State Consortium on educator effectiveness

STATE CONSORTIUM ON EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

September 10, 2013

ESEA Flexibility U.S. Department of Education

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Additional flexibility to support

transition to CCR standards and assessments.

• ESEA Flexibility renewal for window 1 & 2 states


ESEA FLEXIBILITY CORE CONCEPTS

Protect all students

Provide flexibility to move forward with reform

Set a high bar for students and schools


CURRENT STATUS OF ESEA FLEXIBILITY• Generally approved for

2 years • Option for renewal at

end of 2013-2014 school year

34 States plus D.C.

approved in Windows 1 &

2• Generally approved for

2 years• Option for renewal at

end of 2014-2015 school year

7 States approved thus far in

Windows 3 & 4

ESEA Flexibility Package U.S. Department of Education

SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND

LEADERSHIP


Ignored need for better school leaders

Focus on supporting and improving leaders

States and districts develop teacher and principal evaluation and support

systems focused on improving teacher and leader effectiveness

Focused exclusively on a teacher’s entering qualifications

Must take into account multiple measures, including student growth and

measures of professional practice

Divorced from student achievement and instructional

practice

SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP

Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)

Requirements in NCLBESEA Flexibility

Static; no emphasis on improvement

Evaluation and support systems must provide useful feedback and guide

professional development


3.A DEVELOP AND ADOPT GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS Each SEA must –• develop and adopt SEA guidelines, with the

involvement of teachers and principals, for local teacher and principal evaluation and support systems

• ensure LEAs develop and implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that are consistent with SEA guidelines


SEA GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

1. Will be used for continual improvement of instruction

2. Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three performance levels

3. Use multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, including as a significant factor student growth for all students, and other measures of professional practice

4. Evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis

5. Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback to guide professional development

6. Will be used to inform personnel decisions


TIMELINE • LEAs to develop teacher and principal evaluation

and support systems consistent with SEA guidelines by SY 2012–2013

• LEAs to pilot evaluation and support systems by SY 2013–2014

• LEAs to fully implement evaluation and support systems by SY 2014–2015

• SEA may amend ESEA flexibility request to request extension of timeline for using evaluation results to inform personnel decisions until 2016–2017

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Adopt state guidelines

Implement local systems

Develop local systems

Pilot local systems


FLEXITRAN: WHAT IS IT?On June 18, 2013, the Secretary announced two new opportunities for flexibility:1. Additional time before using the results of

new evaluation systems, based in significant part on student growth on assessments, to inform personnel decisions

2. Waivers to avoid double testing students who participate in a field test of a new assessment aligned to CCR standards


FLEXITRAN: TIMELINE FOR EVALUATION SYSTEMS

• Available to Window 1 and Window 2 SEAs only• Allows waiting until 20162017 before using

the results of new systems tied to growth on assessments to inform personnel decisions

• SEAs must still fully implement systems, and use results to inform professional development and support no later than 20142015

• SEAs can get the flexibility by submitting an ESEA flexibility amendment request (and RTT amendment, as needed)

ESEA FLEXIBILITY: RENEWAL PROCESSWindow 1 and 2 States

ESEA Flexibility U.S. Department of EducationBUILDING BLOCKS OF CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT

Part A Monitoring• Ensured each

SEA had the critical elements of ESEA flexibility in place to begin implementation of its plan in the 2012-2013 school year

Part B Monitoring• Deeper look at

implementation in the 2012-2013 and beginning of the 2013-2014 of Principles 1, 2, 3

• Follow Up - Part A Monitoring

• Conversation about continuous improvement

Renewal• Continue to

ensure implementation consistent with principles and timelines of ESEA Flexibility

• Address lessons learned in Part A, Part B next steps, data analysis, and plans for 2015-16

• Refinement of requests and existing plans


RENEWALUnder 9401(d), the Secretary may extend a waiver if the Secretary determines:

a) Waiver has been effective in enabling a State to carry out the activities for which the waiver was requested and the waiver has contributed to improved student achievement

b) Extension is in the public interest


PURPOSE OF RENEWAL PROCESSTo ensure that States are improving student achievement and increasing the quality of instruction, and that schools and student groups are being served based on need by:1. Confirming that States are meeting

principles and timelines of ESEA Flexibility;

2. Strengthening requests to ensure the protection of all students; and

3. Providing States with an opportunity to refine their requests, as needed.


FORMAT

Request form

Redlined

request

Renewal submissi

on


TIMELINE FOR WINDOWS 1 AND 2Action DateDraft guidance and draft request form to States

August 2013

States submit letter of intent to renew

December 2013

Final guidance and request form to States

October 2013

Renewal requests due from States

January-February 2014 [3 phases]

Renewal determinations Spring 2014Extension of ESEA Flexibility Fall 2014 – Spring

2016 (two years)


CONSULTATION• Consultation should begin immediately.• SEAs must provide description and

evidence of ongoing consultation with stakeholders regarding:– implementation of ESEA flexibility and – changes and additions in revised

request


1. MEETING REQUIRED PRINCIPLES & TIMELINES• Evidence of SEA’s process for ensuring all

LEAs are fully implementing college- and career-ready standards and evidence of implementation of that process with emphasis on teachers for English Learners, students with disabilities, and low-achieving students.

• Continued membership in Race to the Top Assessment consortia or evidence that SEA has met requirements to administer statewide aligned assessments no later than 2014-2015, including a robust transition plan.


1. MEETING REQUIRED PRINCIPLES AND TIMELINES• Evidence of SEA progress in:– Adopting English Language Proficiency

standards and developing and administering aligned assessments;

– Developing and administering alternate assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities

– Phasing out alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards

• Evidence of meeting SEA and LEA reporting requirements under ESEA flexibility, consistent with February 2013 report card guidance


1. MEETING REQUIRED PRINCIPLES & TIMELINES• Demonstration that the SEA is on track for

full implementation of its teacher and principal evaluation system in 2014-2015, including a process for collecting data and feedback on LEA implementation, including collecting and incorporating data on measures of student growth.

• The demonstration should also include a detailed timeline of when data will be collected and incorporated into ratings, when ratings will be given to teachers and principals, and when ratings will be used to guide professional development and make personnel decisions.


EARLY CONCERNS & CHALLENGES• Masking performance of individual

student groups• Varying inclusion of graduation rates in

accountability systems• Inadequate support to other Title I

schools that are not priority or focus schools

• Insufficient leveraging of resources to support implementation of college- and career-ready standards

ESEA Flexibility U.S. Department of Education2. STRENGTHENING REQUESTS: ALL STATES• Updated timeline for implementation of

interventions in priority and focus schools, including plan for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years to identify future cohorts and address previously identified schools not meeting exit criteria

• Some states need to provide additional detail on:– how other Title I schools will provide

interventions and supports to low-achieving students that miss AMOs or graduation rate targets over a number of years

– How SEA is holding LEAs accountable for improving school and student performance, including a clear and rigorous process to provide differentiated recognition, accountability, and support to LEAs


2. STRENGTHENING REQUESTS: ALL STATES• SEAs must describe the process for

ensuring that LEA’s use of Title II, Part A funds is aligned with the local needs assessment and provides evidence-based professional development that deepens educator knowledge of CCR standards and corresponding instructional practices, curricula, and high-quality assessments NE

W


2. STRENGTHENING REQUESTS: ALL STATES• ESEA section 1111(b)(8)(C): requires an

SEA to ensure poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified or out-of-field teachers

• SEA must describe how it will transition to ensuring that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by ineffective teachers.

• SEA must also provide an assurance that it will submit a comprehensive equity plan using effectiveness data from SY14-15.

NEW

ESEA Flexibility U.S. Department of Education2. STRENGTHENING REQUESTS: INDIVIDUAL STATES

ED’s data analysis will use 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 data to determine the relationship between the following factors and school identification: • Student achievement for all ESEA subgroups•Graduation rate for all ESEA subgroups• Performance against AMOs and graduation rate targets for all ESEA subgroups• Participation rate on State assessments for all ESEA subgroups•Use of a combined subgroup (where applicable)•N-size over 30 (where applicable)


QUESTIONS

Documents

State Consortium on educator effectiveness