Public Comment Period

1. ESEA Waiver Request Public Comment Period South Carolina Department of Education SCDE ESEA Waiver Request Team Leadership Charmeka Bosket − Office of Policy and Research Dr. Nancy Busbee − Division of Accountability Mark Bounds− Division of School Effectiveness

2. ESEA Waiver Request Welcome and Overview

3. Four Principles of ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request Principle 1: College- and Career- Ready Expectations for All Students Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Principle 4: Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden.

4. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1: College- and Career- Ready Expectations for All Students • States must: • Adopt and implement college- and career-ready standards statewide • Develop and administer annual statewide, high quality assessments that measure student growth Office of Policy and Research

5. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1: College- and Career- Ready Expectations for All Students • States must (cont’d): • Support English learners by committing to adopt English language proficiency standards • Annually report to the public on college-going and college credit accumulation rates for all students in each high school. Office of Policy and Research

6. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 • The Annual Reporting Requirement Entails two Postsecondary Expectations • The state must provide an assurance to report on college-going and college credit-accumulation rates for each LEA and high school in South Carolina: • By year of implementation of college and career-ready standards beginning with the 2013-14 school year and no later than the 2014-2015 school year; • For all students and subgroups of students in each LEA and each public high school in the State. Office of Policy and Research

7. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1: College- and Career- Ready Expectations for All Students • Reporting requirements specifications are defined under State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12). • South Carolina SFSF Program Application for Phase II- Data Collection & Public Reporting Plan • http://ed.sc.gov/agency/lpa/SFSFIndicatorsandDescriptors.cfm Office of Policy and Research

8. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.A—Adopt College- and Career-Ready Standards • South Carolina is able to provide evidence that the state has fulfilled this requirement. • In 2010, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics. • The US Department of Education has identified CCSS as college and career ready standards. Office of Policy and Research

9. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.B—Transition to College- and Career- Ready Standards • In order to receive a waiver, South Carolina’s plan to transition to and implement standards has to: • Guide instruction no later than 2013-14 school year; • Be High-quality; and • Be likely to lead to all students gaining access to aligned content. Office of Policy and Research

10. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.B—Transition to College- and Career- Ready Standards US Department of Education provides several guidance expectations for the State’s transition plan. Office of Policy and Research

11. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.B—Transition to College- and Career- Ready Standards Office of Policy and Research

12. ESEA Waiver Request *Guidance Expectation Question Does the SEA intend to work with the State’s IHEs and other teacher and principal preparation programs to better prepare− • Incoming teachers to teach all students, including English language learners, students with disabilities, and low-achieving students to the new college- and career-ready standards; and • Incoming principals to provide strong, supportive instructional leadership on teaching to the new standards? Office of Policy and Research

13. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.B—Transition to College- and Career- Ready Standards • The SCDE Office of Policy and Research, Division of Accountability, and Division of School Effectiveness are all working on the transition to implement CCSS statewide. • Implementation Timeline • District Implementation Videos Office of Policy and Research

14. Memo to Districts September 2011

15. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.C—Develop and Administer Annual Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth US Department of Education provides several guidance expectations for the State’s new assessment. Office of Policy and Research

16. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.C—Develop and Administer Annual Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth Office of Policy and Research

17. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.C—Develop and Administer Annual Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth • South Carolina can provide evidence that we will fulfill this requirement by demonstrating that we are participating in both of the approved assessment consortia identified as: • PARCC and SBAC. Office of Policy and Research

18. PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) M.O.U. June 2011

19. SBAC (SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium) M.O.U. June 2011

20. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 1 Requirement 1.C—Develop and Administer Annual Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth • SCDE is conducting additional work to help the state determine the best assessment for South Carolina’s students • Assessment Study Group Convened • Financial Analysis Being Conducted Office of Policy and Research 20

21. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support States must develop and implement a State-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support. Division of Accountability

22. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 2Develop and Implement a State-Based System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Provide a description of the SEA’s system that includes: • plan for implementation no later than the 2012-13 school year • explanation of how it is designed to improve student achievement and school performance, close gaps, and increase quality of instruction. Division of Accountability

23. Required ComponentsState-based System of Accountability Must apply to all LEAs and all Title I schoolsand: • Include ELA and Math and graduation rate for all students and all subgroups (subjects other than ELA and Math may be included) • South Carolina’s proposal for the determination of AYP will include: • ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies • Graduation rate for high schools and districts • Percent tested in ELA and Math • Include school performance and progress over time for all students and all subgroups • South Carolina’s proposal for the determination of AYP will include: • Full credit for meeting Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) (by subgroup) • Partial credit for making progress toward meeting AMOs (by subgroup) • Graduation rates, ELA performance, and Math performance will carry greater weight than Science/Biology performance and Social Studies/US History performance Division of Accountability

24. Required ComponentsState-based System of Accountability Must apply to all LEAs and all Title I schoolsand: • Include student growth following adoption of College- and Career-Ready Assessments • South Carolina’s proposal for the determination of AYP will not include student growth at this time. The proposed AYP will include progress toward AMOs. • Set ambitious but achievable AMOs in at least ELA and Math • South Carolina’s proposal for the determination of AYP will include: • The retention of the current AMOs in ELA and Math – not to exceed the 2012-2013 level – which will reflect an ambitious, but achievable goal of 90 percent. • AMOs developed for Social Studies and Science using 2010-11 as the baseline year (employing the same method used to determine the AMOs for ELA and Math) to reach the goal of 90 percent by 2019-20 Division of Accountability

25. Current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

26. Currently schools and districts did not meet AYP if oneobjective was not met

27. South Carolina’s Goals in Developing an Alternative to Current AYP • Simple and easier to understand • Transparent • Not an “all or nothing” system • Ambitious, but achievable • Provides useful information • Identifies Title I schools most in need of assistance Division of Accountability

31. State must describe methodology using assessment results and graduation rates for: • Identifying the highest performing Title I schools • Identifying high progress Title I schools • Publicly recognizing Reward Schools State may include: • Plan to reward highest-performing and high-progress schools ESEA Waiver Request Reward Schoolshighest performing or high-progress Title I schools Division of Accountability

32. Reward Schools as Proposed • Proposed Definition of Reward Schools • Highest Performing • Title I schools with the highest absolute performance over a two year period • High Progress • Title I schools making the most progress in improving the performance of the “all students” group over a two year period. • Recognition • Superintendent’s Press Release • Reward • Continue the “Distinguished Schools” monetary reward

33. State must include: • Methodology for identifying lowest performing schools (number identified = at least 5% of the State’s Title I schools) • Meaningful interventions aligned to turnaround principles to be implemented in Priority Schools • Timeline to ensure LEAs implement meaningful interventions no later than 2014-15 • Criteria the SEA will use to determine that a school is making significant progress. ESEA Waiver Request Priority Schoolsamong the lowest performing schools in the State Division of Accountability

34. Priority Schools as Proposed • Identify schools as currently used for SIG • Interventions • Office of School Transformation • Transformational Learning Communities • Four transformation models • Priority levels based on rubric • Choice and SES • Required for Priority Schools • Exiting Priority Status • Earn a grade of C or higher

35. State mustidentify: • Number of Focus Schools =to 10% of number of Title I schools in the State • Schools with the largest within-school achievement gaps or graduation rate gaps between subgroup(s); or lowest achievement and/or lowest graduation rate • Interventions (examples and justifications) these schools will be required to implement (based on needs assessment data). ESEA Waiver Request Focus SchoolsTitle I schools contributing to the State’s achievement gap Division of Accountability

36. Focus Schools as Proposed • Identify the lowest 10% of Title I schools based on greatest gaps in performance and graduation rates • Interventions • Development of a focused Achievement Gap Plan • Appropriate follow-up by Department staff • Option to provide SES and Public School Choice • Exiting Focus Status • The school no longer meets the criteria

37. Incentives and Supports for Other Title I Schools • Schools that receive a “C” or “D” and are not Priority or Focus schools • Office of Federal and State Accountability • Needs assessment conducted • Plan submitted • 1003(a) funds • Repurposed Title I, Part A 20% set-aside

38. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Division of School Effectiveness

39. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Educator Evaluation BACKGROUND Division of School Effectiveness

40. ESEA Waiver Request Statewide Educator Evaluation Systems • South Carolina has statewide systems for evaluating teachers and principals. • ADEPT and PADEPP provide consistency and continuity across districts. • We will use the lessons learned from these systems to help shape the future educator evaluation system.

41. ADEPT Chronology 2006 ADEPT and Induction & Mentoring Guidelines approved 1998 Statewide implementation of ADEPT system 2011 Revised InTASC standards released 2004 ADEPT statute amended Effective Educator Evaluation System ADEPT 2005 ADEPT regulation amended 2008—2010 SAFE-T Roll-out 2011 ADEPT Upgrade Task Force 2003 External evaluation of ADEPT system • The ADEPT system is continuously being revised and improved. • The Summative ADEPT Formal Evaluation of Classroom-Based Teachers (SAFE-T) was the latest improvement to the educator evaluation process.

42. PADEPP Chronology 2001 Statewide implementation of PADEPP system 2010 Roll-out of the PADEPP Data System PADEPP 2001 Principal Evaluation Three-Year Project completed 2011 PADEPP regulation amended 2009 PADEPP regulation amended • Similarly, continuous improvement is an ongoing goal of the PADEPP system.

43. ESEA Waiver Request Evaluation Data Web-Based Data Collection and Reporting Systems • Data on all teachers and principals are collected annually via web-based applications. • Institutions of Higher Education receive performance data on their graduates.

44. ESEA Waiver Request • A chronological ADEPT history, a permanent record of employment and performance, is generated for every teacher. • The ADEPT history is available to the teacher, to the teacher’s employing school district, and to any school district in South Carolina to which the teacher applies for teaching employment.

45. ADEPT Success Rate Only 77% of educators entering the field pass all of the ADEPT requirements necessary to receive a professional teaching certificate. Data are from 2010-11 academic year. ADEPT Gate 3 Formal Evaluation 86% Success Rate ADEPT Gate 2 Induction 92% Success Rate • Actual ADEPT data dispel the common perception that “just about everybody passes” teacher evaluations. That statement may be true in other states, but it doesn’t apply to South Carolina. ADEPT Gate 1 Student Teaching 97.6% Success Rate

46. ESEA Waiver Request Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership • Educator Evaluation FUTURE Division of School Effectiveness

47. Considerations for Revising the ADEPT Formal Evaluation Model Current ADEPT Future ADEPT (Draft – For discussion purposes only) System Improvements • Classroom Observation Rubric: _____% • Teacher Reflection Rubric: _____% • Student Survey Rubric: _____% Increased emphasis on student growth • Value-Added Additional performance measures • Student surveys • Peer surveys Performance rubrics A variable weighting scale Judgment = Met or Not Met Teacher Effectiveness Rating A teacher effectiveness rating

48. Student Growth is at the center of our work • Student • Growth • value-added • unit work samples • other measures Student Growth is nested in an educator evaluation system Educator Evaluation System

49. ESEA Waiver Request APS Rating Levels FROM TO Bimodal Pass/Fail • Multilevel • Level 1: Unsatisfactory • Level 2: Needs Improvement • Level 3: Proficient • Level 4: Exemplary • ADEPT will move from a bimodal rating scale (pass—fail) to a multilevel scale. • A four-level rating scale is currently under consideration. Division of School Effectiveness

50. ADEPT Standards Revision (Classroom-Based Teachers) DRAFT CRITERIA DECISION POINTS *APSs = ADEPT Performance Standards • In revising the ADEPT Performance Standards, our goal is to move toward fewer, clearer, deeper standards. • Preliminary recommendations include adding a Student Growth standard and reducing the total number of indicators from 34 to 19.