Building Next-Generation Accountability Systems March 28, 2011 | 10:00-11:00 a.m.

1. Building Next-Generation Accountability SystemsMarch 28, 2011 | 10:00-11:00 a.m.

2. Purpose of Today's Session • Continue and broaden the discussion of the Next-Generation State Accountability Taskforce's work. • Communicate that states are leading on establishing these systems and expect federal support for these endeavors. 2

3. Why Now? • States have a unique and timely opportunity to assert responsibility and authorityfor improving student achievement. • These new models capitalize on recent state-led reforms to adopt accountability systems that better promote college- and career-readiness for all students and schools. • These models build upon NCLB accountability systems that have introduced important practices, but move beyond such systems to more tightly integrate across the system's components. The focus of the Roadmap is on school and district accountability, with recognition that accountability must be aligned across all elements of the system including emerging teacher and leader evaluation systems and other capacity-building reforms. 3

4. The Taskforce • The Taskforce is composed of roughly 20 state chiefs and SEA leaders. • The Taskforce has participated in robust meetings and discussions to develop a framework for next-generation state accountability systems. • In engaging in this work, the Taskforce has relied on its members' experiences in implementing accountability systems over the past two decades along with the knowledge of various experts and the latest research. 4

5. Outcomes of Taskforce • Roadmap for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems • Statement of Principles • Federal legislative language 5

6. Statement of Principles For each state to advance the goals of college- and career-readiness, we have to establish accountability systems that meet several core principles including the following: • Alignment of accountability with college- and career-readiness • Annual accountability determinations • Determinations focused on student academic outcomes (status & growth) • Continued disaggregation of student data in order to address achievement gaps • Transparent reporting of information in a timely and actionable manner • Diagnostic reviews of schools and districts that inform meaningful supports and interventions • Interventions targeted to the lowest-performing schools & districts • Continuous system evaluation and innovation 6

7. Roadmap for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems Purpose: • Provide a statement of state leadership in developing more robust, meaningful accountability systems. • Provide a guide for state action in developing and implementing next-generation accountability systems. • Identify recommendations for federal law, especially during this significant period of transition. 7

8. Framework for Next-Generation Accountability Systems Cycle of Accountability 8

9. Components of Next-Generation Accountability Systems 9

10. Components of Next-Generation Accountability Systems 10

11. Goals of Next-Generation Accountability Systems The goals of next-generation state accountability systems are integrated and mutually-reinforcing.

12. Elements of Next-Generation Accountability Systems Based on the research and work of CCSSO, among others, the Taskforce has agreed on the followingframework for next-generation accountability systems. • The framework is composed of elements that individually and collectively are needed for the accountability systems to meet their goals. • These elements link to a vision of accountability that significantly improves student achievement. • Within each element are the following components: • "Shoulds"– state actions necessary to ensure system integrity • "Coulds" – actions a state might take depending on its particular context • Key issues to address • State exemplars

13. Element 1 – Performance Objectives Performance objectives must support the goal of ensuring all students are college and career-ready. Should… • Have goal of all students being college- and career-ready upon graduation • Include targets and benchmarks for each grade level • Establish state-approved goals in at least English language arts and math, including both rigorous knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge • Be transparent and clear Could… • Include targets in subjects and for skills beyond English language arts and math and beyond grades with standardized tests • Adopt unique benchmarks for each student subgroup depending on current levels (but with same ultimate goal) Key Issues… • Aligning student accountability with institutional accountability • Assessment of higher order skills

14. Element 2 – ValidMeasures Measures focus on student performance outcomes (status & growth) on standardized assessments and graduation rates and are results are disaggregated by student subgroup. Should… • Focus on student outcomes • Gauge student achievement through measures including but not limited to (1) improved statewide assessments aligned to college and career readiness and (2) accurate graduate rates • Focus on both status and growth and highlight achievement gapsin student learning • Be disaggregated by student subgroup Could… • Use multiple student outcome measures in addition to the fundamental ones listed above • Use measures of performance in grades other than 3-8 and once in high school • Use measures from multiple subjects • Tie measures of college access, remediation, persistence, and success back to feeder high schools • Focus more heavily on lowest-performing students • Measure advanced status • Focus on productivity Key Issues… • Validity in measures of success in college and careers • Selection of a growth model • District accountability • Incorporating additional data elements

15. Element 3 - Determinations Determinations must characterize and differentiate between schools and districts based on student achievement outcomes (status & growth). Should… • Make annual determinations for all schools and districts and set a high bar for achievement and improvement for all students • Be valid, reliable, and make meaningful distinctions between and within low-performing and high-performing groups and through the identification of underperforming subgroups • Be clear to stakeholders and the public • Value status and progress of schools and districts Could… • Hold schools and districts to same annual standard or vary standard based on unique starting points as long as all are on track to meet same ultimate performance objectives Key Issues… • Weighting of various measures in calculating the overall determination • Compensatory or conjunctive? • Exceptions to the rule and recognizing nuances

16. Element 4 – Transparent Reporting Results of determinations and diagnostic reviews must be transparently reported in clear, meaningful, and timely ways. Should… • Communicate goals of system along with context in which school and district results can be interpreted by parents and the public • Present data in a timely manner • Utilizing the latest technology, present data in a variety of accessible ways for multiple stakeholders • Provide stakeholders with actionable data Could… • Include data from the school and classroom level • Report data beyond the measures and metrics used for determinations • Publish data for "families of schools" for comparison purposes Key Issues… • Balancing validity with transparency • Protecting student privacy • Balancing timeliness with accuracy • Interpreting data

17. Element 5 – Diagnostic Review Diagnostic reviews ensure comprehensive analysis of school and district performance through review of both student achievement outcomes and processes to more meaningfully target supports and interventions. Should… Should… • Incorporate key quality standards with outcome determinations to gain a complete picture of strengths and areas for improvement • Be timed in order to inform supports and interventions • Be required at least for low-performing schools (including those with significant achievement gaps) Could… • Utilize existing accreditation procedures/practices that focus on outcomes and processes used to achieve those outcomes • Employ independent, third-party reviewers • Include relevant state and federal monitoring requirements • Inform classifications • Expand scope to encompass examination of early learning opportunities and other community-based supports Key Issues… • Building state and district capacity • Utilizing external reviewers • Incorporating data and instructional improvement systems

18. Element 6 - Classifications Classifications differentiate schools and districts to inform the provision of supports & interventions. Should… • Identify at least the lowest-performing schools, both by overall student performance and greatest gaps in performance among students • Identify highest-performing schools for recognition and best practices replication • Signal the degree to which state will intervene and mandate a response Could… • Delineate classifications for the whole range of schools Key Issues… • Balancing accuracy and clarity

19. Element 7 – Supports and Interventions Supports and interventions reinforce or redirect school and district efforts to produce college- and career-ready students based on the student achievement outcomes and the results of the diagnostic review. Should… • Target the lowest-performing schools and districts (by student outcomes and performance gaps) for most significant interventions • Be motivational, not just punitive • Be well-matched to school and district needs • Be tied to a strong model of delivery • Focus attention on the most effective interventions Could… • Include interventions and supports for students and teachers • Utilize a cadre of providers beyond the state • Focus significant interventions on moderately low performers • Provide rewards • Consider efforts to mobilize communities and other partners for focused attention on effective interventions Key Issues… • Recognizing high performers • Funding mechanisms

20. Element 8 – Continuous Improvement States must continuously evaluate and improve the elements of the next-generation accountability system to best drive student achievement and determine the degree of congruence between the accountability system's end goal of college and career readiness and the means used to achieve that goal. Should… • Evaluate the accountability system as a whole as well as each individual element • Establish expectations for review and improvement • Make evaluations and reviews transparent • Act on the results Could… • Utilize external entities to review effect of the system • Look to other state and international models

21. Federal Recommendations The federal government should support state-led efforts to design and execute next-generation accountability systems. Federal law should… • Codify where appropriate the broad requirements discussed above but otherwise leave specific design authority to the states. • Encourage innovation along with evaluation and cross-state communication to establish proof points and drive continuous improvement. • Establish a process of rigorous, interactive peer review for proposed state accountability systems. • Afford significant flexibility to states in transitioning assessment and accountability systems as they adopt college- and career-ready standards. Meanwhile to inform reauthorization and if ESEA is delayed, states should exercise their express waiver authority, and the federal government should approve states' education reform proposals that are educationally sound, consistent with this Roadmap. We further recommend that ESEA waiver authority be amended and peer review improved to adopt a "state innovation authority" to approve new policy models in assessment, accountability, supports and interventions, and the like.