Welcome and Introductions

1. Aligned Implementation of Title I, Title II, and Title III Requirements Using a Five-step Inquiry Model to Develop an Integrated Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan

2. Welcome and Introductions CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION (CDE) Curriculum, Learning, and Accountability Branch Laura Wagner, Administrator, District Improvement Office Lilia Sanchez, Education Programs Consultant, Language Policy and Leadership Kathy Pettibone, Education Programs Consultant, Title II Leadership CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE CENTER (CA CC) AT WESTED Zoe Ann Brown, Senior Program Associate, CA CC 2 2

3. Agenda • Purpose: Illustrate how Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) program intersections provide opportunity for coordinated response through five-step inquiry model • Requirements: ESEA requirements for Title I, Title II, or Title III improvement status • A Five-step Inquiry Model: Overview and Demonstration • Closing Thoughts 3

4. Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) Student Data* 4

5. Program Intersections In many cases, students are counted in two or more subgroups (e.g., ELs, SWDs) which contribute to the local education agency (LEA) improvement status under Titles I and III. 5

6. Program Intersections of LEAs in Improvement Status Numbers are based on 2008 data. Figures reflect the number of LEAs in improvement status. 6

7. Program Requirements in a Single Accountability System • Under ESEA, Title I, Title II, and Title III programs each have specific accountability requirements. • These requirements are components of a single accountability system with a unified goal of closing the achievement gap. 7

8. Alignment and Integration LEAs should align and integrate local activities under Title I, Title II, and Title III to: • Create internally coherent educational programs for all students. • Ensure quality first instruction before categorical services are provided. • Coordinate use of human and fiscal resources in an integrated LEA Plan. 8

9. Alignment and Integration (Cont.) How to do so and respond to multiple improvement requirements argues for the use of an integrated approach to identify and address root causes of student underachievement, identify research-based solutions, and implement an aligned plan.

10. Five-step Inquiry Model for Improving Student Achievement 10

11. Step 1: Understand Title I, Title II, and Title III Plan Requirements 11

12. ESEA Performance Goals 12

13. Annual Objectives for Schools and LEAs • All LEAs, schools, and student groups must meet annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in ELA and mathematics. • Failure to meet one or more objectives may result in Title I Program Improvement (PI) status. 13

14. Immediate Goals for Teachers • All federally-defined core academic subjects are taught by highly-qualified teachers (HQT). • Failure to meet this goal will result in placement into the Title II Compliance, Monitoring, Interventions, and Sanctions (CMIS) program. 14

15. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for ELs • Two AMAOs are set for ELs in English language proficiency based on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). • A third AMAO is based on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data (ELA and mathematics). • Failure to meet one or more objectives will result in Title III LEA improvement status. 15

16. Accountability Update Notice of Final Interpretations released in 2008 will require changes to the AMAOs • The United States Department of Education is looking to have more students included in the AMAO calculations

17. Accountability Update(Cont.) • AMAO 1 • If prior year score is missing, must use score from another prior year • AMAO 2 • Must include all students, not just those projected to score at the English proficient level • Looking at data and various options • Can create cohorts based on time in program

18. LEA Plan • An LEA documents steps to meet all objectives (including AMOs, AMAOs, and HQT) in its LEA Plan. • The LEA Plan is comprised of five performance goals drawn from the ESEA goals. 18

19. Five State ESEA Goals • All students proficient or better in ELA and mathematics. • All ELs proficient in English. • All students taught by HQT. • All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning. • All students will graduate from high school. 19

20. Identification for Improvement Status Under Title I, Title II, or Title III 20

21. Title I Improvement Status • An LEA that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years becomes identified for Title I Program Improvement (PI). • Once an LEA advances to PI Year 3, it is identified for corrective action by the State Board of Education (SBE) and assigned technical assistance requirements based on LEA need. 21

22. PI LEA Planning and Reporting Requirements 22

23. Title II Improvement Status 23

24. Title II LEA Planning and Reporting Requirements 24

25. Title III Improvement Status • An LEA that fails to meet one or more AMAOs is identified for improvement status under Title III. • An LEA that fails to meet one or more AMAOs for two consecutive years advances to Title III Year 2 status. • An LEA that fails to meet one or more AMAOs for four consecutive years advances to Title III Year 4 status. 25

26. Title III LEA Planning and Reporting Requirements 26

27. Step 2: Analyze Data to Identify Challenges 27

28. Statewide Testing Programs • Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) • California Standards Test (CST) • California Modified Assessment (CMA) • California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) • Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS) • California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) • CELDT

29. CDE Student Achievement Data Web Sites/Pages • STAR Results: http://star.cde.ca.gov • CAHSEE 2009 Reports: http://cahsee.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp • CELDT Reports: http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp 29

30. CDE Student Achievement Data Web Sites/Pages (Cont.) • Title III Accountability Reports: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/t3reports.asp • Accountability Progress Reporting: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar (Includes AYP and API)

31. CDE Teacher Data Web Page Compliance Monitoring, Intervention, and Sanctions: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/tiicmis.asp

32. Step 3: Identify Underlying Causes 32

33. Underlying Causes • A challenge is not a cause • Look beyond challenges to local information to identify causes • Identify underlying causes • Brainstorm all possibilities and then verify. • Use state tools as well as other assessment and accountability tools. 33

34. Underlying Causes (Cont.) State Tools include: • Academic Program Survey (APS) • District Assistance Survey (DAS) • Inventory of Services and Supports for Students with Disabilities (ISS) • English Learner Subgroup Self Assessment (ELSSA) Survey • Equitable Distribution Plan (EDP)

35. Underlying Causes (Cont.) Alignment of State Tools The APS, DAS, ELSSA, ISS, and EDP are aligned to a common set of assumptions and anchored in the nine Essential Program Components (EPCs). The DAS, ELSSA and ISS examine the district’s support for the full implementation of the EPCs in all schools. 35

36. Underlying Causes(Cont.) Triangulate data from multiple data sources • Administer ELSSA • Administer APS at schools to assess essential program components • Administer DAS and ISS for SWDs to assess district structures to support student learning 36

37. State Tools The state tools, along with resources on the nine EPCs, are available on the CDE State Program Assessment Tools Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.

38. Step 4: Select Research-Based Solutions and Identify High Leverage Action Steps 38

39. What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ Doing What Works http://dww.ed.gov/ Center on Instruction http://www.centeroninstruction.org/ Teacher Quality http://www.tqsource.org/ Outside Source Web Sites on Research-based Solutions 39

40. Outside Source Web Sites on Research-based Solutions (Cont.) • Center on Innovation and Improvement http://www.centerii.org/search/ciisearch.aspx • EL Research http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/cs/smu/view/rs/18044

41. High-Leverage Objectives • Focus on root causes and identify three or four key objectives. • Determine whether objectives can be consolidated to address more than one root cause. • Put a limited number of objectives in the LEA Plan, LEA Plan addendum, Title III Action Plan, Title III Improvement Plan Addendum, or EDP to address multiple underachievement causes. 41

42. Step 5: Develop/Revise, Implement, and Monitor LEA Plan 42

43. LEA Plan as Umbrella Plan Recognize that all of the following are part of the umbrella LEA Plan • Title I LEA Plan or LEA Plan Addendum • Title II EDP • Title III Year 2 Improvement Plan Addendum or Year 4 Action Plan 43

44. Participant Practice for Sample District

45. Sample District: Underlying Achievement Causes • LEA has not adopted a standards-based English language development (ELD) program. • Lack of systematic use of interventions. • ELD instructional time varies from 0 to 20 min every other day. • Teachers are not credentialed to teach ELD.

46. Sample District: Participant Practice with Draft LEA Plan 46

47. 2009 ESEA Resources • CA CC Web sitehttp://www.cacompcenter.org/esea-requriements (Outside Source) • CDE Title I Web page http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/leapireq.asp • CDE Title II Web page http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/tiicmis.asp • CDE Title III Web pagehttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3/

48. Fostering Alignment All program administrators (Title I, II, and III) should work to: • Create a common LEA vision and plan focused on achievement • Analyze student achievement data, state tools, and flexible resources in concert to create an integrated LEA Plan • Allocate human and fiscal resources to best support the integrated LEA Plan.

49. LEA Vision and Plan • Focus on academic achievement for students through a strong, coherent instructional program • Support fidelity implementation of standards-aligned materials • Commit to building an early and rigorous student intervention system (e.g., Response to Instruction and Intervention) 49

50. Student Achievement Data and Monitoring Systems • Establish and maintain a robust student achievement data system that provides timely data from formative and summative assessments • Regularly monitor implementation of LEA Plan and all related school plans • Routinely update LEA plans to ensure that they remain relevant to current conditions 50