CDE Update CA School Dashboard and ESSA

CDE Update CA School Dashboard and ESSA

Capitol Advisors Group, LLC to CAWS,

At the May State Board of Education (SBE) hearing, as in prior hearings, the subject of accountability continued to dominate the conversation. The Board received an update on the dashboard and the continued development of the indicators, in particular the English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI); took action on a process to incorporate alternative schools into the new accountability system; and approved the draft State Plan for compliance with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to be posted for public comment. Below is a summary of key items.

The Accountability System

CA School Dashboard:

The field test of the Dashboard will provide feedback for changes based on user experiences and stakeholder response. Recommendations for system improvements as well as to the State and Local Indicators will be presented to the Board at the September SBE hearing for inclusion in the Fall 2017 Dashboard.

Fall 2017 Dashboard -

• English LearnerProgressand Suspension Rate Indicators will use 2016-17 data
• Four-year graduation cohort report is under development for CALPADS for the 2017-18 collection cycle for inclusion in the Fall 2018 Dashboard

• Search function will be improved to allow for comparison across schools in a district

Additional information on theDashboard, including areference guide, thevariations between the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 versions, as well astimelinesfor the ongoing development of state and local indicators andfuture SBE actions related to accountability, are linked for your review.

Development of the State and Local Indicators -

English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI)

In March, the ELPI Work Group discussed options for providing schools an opportunity to earn credit in the ELPI when advancing long-term English learner (LTEL) performance on the CELDT. Ultimately, the work group recommended adding a full count (an additional 100 percent weight) to the ELPI status numerator for every LTEL student who increased at least one CELDT level.

Formula:

Annual CELDT Test Takers Who Increased at least 1 CELDT Level

Plus

Annual CELDT Test Takers Who Maintained Early Advanced/ Advanced English Proficient on the CELDT

Plus

ELs Who Were Reclassified in the Prior Year

PlusLTEL CELDT Test Takers Who Increased at Least 1 CELDT LevelDivided by

Total Number of Annual CELDT Test Takers in the Current YearplusELs Who Were Reclassified in the Prior Year

In April, CDE staff presented this recommendation to the California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG) who requested that CDE staff take a look at the 63 schools that would receive an improved performance level based on the new formula to see if the schools are concentrated in selected districts or if they represented specific types of schools. CDE concluded that the schools are primarily larger schools located in higher populated urban school districts with a significant number of EL and LTEL students. Consequently, this current recommendation, as proposed, would positively impact schools with large numbers of LTEL students and have little or no impact on schools with small LTEL populations.

CDE updated the Board on the discussions and proposed recommendations from the ELPI working group at the May hearing. However, CDE will not provide an official recommendation for potential changes to the ELPI until the September 2017 SBE hearing, in order to allow for any changes to be made in concert with the other state indicators.

College/Career Indicator (CCI)

CDE convened a CCI workgroup to address concerns expressed by the Board that the CCI career measures were not as robust as the college measures. The work group met for the first time via Webinar on April 19, 2017. Based on feedback from that meeting, the work group plans to explore:

• Inclusion of career data currently available in CALPADS that is not included in the CCI
• Possible career data for future CALPADS collections
• New calculation methodologies that would incorporate all students’ high school cumulative achievement in the CCI results.

The work group is scheduled to meet this month and again in July. For a list of the group members, please contact me.

School Conditions and Climate Work Group (CCWG)

CDE convened the CCWG to explore options for the further development of school conditions and climate measures in California’s accountability system. They have met monthly since January 2017 to develop advisory recommendations to the CDE for creating and using school conditions and climate metrics.

Incorporation of Alternative Schools

Alternative schools were excluded from the Spring 2017 Dashboard in order to allow for the development of indicators specific to alternative schools. The Statewide Advisory Taskforce on Alternative Education Accountability will be meeting later this month to consider appropriate indicators for alternative schools to recommend for inclusion in the Fall 2018 Dashboard.

However, in preparation for the Fall 2017 Dashboard, CDE must first define the universe of alternative schools. Education Code (EC) 52052(g) defines the types of schools which automatically are eligible to participate in alternative school accountability. In addition, alternative schools of choice and charter schools are also eligible for inclusion if 70 percent of the school’s total enrollment is composed of the following high-risk groups:

• Expelled
• Suspended
• Wards of the court
• Pregnant and/or parenting
• Recovered dropouts
• Habitually truant or habitually insubordinate and disorderly
• Retained more than once in kindergarten through grade eight

At the May hearing, CDE requested the Board approve the development of an application process to require alternative schools of choice and charter schools [those schools not explicitly defined as alternative schools under EC 52052(g)] to re-certify, every three years, that at least 70 percent of their enrollment is comprised of high-risk students in order to continue participating as an alternative school in the accountability system.

ESSA

Much of the content of the draft ESSA State Plan reflects policy decisions made by the Board as part of the development of the state’s accountability system. The plan also contains staff recommendations on several issues which have previously been discussed by the Board, CPAG and other stakeholders but for which no specific policy proposal has yet been presented or approved by the Board. These issues include:

• Native language assessments
• Establishment of long-term goals
• Identification of schools
• Annual measurement of achievement

The draft plan contains preliminary proposals on these topics. At the hearing, the Board deliberated on whether to include some of the proposals in the initial draft before the public comment period begins so that stakeholders would have an opportunity to provide feedback based on specific policy proposals. The Board decided against including language in the plan explaining why the state would not be using the California Spanish Assessment (CSA) (under development) in lieu of the ELA assessment for federal accountability purposes.

There is other content in the draft plan that needs more definition. Over the next few months, the features of the statewide system of support, including the design and implementation of strategies to support schools identified for additional assistance and the best, evidence-based investment of ESSA optional and required reservations for state-level activities will be developed. The state will also need to create a definition for “ineffective” teacher and determine how best to support LEAs as they address any identified local educator equity issues.

There is still a great deal of work to be done on the plan, and much of the public comment focused on what should be included rather than on its current content. One suggestion raised for consideration by Rick Miller, Executive Director of CORE, and by representatives from the CORE districts, is to include an Innovation Zone for continuous learning in the ESSA State Plan. According to CORE, “This Innovation Zone would allow local districts to identify low-performing schools by taking into account the state’s accountability measures, plus the tested, locally driven measures used in the CORE system. The Innovation Zone would provide an opportunity to learn more about local improvement strategies before bringing them to scale across the entire state.”

It will be interesting to see how CDE and the Board address not only CORE’s proposal, but the expected multitude of other comments as well, when the public comment period ends and a revised draft plan is brought back to the Board at the July 2017 hearing. It was clear from the various concerns raised that staff must find a way to write California’s plan in a way that will meet but not exceed federal requirements and will use federal funds to support the implementation of rigorous state standards consistent with the existing LCFF approach. They also need to make the system accessible to students and parents while containing sufficient detail to ensure expected accountability goals are clear.

The Board ultimately approved the posting of the draft plan for public comment with two modifications: the removal of the language referencing the CSA mentioned earlier in this update and the inclusion of additional language to better frame the issues and provide better context to inform public comment.

There were other agenda items discussed at the hearing as well, and those items can be foundhere.If you have questions or would like any additional information on the items included in this update or any other matter discussed during the hearing, please contact me.