choice, SES, Corrective Action • No identifying Title I Districts on Improvement
Title I Set Asides • No set aside for school choice , SES or professional development • Now reserve funds to help priority & focus schools • 20% reservation for priority schools • 10% reservation for focus schools • 20% maximum reservation
10 – 20% Set Aside To help with implementation of interventions & strategies, for example: • Professional development • Hiring additional time with instructional coaches and/or district facilitators • Extended time • Parent & community engagement • Strengthen curriculum • Data analysis
Title II A Teacher Quality • Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) still required • If not 100% HQT, no longer • Have to write improvement plans • Reserve Title IIA funds for on improvement • Develop agreement between district & KSDE use of Title IIA funds • Restricted on hiring new Title I paraprofessionals • Now emphasis on evaluation and support systems –effective teachers
21st CCLC • New 21st CCLC grants—possibly use funds during expanded learning time during the school day (restrictions) • 21st CCLC grants are federally-funded competitive grants for programs that provide quality academic and enrichment opportunities to children • Opportunity for significant resources for extended day, after school, summer programs • 5 year grants, no matching requirement, $50,000 - $200,000 • Field will be notified of next 21st CCLC competition window
ESOL and Title III • Title III: • Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) • Replace AYP with Waiver’s AMO 4 Reducing Non-Proficient • All ELLs— • revise English Language Proficiency standards • revise or new KELPA
Principles of the Waiver • College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students • State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support • Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students • Implement KS Common Core Standards (College & Career Ready) in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2013-2014 • Implement new high quality assessments aligned with CCS in 2014-2015 • Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium • Assessments in grades 3-8 and HS • Regular & alternate assessments (no KAMM)
Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students • Adopt English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards aligned to CCS by 2013-2014 • Administer new ELP assessments aligned to new ELP standards by 2014-2015 (revise or replace the KELPA)
Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support • Accountability • Still use state assessments for reading and math • Look at state assessment data in four ways • Improving achievement • Increasing growth • Decreasing gap • Reducing non-proficient • Participation rates on state assessments • Graduation rates • Establish Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for each
Principle 2 Accountability—AMOs • Four ways to calculate state assessment results • Each has own annual measurable objective (AMO) • AMOs calculated for schools, districts and state • All students, traditional subgroups, and lowest 30% group (if 30 students in group)
Accountability-AMO #1 • Improving Achievement • Assessment Performance Index—API • Similar to Standard of Excellence—acknowledge results at all performance levels • AMO—Amount of Improvement based on what quartile school is in
Accountability—AMO #2 • Increasing Growth • Student Growth Percentile Model • AMO—Be within top half of distribution of all school growth medians
Accountability—AMO #3 • Decreasing Gap • Assessment Performance Index—compare lowest 30% of students within building to state benchmark (highest 30% in state) • AMO—Reduce the gap by half in annual increments spanning 6 years
Accountability –AMO #4 • Reducing the Non-Proficient • Performance Level Percentages • Includes disaggregated groups • AMO—Reduce the percentage of non-proficient students by half in annual increments spanning 6 years
Reducing the Non-Proficient Non-Proficient Non-Proficient Proficient Proficient Now 2017
Other AMOs • Participation Rates • State reading and math assessments • Follow same rules as did with AYP • AMO—95%
Other AMOs • Graduation Rate • 4-year and 5-year adjusted cohort graduation rates • Follow same rules as did last two years • AMO—Goal 80% and Targets are • If rate is 80% or higher, target is 0 • If rate is between 50-79%, target is 3% improvement • If rate is less than 50%, target is 5% improvement
Principle 2 Recognition & Support • Identify Title I Reward, Priority and Focus Schools: • Reward Schools: Highest performance or highest progress (10% of Title I schools= 66) • Priority Schools: Lowest performing (5% of Title I schools= 33) • Focus Schools: Largest gaps between state benchmark and lowest achieving students in school (10% = 66)
Principle 2 Recognition & Support • Identification of these schools is based on • Reading and math assessment results combined • Multiple years of data • “All Students” group • Priority schools—Turnaround Principles • Focus schools--interventions based on need
Support for Priority & Focus Schools • Federal School Improvement Grants • Title I funds reserved by districts • Support provided by KSDE through the Kansas Learning Network (KLN) • KSDE—School Improvement Coordinator Sandy Guidry • Network Providers (service centers) • Cross & Joftus Consultants • District Facilitators • Implementation Coach
KansaStar • Web-based system • Priority and Focus schools will use • Indicators around Turnaround Principles • Becomes Action Plan • Is tool for communication (coaching comments) • Way to monitor progress of implementation
Principle 2 Other Title I Schools • Title I Not Making Progress Schools • Missed all assessment AMOs • Develop action plan to address identified needs including subgroups • Title I Making Progress Schools • Met at least one of the assessment AMOs
Principle 3 Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Implement teacher & principal evaluation & support systems that: • Use for continual improvement of instruction • Use at least 3 performance levels • Use multiple measures including student growth as significant factor • Evaluate on a regular basis • Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback • Use to inform personnel decisions
Which Evaluation System? • No specific system is required; however, all teacher and principal evaluation systems must meet the Kansas guidelines for educator evaluation • Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP) is a model which districts may use • If districts use own system, it will be reviewed by KSDE to ensure it meets guidelines
Timeline (cont’d) • 2012-13— • Districts determine whether use KEEP or own system; submit own system for review • Teaching in Kansas Commission II • Pilot KEEP • 2013-14—Pilot • 2014-15—Fully implement
Waiver Helps with Transition • Focus on common core standards • Develop and implement next generation of state assessments • Design a new accreditation system • Prepare for a future reauthorized ESEA