ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview

1. ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview

2. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, in 2001

3. AYP, as defined by ESEA: • Measured the proficiency of students in ELA and mathematics in grades 3-8 and once in high school grades. • Included Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) for student performance (ELA and mathematics), student participation, and Graduation rate for high schools (attendance rate used for elementary and middle schools) • Ensured that by the end of the 2013-14 school year all students will meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement on State assessments. • Determined if the student performance objectives were met in ELA and mathematics by the following: • All Students Group, • Racial/Ethnic Group (White, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan), • Disability Status Group, • English Proficiency Group, and • Socio-Economic Status Group.

7. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

8. This school missed 22 of 37 objectives and did not make AYP.

9. This school missed 1 of 37 objectives and did not make AYP.

10. AYP Results in South Carolina

11. The USED extended to States an opportunity to design an alternative to AYP • Last fall, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) offered States the opportunity to request flexibility from certain requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. • These waivers could be granted in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction. • South Carolina’s State Superintendent of Education accepted that opportunity.

12. Required Components of the ESEA Waiverfor the State-based System of Accountability The State’s Accountability System must: • Apply to all districts and all schools, • Include ELA and Math and graduation rate for all students and all subgroups (subjects other than ELA and Math may be included), • Include school performance and progress over time for all students and all subgroups, • Include student growth following implementation of College- and Career-Ready Assessments (scheduled for Spring 2015), • Include ambitious but achievable AMOs in at least ELA and Math.

13. South Carolina’s Goals in Developing an Alternative to Current AYP A system that is: • Simple and easy to understand. • Transparent. • Not an “all or nothing” system. • Ambitious, but achievable. • A system that identifies Title 1 schools most in need of assistance. • A modernized state-based accountability system that unifies state and federal accountability elements to provide transparent, accurate, and meaningful data to students, parents, educators, and the public.

14. District and School Grading Scale

15. 2012 Annual Measureable Objectives(based on the State mean) • Elementary School AMO for all subjects= 630 • Middle School AMO for all subjects= 624 • High School • ELA = 223 • Math = 220 • Science = 76 • Social Studies = 71 • Graduation Rate = 73.1

16. Sample Elementary / Middle School Matrix

17. Sample High School / District Matrix

18. 2012 Resultsfor ESEA / Federal Accountability Methodology

19. Comparison of 2012 ESEA/Federal Accountability to 2011 NCLB/AYP Results Percent of Schools That Meet or Exceed State’s Expectations by Type of School ESEA Grades = A, B, C and AYP = MET N Count for schools with no available 2011 AYP results = 15 Legend 2012 ESEA Federal Accountability 2011 NCLB/AYP

20. ESEA 2012 Grade Distribution

21. Elementary and Middle Schools 2012 ESEA Grade compared to 2011 Absolute Rating

22. High Schools 2012 ESEA Grade compared to 2011 Absolute Rating

23. Included in this release of the ESEA / Federal Accountability System are the following lists of Title I schools: • Reward for Performance Schools • Reward for Progress Schools • Priority Schools • Focus Schools The ESEA Waiver required the identification and the reporting of these schools. 23

24. Reward Schools for Performance are the highest performing Title I schools in a given year. To determine a Reward School based on performance a Title I school must: • attain an “A” or “B” in the two most recent school years. • have a free/reduced lunch count that is greater than 50 percent. • not have significant achievement gaps. • not be a Primary school. Title I funds will be used to provide a monetary award to the top schools in this category. Reward Schools for Performance 24

25. Reward Schools for Progress Reward Schools for Progress are Title I schools that demonstrate the most substantial progress in either the “all students” group or in subgroups from one school year to the next. To determine a Reward School based on progress a Title I school must: • attain an “A”, “B”, or “C” in the two most recent school years. • have a free/reduced lunch count that is greater than 50 percent. • Be in the top 10% of qualifying Title I schools that demonstrate progress in the performance of all students or in subgroups on statewide assessments or make substantial progress increasing the graduation rate. • not be a Primary school. • Title I funds will be used to provide a monetary award to the top schools in this category. 25

26. Priority Schools are the lowest performing Title I schools. • Priority schools are determined by ranking each Title I school’s total weighted composite index score (which determines the school’s letter grade) from lowest to highest. • Twenty-seven schools are designated as Priority Schools, which is equal to at least five percent of the total Title I schools served by the State. • Primary schools (which do not have grades tested by the state assessments) are not included in the ranking for Priority Schools. Priority Schools • Title I and/or State funds will be used to provide a supplemental allocation to schools in this category to support interventions. 26

27. Focus Schools are Title I schools with the highest average performance gap between subgroups. • To determine performance gaps, each subgroup’s performance is compared with the corresponding non-subgroup comparison group. • Each subgroup achievement gap difference will be calculated, averaged, and ranked to determine the Title I schools with the highest average achievement gap. • Fifty-five schools are designated as Focus Schools, which is equal to at least ten percent of the total number of Title I schools served by the State. • Primary schools, which do not have grades tested by the state assessments, are not included. Focus Schools • Title I funds will be used to provide a supplemental allocation to schools in this category to support interventions. 27

28. School Choice and SES in Priority and Focus Schools School Choice – the school district allows the student to transfer to a school that is not a Priority or Focus School and the district provides transportation to this school of choice. SES – Supplemental Educational Services is tutoring provided to students outside the school day by either the school or by an outside provider. SES is provided at no cost to the student. 28

29. Questions?