1 / 33

ESEA Flexibility Request (Waivers)

ESEA Flexibility Request (Waivers). Kansas State Department of Education Webinars/Live Meetings January 2012. ESEA Flexibility - Purposes. Waivers. Annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for adequate yearly progress (AYP) 2012 AYP—use 2011 AYP targets

shadow
Download Presentation

ESEA Flexibility Request (Waivers)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESEA Flexibility Request(Waivers) Kansas State Department of Education Webinars/Live Meetings January 2012

  2. ESEA Flexibility - Purposes

  3. Waivers • Annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for adequate yearly progress (AYP) • 2012 AYP—use 2011 AYP targets • 2013 AYP—use achievement, growth and reducing the gap • Not identify Title I schools for improvement, corrective action or restructuring (rather have priority and focus schools) • Not identify districts for improvement

  4. Waivers • Remove limitations on use of REAP funds when miss AYP • Permit Title I schools with less than 40% poverty become schoolwide • Use school improvement 1003(a) funds for priority and focus schools • Use Title I funds for reward schools

  5. Waivers • Remove improvement plan requirements regarding highly qualified teachers under Title IIA • Remove limitations on transferability so 100% of certain funds could be transferred to Title I • Permit use of School Improvement Grant (SIG) section 1003(g) funds in priority schools implementing 1 of 4 SIG models • Use 21st CCLC funds to support expanded learning time during school day

  6. What changes? • Current System • Targets for AYP • Results on report cards • List of schools and districts on improvement • Reserve Title I $$ for choice, SES, PD • ESEA Flexibility • New AMOs—no 2014 • Results on report cards • List of priority, focus & reward schools • Funds used for interventions—might not have choice, SES, PD requirements

  7. What Doesn’t Change? • All accountability provisions not waiver still apply: • 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate • Disaggregation of data • N-size for student groups • Confidence intervals, safe harbor • 1% and 2% caps on results from Alternate assessment and KAMM • Still have to determine and report AYP but new AMOs—no one on improvement thru AYP

  8. ESEA Flexibility 4 Principles • College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students • State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support • Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership • Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden

  9. Deliverables Principle 1 • College and career ready standards (Adopted Common Core Standards in reading and math • High quality assessments aligned with CCR standards (grades 3-8, HS)—Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium • Academic achievement standards measure student growth • English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards aligned to CCR • ELP assessments aligned with standards

  10. Principle 2

  11. Principle 2 AMOs for AYP • 2012—Use 2011 AYP Targets • 2013—Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) for Adequate Yearly Progress (Ambitious but achievable) • Achievement • Growth • Gap • If meet any 1 of the 3, then school makes AYP!

  12. DRAFT--Reporting

  13. Assessment Performance Index (API)

  14. All Assessments at Exemplary Average Assessment at Exceeds Standard Average Assessment at Meets Standard Average Assessment at Approaches Standard All Assessments at Academic Warning

  15. Achievement AMO • Schools at or below the 5th percentile --improve their average API at 20 points per year • Schools at the 10th percentile but above the 5th percentile at 15 points per year • Those at or below the 15th percentile but above the 10th percentile at 10 points per year and • Those at or below the 20th percentile but above the 15th to improve at a minimum of 5 points per year

  16. Buildings falling at or below the 5th percentile will have to show a 20 point yearly gain.

  17. Growth AMO • Use the Student Growth Percentile Model • Schools must be at or above the growth median

  18. Gap Analysis AMO • Uses Local Level Gap Analysis • AMO: reduce building’s achievement gap in half in 6 years or • Raise API score for lowest performing 30% of students to 500. An API score of 500 means that students are performing, on average, at meets standard.

  19. Deliverables—Principle 2 • Incentives and recognition for reward schools • Interventions based on turnaround principles for priority schools • Interventions based on needs for focus schools • Define ways to build capacity at all levels • Design monitoring and technical assistance for priority and focus schools • Develop support for these schools

  20. Recognition for Reward Schools • Recognized at Kansas State Board of Education meeting • Serve as mentor school to focus or priority schools • Present at KSDE conference with fees waived • Become model demonstration site

  21. Update Principle 2 Recognitions, Interventions and Supports • Priority and Focus schools— • Use Title I funds to support interventions • Build on Kansas Learning Network (KLN)—i.e. appraisals, implementation coaches • MTSS interventions and practices • Turnaround principles—strong leadership, effective staff, improve and strengthen instructional program, redesign school time, data use, school environment, family engagement

  22. Identifying the 5% priority schools: • 5% of Title I schools = approximately 30 priority schools • Multiple Measures Index (MMI) • Combination of Assessment Performance Index and • Growth Rankings • Reading and mathematics state assessments • Most recent 4 years of state assessments • Could also be used to identify reward schools

  23. Multiple Measures Index

  24. Identifying the 10% Focus Schools: • Achievement Gap • Percent Proficiency difference between State Benchmarks (30% of highest achieving building) and a school’s lowest- performing 30% of students. • State Benchmarks set by past 4 years of Math & Reading assessments • Lowest-performing 30% of students based on past 1 year of Math & Reading assessments • Approximately 67 Title I schools

  25. Gap Analysis Display Building’s Lowest Performing 30% State Benchmark

  26. Principle 3

  27. Update Principle 3 • Workgroup designing plan for developing guidelines by end of school year • February initial meeting • Present guidelines to SBOE in June • Timeline • 2011-12—Adopts guidelines, SEA provides student growth data to teachers (available through SEEK) • 2012-13—Districts develop evaluation & supports • 2013-14—Pilot • 2014-15—Fully implement

  28. Principle 4

  29. Information and Comments • ESEA Flexibility posted on KSDE website at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5075 • Public comment period open until 2/1/2012 • Questions and comments send to waiver@ksde.org • Deadline for submitting ESEA Flexibility Request 2/21/2012

  30. Questions?

More Related