ESSA State Plan Summary - Constant Contactfiles.constantcontact.com/733dd1fd001/f3067892-6d11-45d3-a3ed-bd6... · ... | © 2016 June 23, 2017 ESSA State Plan Summary Summary Information

@ExcelinEd | www.ExcelinEd.org| © 2016

June 23, 2017

ESSA State Plan Summary

Summary Information from the 17 State Plans

Submitted for USED Peer Review in April 2017


April Submission Window: 17 States Submitted ESSA Plans for USED Peer Review

HI

ND

CO

AZ

CT

LA

MI

OR

MEVT

NJ

IL DE

TN

ESSA State Plan Submission April 2017

2

DC

MA

NV

NM


Key Takeaways

The Good

• Summative ratings: 14 of 17 states propose a summative rating.

• Minimum N: All 17 states use a minimum N-size of 30 or less.

• Focus on student outcomes (K-8): In 8 states, at least 70% of a K-8 school

rating is based on student outcomes.

• In Louisiana and D.C. it is 90%.

• Interventions: At least 10 states will distribute school improvement funds

through competitive grants or a combination of competitive/formula grants

The Not-so-good

• Normative growth: 10 states plan to rely exclusively on normative growth.

• Three states use normative growth in conjunction with another type of

growth.*

• 95 participation requirement: Most states generally do not plan to impose

significant consequences on schools that do not assess 95% of students.

* Normative growth models (such as value-added models and student growth percentiles) in accountability

systems provide little if any incentive to narrow achievement gaps because they do not expect low

performing students to grow more than they had in the past, nor do they hold schools accountable for

helping low-performing students advance toward proficiency or above. See Hull 2007; EdTrust 2017.

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/Measuring-student-growth-At-a-glance/Measuring-student-growth-A-guide-to-informed-decision-making.html

https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Growth.pdf?utm_source=ESSA Boot Camp Fact Sheet&utm_medium=Text Link&utm_content=Student Growth&utm_campaign=ESSA


Goals


Math and ELA Goals: End Points and Terminal Years

DE ELA, 76

IL ELA, 90

LA ELA, 64

MA ELA, 81

NV ELA, 63

NJ ELA, …

NM ELA, 65ND ELA, 67

OR ELA, 80

TN ELA, 70 DE MATH, 70

IL MATH, 90

LA MATH, 57

MA MATH, 76

NV MATH, 56

NJ MATH, 80

NM MATH, 61 ND MATH, 61

OR MATH, 80

TN MATH, 65

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Perc

ent

Pro

ficie

nt

End P

oin

t

Year

Generally, states’ ELA and math goals appear ambitious, and states with longer timelines set higher goals.

5


Graduation Rate Goals: End Points and Terminal Year

CT, 94

DE, 92

IL, 90LA, 90 ME, 90

NV, 84

NJ, 96

NM, 85

OR, 90

TN, 95

VT, 90

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034

4-Y

ear

Gra

duati

on R

ate

End P

oin

t

States’ 4-year graduation rate goals ranged from 84 to 96%, and states with longer timelines tended to set higher goals.

6


Summative Ratings


Summative Ratings

A-F, 5

Other, 9

No Summative Rating, 3

In 14 of 17 states, schools will earn summative ratings.Five states will use A-F letter grades.

8


Summative Ratings

Proposed summative ratings do not clearly articulate

performance of the school.

• 1 to 5 Stars

• Categories 1 to 5

• Performance Levels

• Off Target (also Red, Level 1, ); Near Target (also

Orange, Level 2, ); On Target (also Yellow, Level 3, );

Bulls Eye (also called Green, Level 4, )

• Exemplary, Commendable, Underperforming, Lowest

• Percentile Rank of Summative Scores

• Exceeds State Expectations; Meets State Expectations;

Below State Expectations; Requires Review

9


Minimum N-size for Accountability


Minimum N-size

N=10(6 states)

N=15(1)

N=16(1)

N=20(5)

N=25(1)

N=30(2)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

All 17 states plan to use a minimum N-size of 30 or less for accountability purposes.

11


Minimum N-size

*States with lower n-sizes for reporting

30 30

25

20 20 20 20 20

1615

10 10 10 10 10 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Min

imum

N-S

ize

13 states have a minimum N-size of 20 or less

12


Accountability for English Learners


English Learners

8

7

1

Progress on ELP assessments Both Progress and Proficiency on ELPIndicators

Proficiency on ELP assessments

Nearly half of the states will incorporate English language proficiency into their accountability systems.

14


English Learners

6

4

2

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5 Years 6 Years 7 Years NA

Years

Most states expect English learners to achieve proficiency within 5 or 6 years.

15


Measures Used for Accountability


Calculating Academic Achievement

Proficiency, 7

Index, 4

Scale Scores, 2

Other, 2

Fewer than half of the states plan to measure academic achievement based on percent proficient.

17


Calculating Student Growth

Normative, 10Other, 2

Criterion, 2

Both, 3

Most states rely on normative student growth models, rather than growth models focused on measuring whether

students are on track for college and career readiness.

18


Additional Groups Included in Accountability

8

4

2 2

None Super Subgroup (HistoricallyLow Performing Subgroups)

Bottom 25% Other

Four states use a “super subgroup” which may allow one group’s performance to mask that of another group. Two states emphasize the performance of the lowest

performing students in each school.

19


Participation Rates

* Illinois is the only state to identify schools for either Targeted Support (TS) or Comprehensive Support (CS) for schools failing to test 95% of their students.

Improvement Plan, 7

Drop in overall rating, 4

Other, 4

Identify schools for TS or CS, 1*

States generally will not impose significant consequences on schools that do not assess 95% of students.

20


Weighting Proficiency and Growth


Weighting Proficiency and Growth: K-8

Note: Not all states reported weights

65

5045

33 33 3530

20

3122

3025 25

25

40

35

44 42 3540

5036

44 3035

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In 8 of 13 states, growth and proficiency count for at least 70% of K-8 schools’ ratings.

% weight of proficiency % weight of Growth

22


Weighting Proficiency and Growth: HS

Note: Not all states reported weights

2029 30

50

25 22 20

32 3025 25 25 25

50 3425

2522

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Six states incorporate growth at high school.

% weight of proficiency % weight of Growth

23


Science and Social Studies


Inclusion of Science and Social Studies

According to initial guidance from USED, science and social studies cannot be included in

the Academic Achievement indicator. Many states included it as an Academic Achievement

indicator which was coded as “Other.”

Another academic indicator, 1 As a school quality or

student success indicator, 1

Not at all, 3

Other, 11

Science

Not at all, 13

Other, 3

Social Studies

25


School Quality/Students Success

Indicators


School Quality/Students Success Indicators

State

Abse

nte

eism

Perfo

rman

ce:

colleg

e-ready

tests

Po

stsecon

dary

credit earn

ed

CT

E

creden

tial

Course

partic

ipatio

n

Oth

er

state test

Po

stsecon

dary

enro

llmen

t

Ad

vanced

achievem

ent

Paren

t / stud

ent

survey

Particip

ation

:

colleg

e-ready

tests

Gro

wth

:lo

w

perf g

roup

Sch

oo

l

discip

line

Arizona

Colorado X

Connecticut X X X X X

Delaware X X X X

District of

Columbia

X X X

Illinois X X X X X X X

Louisiana X X X X X

Maine X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X X X X

Nevada X X X X X

New Jersey X

New Mexico X X X X X

North Dakota X X X X

Oregon X

Tennessee X X X X

Vermont X X X X

Total 12 10 9 9 6 3 3 2 2 1 0 0

27

Most states selected SQ/SS focused on student outcomes


School Quality/Students Success Indicators

Some states plan to experiment with other SQ/SS.

measuresState Other measure(s)

Arizona

Colorado Dropout rates (high school only)

Connecticut 9th grade on-track

Delaware 9th grade on-track; K-3 literacy

District of

Columbia

Alternate grad metric; Early childhood classroom program quality; Re-enrollment

Illinois 9th grade on-track; P-2 quality

Louisiana 9th grade credit accumulation

Maine Exploring other CCR indicators and a potential social emotional measure

Massachusetts Grade 9 course passing

Michigan Science and social studies, which will have to be taken out of academic achievement

indicator, may be added as SQSS indicator

Nevada 9th and 10th grade credit sufficiency

New Jersey

New Mexico Many inputs will be reviewed/revisited for 2018-2019 implementation

North Dakota community service; Attendance; College-ready requirements (including co- and extra-

curricular)

Oregon Freshman on-track; 5-year high school completion rate (percentage of students earning a

regular or modified diploma, extended diploma, GED or adult high school diploma)

Tennessee

Vermont Presidential physical fitness

28


Interventions in Low-performing Schools


Comprehensive Support for Low-Performing Schools

10

3

10

2

4

6

8

10

12

Every Three Years Every Year MI will provide at a laterdate - per plan

Num

ber

of

Sta

tes

Only 3 States will annually identify low-performing schools for comprehensive support.

30


School Improvement Fund Distribution

Through Competitive

Grants, 4

As Formula Funds, 3

A Combination, 6

Unclear, 4

Four states will distribute school improvement funds through competitive grants; an additional six states will distribute through a combination of competitive and formula grants.

31


Direct Student Services Set Aside Use

Yes, 3

No, 4Unclear, 10

Few states plan to take advantage of the Direct Student Services provision.

32

Documents

ESSA State Plan Summary - Constant Contactfiles.constantcontact.com/733dd1fd001/f3067892-6d11-45d3-a3ed-bd6... · ... | © 2016 June 23, 2017 ESSA State Plan Summary Summary Information