ESSA Implementation Statewide Virtual Meeting/Webinar

Welcome everyone, this is
the Every Student Succeeds Act Webinar, October 27, 2016. We are recording the meeting, for people to be able to watch
it after the live session. My name is Catherine Mashkrov, I’m with
the Office of Virtual Education with the South Carolina Department
of Education. And to start this evening’s webinar,
we have Molly Spearman, our State Superintendent of Education, who
will open up with some opening comments.>>Thanks Catherine and
good afternoon everyone. I know we’ve all had a long days at work,
so I really appreciate you taking the time
out to be on the webinar tonight. This is an exciting time for us. A lot of work has gone into this draft
that we’ll share with you tonight. It’s on our website at this point. If you haven’t already looked at it,
please do that now. But the bottom line is we want you all to
know that this work will not be completed until we have had sufficient time for
our stakeholders to give us their input, suggestions, any questions that you have. We believe that with your help,
that this document can only get better. So please feel free to ask questions on,
not just tonight, but as you think about this, as you watch this
process and talk with your colleagues. Please don’t hesitate
to send us your ideas, suggestions, anything that
you might disagree with. We want to make this right. We know that No Child Left Behind
was with us for many years and it had some excellent points. But we know that we learned as we went
along of ways that that legislation and that act could be improved. So certainly we’ve been given a lot
of flexibility in South Carolina to write our plan that matches our
profile of South Carolina graduates. So we need your help,
thank you for being on. And with no further do,
I’ll this over to Roy Stehle, who is the director of our federal and
state accountability office, Roy?>>Thank you, Molly. Good evening everyone. My job tonight is to give
you a quick overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act. And I’ll just move to some of our slides. The Every Student Succeeds Act is a
reauthorized version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
that was first passed back in 1965 during
Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. And the purpose of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act was to insure that all students
had fair and equal, and significant opportunity to obtain
a good education, and reach at the very level proficiency on challenging
state standards and assessments. Particularly with
the Every Student Succeeds Act, there is special emphasis on certain
at-risk subgroups of students. South Carolina receives about $270 million in the SEA funds in all
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Programs. The law was authorized
in December of 2015, and a period of transition will occur and is occurring now 2016 through 2017. And beginning with the school year 2017,
18, we’ll begin to transition
into the new major programs, or the revised major programs in the law. As a requirement, all states, including South Carolina, submit a plan
to the US Department of Education. South Carolina has chosen
to submit what’s called a consolidated state plan,
instead of single applications for every program that’s
contained therein in the law. So we are talking a bit about
the consolidated state plan, and that’s what you’re listening to tonight. We are basing the consolidated
state plan on the visions for the profile of the South Carolina
graduate, which you can see on the screen. It’s also on our webpage. And I know that if you’ve been in
meetings and trainings around the state, people have been talking about the profile
of the South Carolina graduates. Just to give you an overview
again of the current law, the Every Student Succeeds Act in
the law as in No Child Left Behind and its predecessor Improving America’s
Schools Act, there are state activities. That is, activities for which each state receives funding,
and carries out programs. There are also national activities
authorized by Congress, and may or may not be funded during
the course of reauthorization, or during the course of
the length of the law. ESSA also contains formula and
competitive grants. Formula grants are those
where money is distributed, funds are distributed to the states. The states distribute those to school
districts and schools based on a formula. Also there are some competitive
funding opportunities available in the Every Student Succeeds Act. And then, of course,
there are the compliance requirements and assurances for the various programs. The law’s kind of like a book,
used to flow in chapters, now it tends to flow by title. And so I’m just gonna walk
you briefly through those. Title I, which most people have heard of,
Title I, Part A, is the largest program that is operated
in South Carolina in terms of funding. But there’s Title I part A, B, C and D. They receive the largest share of funding. Title I is also the area in the law that
includes requirements for college and career ready standards, and requirements
for college and career ready assessments. Title I is also,
the area where there are requirements for single state accountability system and
the requirements for school improvement, and folks will be talking about
that as we go through the plan. As I said, Title I is the largest part. It includes basic program,
state assessment, migrant programs, and programs for neglected and
delinquent students. Most of the funding that is received under
Title I, flows to the school districts and from the school districts to schools or
programs within the school district. So the bulk of Title I money flows
out to the local school districts. Title II Part A, preparing,
recruiting and training teachers, principals and other school leaders,
is as it said. It’s largely a,
funds that we received from the US Department of Education, and
used for professional development. And in some cases, for reduced class size. Title III Part A is our
English Language Acquisition program. It is supplemental to the core
English Learner program that is required by all districts and schools
where we have English language learners. Title IV we have two areas where
we do receive some funding. Title II Part or, pardon me,
Title IV Part A is a new program, Student Support and
Academic Enrichment Grants. That’s new. Guidance has just been released on that. We’ll be getting information out. Two folks on that as soon as we
have one everything in place and two we know what funding is gonna be. Part B is one that we’ve had for
some years and that’s a 21st century
Community Learning Centers. Which funds a lot of after school
programs around the state. Part C relates to Charter schools and
some funding that state can from time to time apply
to work on Charter Schools. And the same is true with Magnet Schools
and party Family Engagement. Sometimes those are funded and
sometimes they’re not. Title V is called Flexibility and
Accountability. Allows us, Part A gives us some instruction
about transferring federal dollars. And how to do that from
program to program. And Part B is a Rural Education program. What’s called
the Rural Low Income School Program. We have about 40 school districts in
South Carolina, that are classified as Rural School Districts, and
receives some funding under Title V. Title VI is Indian and Native Hawaiian and
Alaskan Native Education. There are a couple school districts
in South Carolina that do receive some funding for our Native Americans,
the native Indians. Title VII is Impact Aid and
our districts that have significant federal properties,
such as our military bases. Districts can receive some impact aid. And then there are the General Provisions
in Title VIII and a lot of sorts of things that go in there. One of the areas, Part D offers us the opportunity to apply directly
to the US Department of Education. In some cases for waivers. And we have done that in the past and
we will do so in the future as warrant. And then Title IX Homeless, the Mckinney-Vento Homeless Act
is included in Title IX. And there’s a new section related to
preschool, that is in Title IX as well. Just in general, the major elements,
what has changed in many ways. The English language
learner accountability, which was in Title III, is now in Title I. And will be a part of the base
accountability system. As indicated earlier, there’s an increased
emphasis placed on at-risk subgroups. Including our homeless, our foster care
children, and our migrant children. There’s also emphasis placed on
at-risk students not being taught by inexperienced, out of field and
ineffective teachers. And that will be talked about later,
as we go through the program. But that is new this for ESSA. The Highly Qualified requirement, which is
part of No Child Left Behind has ended. ESSA requires that teachers
be properly certified for the subjects and
courses that they are teaching. The instructional paraprofessional
qualifications that were in No Child Left Behind
continue in the new law. We do have greater flexibility in ESSA
than we had and No Child Left Behind. We have greater opportunities for
ourselves as the state to craft to our accountability system,
our standards, our assessments. And greater flexibility in some of
the programs that we’re able to run. There will be a change in
the test to supplement, not supplant which is a fiscal area. There will be increased emphasis
placed on professional development. And the ease of Flexibility Waiver which
we had prior to the passage of ESSA. Most of those provisions expired
there are still a couple in place to carry through the transition. Now, as we mentioned earlier and
what folks will be talking about with you is the Consolidated State Plan
that we have to submit. And since we chose
the Consolidated State Plan Components, they include consultation, coordination. Challenging academic standards and
assessments, accountability, support and improvement for schools. And supporting excellent educators and
supporting all students. And then there’ll be specific information
in the consolidated State Plan on the various titles, particularly I,
II, III, IV, V, and IX. Our timeline we started development
with a framework in June. We organized six work groups that got
together to look over the proposed federal regulations on submitting
the consolidated State Plan. There are no final
regulations at this time, so we’re operating on what
was published as proposed. And as I indicated, so those were
the work groups, so we had those. June through July, we kind of went
through the law and said, okay, what do we have to do? What do we need to,
pardon me put me into law. And then put plan out so that the public
and our stakeholders would have a plan or at least to draft
framework of a plan to comment on. July through August we completed that,
kept refining it And as we are now in October,
we’re having a webinar, the draft plan framework is
published on our state website. And as Molly said,
we welcome your stakeholder and your comments throughout that period. It’s also required that there be a 30 day
review period by the Governor’s Office. February through March,
we’ll complete draft framework and convert to templates and send to
the US Department of Education by March. And at this point I’ve
finished the overview and I’ll turn it over to our Consultation and
Coordination Workgroup and Scott Winburn.>>Thank you Rollie,
this is Scott Winburn. Hello everyone, I am a lawyer
with the Department of Education. And my job is to oversee
the consultation and coordination workgroup for
the ESSA state plan. And if you could go to the next slide,
please. Just to, a couple of points here, as you can see we must
engage in timely and meaningful consultation with stakeholders. The timely and meaningful language
is important here, because although there was consultation and coordination
required under No Child Left Behind, Congress did not emphasize the timely and
meaningful aspects. So our goal here is to
do what we’re doing now, which is consult with stakeholders and incorporate stakeholder input in our state
plan, which will ultimately be submitted. I don’t wanna bore you too much but
I wanted to read from the published proposed regulation, and if you want to
look this up, it’s fairly easy to find. It’s in the federal register,
it’s Volume 81, number 104. It was published Tuesday, May 31st, 2016. And as Roy mentioned,
these were proposed regulations. But what they do is really lay out
fairly clearly what we are required to include in the frameworks for
the consolidated state plan. For example, under Section 299.14, it clearly lays out the five workgroups
that we’ve divided the state plan into, and the first one is Consultation and
Coordination. And just a quote from the section
299.15 under Consultation and Coordination, and I’m quoting it is,
in its consolidated state plan, each SEA must describe how it engaged
in timely and meaningful consultation. And so again, there’s Congress has synthesized
the need to make this effort meaningful. The stakeholders that we must engage with,
I think it’s important that the proposed regulation lays out in great
detail all of the stakeholder groups. So I’ll list them quickly, the governor,
members of the legislature, members of the state Board of Education,
LEAs including LEAs in rural areas. Representatives of Indian
tribes located in the state. South Carolina has some. Teachers, principles,
other school leaders, peer professionals, specialized instructional
support personnel, and organizations representing
such individuals. Charter school leaders, parents and
families, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, institutions
of higher education, employers, public and so as you can see the froze regulation
goes into a fair amount of detail. And I think that’s important. The other aspect of this section
of the proposed regulation is of course coordination. The South Carolina Department of Education must describe in its plan
how it is coordinating all of the programs authorized under ESSA. And these programs again,
listed in the regulation are the IDEA, Carl D Perkins career center,
work force innovation and opportunity act,
Head Start Act, and it goes on. But I mention that, because that
is a decision point to raise any question that we’ve been asking
around the state of stakeholders, is to tell us and provide input how
you believe our programs authorized under ESSA can coordinate better,
can coordinate more efficiently. So that’s part of this process and
we welcome your input. If you could, next slide please. As Roy mentioned,
this is the timeline of events. As you can see,
we have just posted the draft framework. So I think we’re on schedule so
to speak, but the rest of the time we will be devoting considerable effort
to incorporating stakeholder inputs. So please look at the draft plan,
it’s posted on the website. And provide your comments, email them, we’ve got a link that we’ll
go over later for that. But again the Consolidated State Plan
should be submitted in March after the governor has
30 days to review it. So that’s kind of where things stand. If you go to the next slide, please. And this is our contact. So please welcome. You can call me,
you can e-mail and of course, you can submit comments
through our website. So I encourage you, again,
to look at the draft plan. Couple of other activities to mention,
on November 21st we’re gonna have a focus group meeting
we’re gonna host in Columbia. So be on the lookout for that invitation,
we’ll post that on the website. Please keep an eye out for that. We’re gonna have a follow up focus
group meeting in January again, to incorporate stakeholder
input in a meaningful way. So thank you very much for
your attention and your interest. And this presentation will
be posted on our website. So please feel free to tell your
colleagues to go to our website and take a look at it. And I think that’s all I have. And now I’ll turn it over to Liz Jones,
Director of Office of Assessment.>>Hi, Okay I’m gonna talk about
universal design assessments first. A universally designed
assessment is designed and developed to allow participation of
the widest possible range of students including students with disabilities and
English Language Learners. And they’re designed to do this
without jeopardizing the measurement of the content standards that
the tests are designed to measure. Tests in South Carolina are developed
according to universal design principles. And when we design tests that way, we make sure that the items and
the tests are developed to remove characteristics that could create
difficulties for any group of students. To ensure that we do this,
we bring in groups of teachers, and other educators, and people from the
general population, to look at the items. And they review the items and
check for any bias or sensitivity. And make sure that the items
don’t create barriers for any students, or
make sure that the items don’t lack sensitivity to disabilities,
cultural or other subgroups. In addition we conduct a wide range of
statistical tests to determine whether the items are functioning differently for
particular populations. The state provides schools and districts
with the list of valid accommodations for English Language Learners for
each of their assessment programs. School level teams use
these lists as a guide to select appropriate accommodations for
the English Language Learners. Students who use these accommodations
during tests and receive scores that provide the same educational benefits
afforded to other test takers. The scores do not contain flags to
indicate that the accommodations were used. Test results can only be valid if students
have tested in the same language in which they’re taught. English language learners
are instructed in English, therefore, the assessments are in English. The office receives several
funds that are use to pay a portion of the college of
federally mandated assessments. This funds are use to pay for item
development, test form development and for the administration, scoring and
reporting of the assessments. It didn’t go ahead, okay, excuse me. The department supports the revision and
development of challenging academic content standards that define what all
students should know and be able to do. These are aligned with national and
world class standards. And serve as a basis for
decision making, policy development and selection or
development of curricula at the district. The statewide assessments
are aligned to the standards For students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, we also adopt alternate academic achievement
standards that are aligned with challenging academic content standards
in the required subjects and grades. Students are administered assessments
that are aligned to these standards. Along with 35 other states,
South Carolina has adopted the National World Wide Instructional
Design Assessment called WIDA for English Language Learners. These standards are research based and address the domains of reading,
writing, listing and speaking. The department provides resources and
professional development opportunities to support affective teaching of
advance course of the middle school. These are design to support the learning
needs of students performing at all levels. Now I’m gonna turn it
over to Karla Hawkins.>>Thank you, Liz. I will be presenting on
the Supporting Excellent Educators. The first subsection of this
particular section deals with South Carolina’s system of certification
of teachers and principals. South Carolina has a two tiered
certification system for teachers. Certificates can be issued at
the initial or professional level. Beginner educators are issued
an initial educator certificate and they advance untill the professional
educator certificate after meeting all state requirements for investment. Including the successful
completion of the induction and summative evaluation requirements of
South Carolina system for assisting, developing and evaluating professional
teaching also known as ADEPT. Educators in other profession and becomes certified in South Carolina
to varies approved test ways. Including traditional college and
university based teacher preparation programs, alternative
certification pathways, and the work-based certification program for
career and technology education teachers. To advance from tier one to tier
two principal certification, school leaders must successfully
complete the state’s principal induction program during the first year
of employment as a school principal. And earn a rating of efficient or
exemplary, of South Carolina’s Program for Assisting and
Evaluating Principals performance, during the second year of
employment as school principal. The majority of newly certified
school principals in South Carolina have completed a traditional preparation
program at one of South Carolina’s universities with approved school
leader preparation programs. Or at a out of state traditional
preparation program that meets South Carolina’s
certification requirements. To enter the three year alternative
pathway leading to certification as an elementary or secondary principal. A candidate must demonstrate at least
three years of leadership experience comparable to that of a school leader. Must be offered employment as an assistant
principal, and must be recommended for participation in the program by
the school district’s superintendent. We will next move to South Carolina System
to Ensure Adequate Preparation of New Educators, Particularly for
Low-Income and Minority Students. State law provides authority to
the State Board of Education through the South Carolina Department
of Education, the SEDE. And the Commission of Higher Education
to develop and implement a plan for the continuous evaluation of upgrading
a standard for program approval of undergraduate and graduate educative
preparation programs in the state. The State Board of Education requires that
all teacher preparation programs meet the standards established by the National
Accreditation Association with which the SEDE has a partnership agreement. South Carolina has entered into a
partnership agreement with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation,
also known as CAEP. Public institutions are required
to seek national accreditation or meet national standards, while private
institutions are encouraged to do so. To meet CAEP Standard 2, educator preparation providers must
ensure that effective partnerships and high quality clinical practice
experiences are essential to preparation. So the candidates develop a knowledge,
skills and professional dispositions necessary
to demonstrate positive impact on all pre-K through 12th grade
students learning and development. CAEP Standard 3 has education
preparation providers to recruit diverse candidates who meet the employment
needs of hard to staff schools. Please note that South Carolina has
developed an add on certification field and a specialized
certification endorsement and teaching children of poverty. At this time, I will turn
the presentation over to my colleague, Kristin Joannes, who’s the Director of
the Office of Educator Effectiveness.>>Thank you, Karla. Next, we’re gonna be talking about
Professional Growth and Improvement for Teachers and School Leaders. And we’ll start first with teachers and then move in to professional development
and improvement for principals. Could you advance the slide for me please. Thank you. The profession development and improvement
for teachers is supported through a tiered system of performance of evaluation and
related supports. As outlined in the expanded adoption
system guidelines and regulation 43-205.1. Teachers who possess a valid South
Carolina teaching certificate and have less than one year of teaching experience
begin with a one year induction contract. Each local school
district must develop and implement a plan to provide guidance and
assistance throughout the first year. There are two stages of teacher
development, annual and continuing. Teachers who have completed their
induction year may be employed under an annual contract. They are evaluated and assisted with
procedures through the expanded adept support and evaluation guidelines. Annual teachers develop and
implement a professional growth plan, and are either formally evaluated or
provided diagnostic assistance, and later formally evaluated, as appropriate. Annual teachers successfully complete a
formal evaluation by meeting all state and local requirements, and
then are offered a continuing contract. Teachers are offered advancement through
the foundations and school leadership program that’s provided by the Department
of Education Office of School Leadership. In this program, teachers develop and
refine their leadership skills that can assist with their transition
into administrative positions.>>Advance please.>>The professional development
improvement for principals and other school leaders as outlined
in regulation 43-165.1, through the program for
assisting, developing, and evaluating principal performance or
PADEPP implementation guidelines. First year principals begin in tier one
and participate in the principal induction program provided by the office
of school leadership. Induction principals are to receive
written feedback from superintendents or designees regarding all ten standards
in the evaluation instrument. During the principals second year, they are formally evaluated
on all ten standards. Principals who successfully complete the
Principal Induction Program or PIP program are proficient according to the formal
evaluation in our advanced tier two level. Tier two principals are evaluated
each year and they receive feedback from the superintendent or designee at
least three times during the school year. And develop and implement an annual
professional growth in development plan based upon strengths,
and areas for growth. As well as school-wide goals aligned to
the school and district’s strategic plans. There are several opportunities for principal advancement through
the Office of School Leadership. Regulation 43-165.1,
holds school districts accountable or responsible for the implementation
of these PADEPP guidelines. Anyone evaluating principles must be
formally trained regarding the standards, the criteria, the regulations and
the evaluation instrument and district procedures in accordance
with state and local requirements.>>Advance please.>>Also, it’s been the section of
supporting excellent educators is addresses the use of Title II, Part A. As Roy mentioned earlier,
Title II is typically put in the direction of
professional development. I am speaking here about the state
activities portion of Tittle II, Part A. Roy also mentioned that
this is a transition year. So currently, we’re using Title II,
Part A funding to support our South Carolina Teacher
Advancement Program or TAP program. Of which there are 74 South Carolina TAP schools at this time within 17
different school districts. These funds are used to support
student growth based incentives, in order to meet these criteria in
accordance with our state equity plan. Going forward we will be looking at
how to use these funds to support ESSA initiatives.>>Advance please.>>Prior to ESSA, we were already working
on implementing a new teacher and principal evaluation system. ESSA allowed us to slow down
the implementation in order to develop a meaningful system with the intent
around professional growth and development of educators. We have also taken this opportunity
to collect stakeholder feedback. We have collected and are continuing to
collect feedback through focus groups, surveys, working groups and
stakeholder presentations such as these. We have already received input from
over 11,000 educators around the state, and through 18 focus groups,
as well as a state wide survey. We will continue our work with teachers,
administrators, colleges, universities and agencies,
professional organizations and community members,
as we move forward to develop and implement a revised ADEPT and PADEPP
system for the state of South Carolina. This slide here shows
just an annual timeline. We’re using this as a recalibration year,
an opportunity for us to take a step back and make sure
that we are engaging stakeholders, and developing meaningful systems. We are then going to be moving into
the readiness and training for the implementation of a full statewide
implementation of the expanded ADEPT and PADEPP evaluation systems
across the state.>>Advance please.>>I’m gonna now turn it
back to Karla Hawkins and she’ll move on in to the next section.>>Thank you, Chris. The next section is Improving
the Skills of Educators in Identifying Student’s Needs. The SCDE must describe in a state plan
how the agency will improve the skills of teachers, principals and other school leaders in identifying
students with specific learning needs. And providing instructions
based on the needs of low income students,
lowest achieving students. English learners. Children with disabilities. Children in youth and foster care. Migratory children. Homeless children and youth. Neglected, delinquent, and at risk
children identified under Title I, Part D. Immigrant children and youth. Students in local educational
agencies eligible for grants under the rural, and
low income school program. American Indian and
Alaska Native students. Students with low literacy levels. And students who are gifted and talented. The next section that we will visit is
the section dealing with ineffective, out-of-field, or
inexperienced teachers, or as we commonly refer to as I-O-I teachers. The SCDE must demonstrate
whether low income or minority students enrolled in schools
that receive funds under Title I, Part A are taught at a disproportionate
rate by ineffective Out-of-Field, or inexperienced teachers. Compared to, excuse me,
compared to non low-income and non minority students enrolled in schools
not receiving funds under Title I Part A. We come to the section this particular
portion of presentation where we need to hit on some decision points. We need for you, our stakeholders, to give us some input on how
to define the following terms. The SCDE must establish and provide in
a state planned definitions youth and district criteria so that each provides
useful information about educated equity and disproportionality rates for
each of the following terms. And you may find the draft
definitions of these terms in our consolidated plans framework
on the SCDE’s ESSA web page. We must define a statewide
definition of ineffective teacher. Or statewide guidelines for
local education agency definitions of ineffective teacher that differentiates
between categories of teachers. The SCDE collects overall teacher and
principal evaluation data annually. Districts are to determine
whether a teacher has met or not met established standards
as outlined in the expanded ADEPT evaluation support
system guidelines. An ineffective teacher is currently
defined as any teacher receiving not met ratings, as outlined in
the expanded ADEPT system guidelines. Guidelines are subject to change
upon system feedback, and the South Carolina state Board
of Education’s approval. We must also have a statewide
definition of Out-of-Field Teacher. The required credentials for professional
staff members in the instructional programs of South Carolina’s public
schools establishes the acceptable certification credentials for educators
working in various settings and roles. An Out-of-Field teacher is currently
defined statewide as a teacher who does not possess their record certification or
certification permit for the course or grade level to which he or
she had been assigned. Additionally, you must have a statewide
definition for Inexperienced Teacher. An Inexperienced Teacher is currently
defined as a educator with less than one or more, excuse me, with less than
one year of teaching experience. Operationally, an Inexperienced Teacher’s
defined as one on an induction-one contract. An inexperienced school leader is defined
as an educator in his or her first year as a school principal, and enrolled in South
Carolina’s principal induction program. With regard to low income students,
it is currently defined as a student who meets any of the following
South Carolina poverty index indicators. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, foster child,
Medicaid, homeless, or migrant. The current draft definition for
minority student includes at a minimum. A minority student is defined as
a person who is American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or
African American, Hispanic, Latino, Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander or two or more races. With regard to rates,
the SEA must annually calculate and report such as to a state report card,
statewide based on student level data. The rates at which low income students and minority students enrolled in Title I
Part A schools are taught by ineffective, Out of Field and Inexperienced Teachers. And calculate and report based on
student level data, rates that which now low income and non-minority students
enrolled in non-Title I, Part A schools are taught by Ineffective, Out of Field,
and Inexperienced Teachers. If it is determined that low income
minority students enrolled in schools who receive funds under Title I part
A are taught at disproportional rates by Ineffective, Out of Field or
Inexperienced teachers. The SCDE must describe
the root cause analysis, and provide strategies including timelines and funding sources to eliminate
disproportionate rates demonstrated. The SCDE may direct local
educational agencies to use a portion of their Title II
funds to give low income and minority students effective teachers,
principles and other school leaders. And this is a slide on
Disproportionalities and Percentages. I will now turn the presentation
over to John Payne, Director of the office of
Special Education Services. Thank you and good evening! As you’ve heard throughout
this presentation, there is an emphasis In ESSA
on supporting all students and the diverse students that make up our
classrooms throughout South Carolina. So as part of our work thus far,
we have convened workgroups to look at how the state supports
the diversity of children and students who make up our state. And how those children have
available appropriate, equal access to a well-rounded education
to ensure that they graduate high school. In our initial work so far, we have
convened a number of different offices and divisions within
the Department of Education, including the office of
Special Education Services. Federal and State Accountability,
Office of Student Intervention Services, our Chief Information Officer,
our Office of Transportation, Early Learning and Literacy,
School Transformation, Nutrition, Standards and Learning,
and Family and Community Engagement. As we’re making sure that we’re
addressing the needs of all students, the areas that the specific workgroup
have been addressing is how the SEA or the Department of Education ensures
that all children have a significant opportunity to meet challenging
state academic standards and career and technical standards. And attain a high school diploma, which links very nicely with our
profile of the South Carolina graduate. In order to do that, we also need to
address the continuum of a student’s education from preschool through grade
twelve, in order to support appropriate promotional practices, and decrease
the risk of students dropping out. We also are addressing equitable
access to a well-rounded education, particularly where female students,
minority students. English learners,
children with disabilities, and low-income students are underrepresented. You heard, for example, about how we’re attempting to do that with
respect to our educator preparations. In this, we also want to address
bullying and disciplinary practices. Parent, family and
community engagement, and specific steps that address specific
subgroups of children that we serve. Those particular children are children
who are English Language Learners, low income students,
lowest achieving students, children with disabilities,
children in foster care. Migrant children, homeless children and
youth, neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students, immigrant students, and
American Indian Alaskan Native students. As Scott Lyndburn mentioned during
his comments a little earlier with coordination. We want to work to make sure that we are
coordinating all of the other requirements not only with the ESSA,
but the other federal and state laws that we are doing to ensure
that we are maximizing what we do. And minimizing duplication
of their efforts. So we’ve begun some draft narrative
thus far, addressing how the actions and the steps we are taking to support
English language learners, our virtual educational opportunities. What we’re doing with preschool continuum,
our career and technology, delinquent and neglected programming,
educator effectiveness, family and community engagement, services to
students who are gifted and talented., services for children who are homeless,
transportation of students. School bullying and harassment. Our special education, technology and
bullying, particularly cyber bullying. Support to children who are migrant. And the again this continuum of services
from preschool through grade 12. Decision point and discussion areas that
we certainly are asking feedback is, there are new requirements for improving
services to children in foster care, with a new required position in ESSA. So we’re certainly interested to hearing
any recommendations on supporting better services to children who
are in our state foster care system. There is, within ESSA, additional emphases
on our English language learners. With that, I’m going to turn
it over to Doc Sheila Quinn, our Deputy Superintendent for
Innovation and Effectiveness.>>Good evening everyone. I’m delighted to be with you tonight
to talk about the last section of our presentation, which is our new state and
federal consolidated accountability model. And you can see the title of
that model that we would like to brand it like South Carolina Succeeds. We want this model to focus on all of the
things that are helping our state to move forward and helping our students
graduate college and career ready. I want to start the presentation tonight
by thanking several people who have been very integral to the work that you’re
gonna see presented tonight, and also the draft that’s
posted on our website. We have had several
accountability work groups. We began with three work
groups that was made up of individuals from school districts,
teachers, principals. District office leaders,
superintendents, as well as members from the Commission on Higher
Education, the technical college board, members from the general assembly and
the legislative staff there. We also have had a tremendous partnership
with the Education Oversight Committee. I want to thank Melanie Barton and all the
members of her staff who have contributed to the work that you see here and continue
to work with us collaboratively and a very special thank you to
the superintendent work group. Several superintendents, district
superintendents who have given more than ten or 12 days of their time to sit
down really think through these pieces. So, I wanna go through such several parts
of the accountability model tonight. You’re going to see a draft on our
website that has a lot of red in it. And the red is because we are still
continuing to work with all of the accountability groups that
you’ve heard me mention before to make this model the best it can be and
so the red is there to tell you that. Those are sections where we’re still
discussing and making decisions And it looks like my slide advancer is not
functioning there, thank you very much. So the purpose of accountability. Several entities across the country
have talked about reasons for accountability and different purposes for
accountability and you can see those mentioned on the slide. Many people think that the purpose of
accountability is to rank and sort schools so that the public is aware of high
performing and low performing schools. And that is certainly a function that
has occurred from accountability. Others believe that the purpose is
to provide meaningful information to stakeholders about school performance. And then finally there is the opinion that
accountability systems should be developed to drive continuous improvement. We are seeking in South Carolina
to develop an accountability model that focuses on continuous improvement and
gives our stakeholders the best, most robust information possible
in a way that’s easy to digest. Then, again my slide advancer, there. Thank you.
I’m putting the profile of South Carolina
graduate up again. I know you saw it at the beginning
of the presentation, but I would really want you to focus on
the three sections for just a minute. If we are developing an accountability
model to produce a graduate with world class knowledge, world class
skills and world class life and career characteristics are gonna help
them be successful beyond K-12 education. What could we need to measure? What would they be included
in accountability system? And so we have really taken
the hard this three sections of the accountability model and tried to
be sure that we’re being sensitive to all of the different elements
that we should be measuring. From the 3,0000 foot view, what the ESSA
requires from an accountability system is that we establish what we are calling in
South Carolina key performance indicators. And we are looking at 5
to 6 leading Indicators, to include in the accountability model. Second, we’re required to measure school,
and district, and state progress,
towards those indicators. And then finally, we have to take
action with respect to schools and districts, for not making acceptable
progress on the indicators. And that action, takes the form
of support and intervention. As a part of ESSA, in the accountability
model we have to develop long term goals and interim targets to reach the
long term goal for all students and for all the sub groups that you’ve heard
the others talk about tonight. There are three areas that you’re
required to set long-term goals and interim targets. And that’s in achievement on your state
test, on your graduation rate, and a new one for accountability in title one,
English language Language proficiency. In our plan that you’re
gonna see on the website, you’re also gonna see a goal related
to college and career readiness. That’s not required by ESSA but it is something that is important
to our state stakeholders. The macro goal, the kind of elevator
speech goal that you can say and remember is that by 2030, 90% of
students will graduate in four years and will be ready for college and
career, college and career ready. Why 2030? 2030 was set originally because
in 2017 to 18 when the new accountability model kicks in, students
in kindergarten will graduate in 2030. So it’s a generational goal. Lately we’ve also been talking about,
maybe that needs to be a 2035 goal so that we can begin birth to when
those students would graduate. So that is under discussion. Why 90%? Well currently in South Carolina there
are some students who are not going for a standard South Carolina diploma but
instead an occupational credential. We are working on that with the
accountability work group that is separate from this accountability workgroup
to begin thinking about how students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities can work towards a diploma. But 90% is the goal that we
are setting at this point in time. And then on this slide, which has a little
bit smaller font, may be quite hard to read at this point, but you can see
it in the accountability draft plan. We have set sub-goals related to the areas
that ESSA requires that we set sub-goals. And the first one is in achievement. In achievement, we wanna reduce the number
of students who are scoring in the does not meet expectations category of our
state assessments to 10% or lower. Why are we focusing on getting
students out of that bottom category? Because we know students in the bottom
category on our state assessments, whether that is SC ready in
grades three through eight Or end of course exams in the high
school English one and algebra one. We know that if they are scoring in
that bottom section or bottom tier, that they’re not on the trajectory for
college and career readiness. And so we want have stay
focus to move those students out of that bottom category. Graduation rate as we’ve said is a 90%
in four years and 100% in five years. We’re setting as requires and
to set a five-year target for graduation. You set a higher target and
we would like to set, and it’s a fairly aspirational goal to have all students
graduate by the end of five years. In the area of English
language proficiency, we are just beginning to analyze our
access English language test data. But you could see here that the two
sub-goals, one is for growth, and one is for proficiency focused on
measuring the number of students who are increasing at least
one composite level, for example level one to level two or
level two to level three annually. And as well,
as at least 50% of our students meeting their individual proficiency target,
which is a level five by the time table set by WIDA of when they’re
suppose to hit their proficiency target. What that means is,
when students enter a program for English language learning,
they are given a baseline assessment. And based on that baseline assessment, the WIDA will project when that student
should be proficient in English. It’s also based on the student’s age. And so we will be using those factors
to set a proficiency timetable. And then finally the last goal,
which is the one I alluded to that’s not required by SL, but
we feel very strongly about it. It’s called our prepared for
success sub-goal. And it’s to ensure that 90%
of our students graduate. With some evidence of college or
career readiness. And this is big game changer for our state, because the focus in
the past has been on just graduation. And that’s certainly a lofty and
important goal. But now we want students to leave our
schools again with some tangible evidence that they’re ready for the next level. And we want that evidence to
come from multiple sources, cuz there’s no one measure of that. And we’ll be talking a little
about that in later slides. So what does ESSA say must be
included in an accountability model? There are certain areas,
certain items that you must include. One of them is the achievement
scores on your state tests, and that is the proficiency target. In our state,
that target is level three or higher, which is meets expectations or
higher on our SC ready test or a C or higher on the end of course test. So we have to track those scores and
we have to do sub group analysis for that. We also have an opportunity to include
either gross, or another state achievement test and in our state, we feel very
passionate about using a growth metric. So for our elementary and middle schools,
we will be using a growth metric, using the state test to measure
both achievement and growth. You may be asking, well, why isn’t
there a growth metric for high school? Because high school uses the end
of course assessments, and they are typically a one and done, you
take the test one time when you sit for the course, there’s not a growth
metric opportunity available. Graduation rates we’ve talked about. We’ll be using the four-year
graduation rate for the state goal. Schools will also be given a credit for
a five-year graduation rate. And then finally,
English language proficiency, progress and proficiency in English
language is required. Accountability work group one has been
heavily focused on these four metrics and how they should function and count. And I appreciate their work there. ESSA says you’ve got to give these
four substantial consideration or substantial weight in your
accountability model. But also, ESSA asked the question, what else would
a state like to include in accountability? And if you look at the indicator
in blue and in green, ESSA gives you two other
types of indicators. That you could include in
the accountability model student’s success indicators and school quality indicators,
and if you’ll pay attention when you see the blue and the green coming up in later
slide, those will indicate what we’re considering our student success indicators
in our school quality indicators. So this slide says, what else can
you include in accountability? You can include items
like student engagement, which is a school quality indicator. Completion of advanced coursework. Post-secondary readiness, which we call
College and Career Readiness or CCR, and that is a student success indicator. School climate or safety indicators that’s
another school quality indicator, and then it says other as determined by state,
by the state. These can be considered in accountability
models, but they must be given less weight than the items that I talked
about in the prior slide. And again, you can see at the bottom
of this slide we’ve had two accountability groups working on these. One worked on the student engagement piece
and the other worked the college and career ready So, in the long run, you have to have
the indicators that are required and those that you choose to do from school
quality and student success, and you have to organize them or
count them in a way that allows you to meaningfully differentiate schools and
districts. And be able to identify those schools and districts that need comprehensive
support and intervention. So, this very busy slide is your overview,
or your one-stop-shop,
of looking at the accountability model. And so at the top,
I’m gonna break it down for you. At the top, you see our macro goal. By 2030, 90% of students will
graduate college and career ready. Down on the left side you see that the
different levels of report cards that we will be producing. We’ll have a South Carolina report card,
a district report card, a highschool, a middle school, and an elementary school. And then across the top, you will see
the leading performance indicators. Those leading performance indicators
should be reflective of the slides you just heard me read that are requirements
for ESSA and options for ESSA. So the first four are the required ones
that must be given substantial weight, achievement, gross, graduation rate and
English language proficiency. And you can see the tests that we use in
each of those to measure those categories. Then you can see in blue, the Student
Success Indicator as we’re calling that column the Prepared for Success
section of the accountability model. And then finally,
the Student Engagement Section, which is called the Effective Learning
Environment Student Engagement Survey. That’s our school quality
indicator that we are discussing. So those are your six leading indicators. Not all six apply to all schools. For example, if you follow that
gross category all the way down. You can see that for high school,
growth is not an option, so it’s grade out there and
says not applicable. Similarly if you follow the graduation
rate column all the way down. You can see that elementary and middle
schools don’t have graduation rates. So in general, each level will have
five items and the high school, and the district will have six indicators or
items that are feeding into the accountability model potentially if
all six of these are formally approved. And so I can certainly read all these
slides to you, these sections to you, but I think you can see there that
there’s tests that are indicated and options that are indicated
in each of these. One other thing that I will highlight
is that there is some discussion. At the elementary and middle school level of reducing some of the testing that
we have been doing in South Carolina. ESSA does not require science and
social studies testing every year. It It does require that you do science
testing at least once in elementary and once in middle, so
you can see a reflection here of some potential grades that
we could test science. We do believe that social studies is
important and civics education is important and so we are proposing also,
even though it’s not required by ESSA to have two grades tested for social studies,
grade five and grade seven. We don’t want science and social studies teachers to think
that we do not value their subjects. We at the department will be working to
develop some performance task assessments and other items that we can
give to districts locally at other grade levels that they may
continue to use to assess those areas. But these would be formal check and
assessment grades for the subjects that you see there. I’m gonna skip over now to the student
success column, the prepared for success and I am gonna slow down on this
one and you’re gonna see some slides that follow that explain those
with a little more detail. I want to focus first on the high school. If you can see at the high school and
at the district level, we’re gonna be proposing multiple ways that a student
might be college or career ready. Remember I said we want students to walk
across that stage with some evidence that they have prepared themselves for
the next level, whether that’s work, whether that’s military, whether that
is two year or four year colleges. I’m gonna be describing to
you in slides coming up about some ways we’re looking at all of
the assessments that you see there. If you look at middle school and elementary school, we also feel
very strongly that the profile of South Carolina Graduate emphasizes
those life and career characteristics. We are investigating opportunities
to look at soft skill assessments, social emotional learning assessments for
the elementary and middle school. We know those are very
formative years where students are developing a lot of
their character traits that they ultimately need to demonstrate in
the workplace and so we would like to look at some instruments that measure
those soft skills in those grades. Also notice the words report only. Across the nation, many states
are looking at soft skill assessments or employability skill assessments, that’s
another term that you’ll see for that. They’re so emergent in that work that
there are not a lot of states yet ready to set metrics for
accountability around those. We are proposing that for a few years,
that we simply collect the data and report it on the report card, but
not count it for accountability. So that one will not count for
elementary or middle. You see, over to the right, the student
engagement survey, that would count for all levels and I’m gonna talk about that student
engagement survey on another slide. Finally, down at
the bottom of this matrix, you will see what we are calling the other
drivers for continuous improvement. District stakeholders know very much
about the AdvancEd Accreditation process. All but six districts in
South Carolina are a part of this accreditation process and many of the six that aren’t involved are
already investigating being a part of it. But it looks at drivers for
continuous improvement and it looks at five systems that schools
constantly examine their performance and leverage their improvement efforts around. So the question and accountability is
do we count that work in some way? Do we give districts credit for that work? We are having those
discussion at this point and time but no final decision has been made. Finally, there are schools at the school
level who are engaged in personalized learning or other specialized
certifications such as STEM, Leader [UNKNOWN, Middle Years IB,
Primary Years IB, and so on. There are many others. If a school had an externally validated
school-wide program, such as a STEM certification, should that school have
some credit in the accountability model? Once again, we’re discussing that. We have not reached any final decision. Now, let’s break those down just a little
bit to give you some idea of how they might work in an accountability model. Remembering that each of those leading
indicators that I just told you must be broken down by subgroups. Anything that you put in
the accountability model, you must remember it has to be able
to be broken down by subgroup. Let’s talk about the Prepared for
Success student success indicator first. We are proposing multiple metrics for
college and career ready at our high school level. Let’s talk about the first one. The first one, bullet, that you see is
maybe a student could be college and career-ready if on the Grade 11 assessment
that the state pays for, which is the ACT, the student meets the benchmark of 22 in
reading or 18 in English, or 22 in math. Those benchmarks are set by ACT. They are the benchmarks that predict
a student being likely to make a B or higher in the corresponding college
course in their freshman year college. You can see in red, just like you’ll
see on the draft on the state department’s website,
we’re debating whether that is the reading score we wanna set that metric or
if we wanna choose the English score. The English score is the predictor for
Composition 101 of English 101 and the map score is the predictor for
college algebra. Those two seem logical but
we’re also looking at the reading score. A student might also be college or career ready if they meet what
we’re calling a common cut score across all the assessments that colleges
use in our state to admit a student. Those are the ACT, SAT, and then the two year schools
often use an Accuplacer score. It used to be a compass score, but
now it’s called an Accuplacer score. If they can meet a common cut score
to take a credit bearing course, what do we mean by that? When you take a college entrance test, particularly when you are taking
Accuplacer-style test, those scores predict whether you’re ready
to take a college credit bearing course or whether you’re going to
take a remediation course. What we are asking our technical schools
and our institutions of higher ed to do is to work collaboratively with us to
identify an ACT composite score, or a reading and math score, an SAT composite
score, or a reading and math score. And an Accuplacer score, that would be allowed anywhere
in the state of South Carolina. If a student hit that score, they could
take a credit bearing course, i.e., they would not be eligible for
remediation. We are very happy to tell you that
the commission on higher ed and the technical college board
are working with us on that and we hope to hear something
from them very soon. The third way you could be college or
career ready is if you’re already taking college courses in high school and
you are successful in those courses. What does successful mean? On AP, across our state, a three or higher on an AP exam is accepted in
colleges, so that could be a criteria. A four or higher in IB courses is
accepted, so that could be a criteria. Then finally, for dual credit, we realize
that dual credit there’s a variety of offerings across our state, we would be
looking at those dual credit courses for a two-year transfer program to be admitted
into an associate’s degree program. And we may have a threshold of an 80 or
higher. We have talked about what
that threshold could be and we have not made a final decision for
dual credit courses yet. So that’s the college side,
what about the career ready side? Well student could be career
ready by the end of grade 12, if the students meets
one of these criteria. A silver or higher on WorkKeys or
a 31 or higher on the ASVAB test. ASVAB is our military test and many of our
students graduate from high school and go right into the military and
have very successful careers, and so we do not want to leave that group out. Or a student could be career ready if
they complete a state career technical education program,
an ROTC program or an ARTS program. Also delighted to tell you that another
side accountability work grade has been ARTS community and they have been working
very hard to determine what an arts completer program will look like as
well as providing an external validation at the end of that program that would
say that a student is college ready for the arts or career ready for the arts. So if the student was a completer
in any of those three programs and earned some state-approved
industry credential or some external measure, for
ROTC, it would be the ASVAB, or the ARTS external measure,
they would be career ready. And then finally, the third option is
not widely used across our state but is growing. And that is if the student could complete
an approved youth apprenticeship. So you can see from the last two slides,
if we want students to graduate with some kind of credential, this shows
they’re ready for the next level, they’ve got multiples options in this
model of what they could do to meet that. And what we would purport on
the accountability model and count in the accountability model would be
the percent of students who meet either the college or the career and then we
would also report the percent of students who meet them both,
which would certainly be a bonus. But, what about for
elementary and for middle? We talked a lot about the high
school prepared for success. Here’s where you see a slide that just
describes the soft skilled inventory and some rationals as to why we chose it. So if you look at the social emotional
learning outcomes for grades 3 through 8, there are models or there are instruments
out there that measure a myriad of things. But we would like to focus on those scales that most closely relate to the profile
of the South Carolina graduate. So those are grit,
which is tied to perseverance. Growth mindset which is
also tied to perseverance. Self management which gets
at our self direction, classroom effort which
gets it to work ethic, social awareness which gets to the
interpersonal skills and his integrity. And then, the learning strategies, which
also gets to your classroom work ethic and understanding how you learn as a learner
and what it takes for you to study. We think there are nice connections
between these soft skill assessments and those areas of the profile
of the graduate and would like to explore those ass a report
only, metric and the accountability model. And then finally, the last one,
the school quality indicator. We would like to examine the learning
environment that students are in and for the first time in accountability
in our state we would like for the student voice to be a part
of the accountability model. So, one of the things that schools are
highly engaged in is an observation tool called the ELEOT that they use as
a part of their AdvancED accreditation. And the ELEOT looks at equitable learning
environments, high expectations happening in the classroom, whether students have
opportunities for supportive learning, whether or not students are actively
learning in the classroom. Whether or not students
are getting progress monitoring, feedback from the teachers when
they’re experiencing difficulties. If the classroom well managed and
if students, not teachers but students, have opportunities to
use technology digital learning. So this inventory looks at the scales
from the students perspective and it asks the students to rate
the quality of each of those experiences in those seven
learning environments. We feel like this is a nice tie for
what schools are already looking at so it’s not at add on in the accountability
model and it also gives some empowerment to our students to
tell us what’s working for them. Then finally, you saw at the bottom
of that kind of busy slide, the other drivers for continuous
improvement and those are the AdvancED accreditation systems that you see on
the left for the district level and the school, special school certifications
that you see on the right. And the key question there
that we’re seeking input on is do we put these in the accountability
model as a report item? Are these things that our public
just wants to hear reported? Or is this something that we should
provide as a bonus or some type of incentive for schools to engage
meaningfully in these types of activities? Reporting outcomes for accountability. One of the places that we have not had
time yet to do a lot of group discussion Is on final determinations and
performance designations. I’m gonna present some ideas or
concepts here. Again, I would like to say, we’re still
in the infancy in discussing these and we certainly welcome all
feedback in this area. So, a performance determination. When you think about the five or six categories that we’re
looking at on accountability. And you see those listed on the left. Achievement, growth or graduation rate,
depending on your level. English language proficiency,
prepare for success and effective learning environment. One approach is to present
a summative score for each of those areas individually. That’s called a dashboard approach. And in the dashboard approach,
you don’t sum all of the points up for each of these until one final score. You simply give a summative score. How is the school doing in achievement? How is the school doing in growth or
graduation rate? How is the school doing in
English language proficiency? And you can see I put on
this screen just a colorful key performance indicator
graphic that would help you see. We would set metrics to determine
schools that are green, doing very well on that, schools that
are yellow, that aren’t doing as well but are kind of in the middle, and
those schools that are not. And you would see a dashboard that would
show how schools are performing in those. And so the numbers will be meaningful. The sections, the colors will
have meaningful numbers around it based on the points the school or
district earned. So that’s one way we could
present the information. The other way is called
a weighted point index. And a weighted point index takes
those five or six categories and it weights them a lot alike, similar to
what a teacher does in her grade book. She might say tests count 40 or
60% and quizzes count 30%. Homework counts 10%. So by doing that the teacher
is weighting what’s important. And that’s what happens on
a weighted point index. So you can see some sample numbers there. Those are not numbers that
are numbers we’ve talked about. That’s just there for you to get an idea
of what a weighted point index would do. Generally, when you include a weighted
point index you usually sum those up into a single summative rating. So, you would say add
your achievement points, weight them 25%, add your growth and
graduation points. Weight those 25% and so on and so forth
and then, sum it up to a final score. If we do have a final score, and
that’s part of what we’re discussing, do we want a dashboard
where there’s five or six individual scores on the different
areas, or do we want one summative score? We have to determine what those
final ratings are gonna be called. In our current state report card,
we use words like excellent, good, average and we’re talking about, in this
accountability model, four rating levels. We would like to use exceeds expectations
as the highest performance designation, if we do have one summative rating,
meets expectations as the second highest, approaches expectations and
below expectations for the bottom. What ESSA requires,
excuse me I skipped a slide, is that, however you decide to set up the points
in your accountability system, and if you decide to use
the dashboard approach, with decision matrix on how to
identify your top and your bottom. Or if you decide to use the weighted point
index with a numerical formula, the bottom line is, what you’re doing that for
is to identify those schools that are not doing as well as they need to, who need
a comprehensive support and intervention. So I wanna talk a little bit about that,
and these metrics again
are still under discussion. But what ESSA requires is that
schools who are not performing well, that they be identified at
least once every three years. So you may ask why once every three years? What we know about school improvement
is that school improvement does not happen in one-year intervals. When schools are performing
significantly below average, it takes two to three years for
improvements to gain momentum and for the outcomes of the work
that those teachers and the principals are doing in that school
to show in test scores and other metrics. So what ESSA allows that I think
is very positive is it allows you to identify the schools that need
comprehensive support and intervention and guarantee that for three years,
they’re going to receive funding and support to meet their improvement efforts,
and then you would re-identify. What we can do in
South Carolina is we can look at schools’ performance every year and
formally identify every three years. And as new schools pop into the group,
in the off years, we can set aside some special project funds to help
those schools because it looks like their data is trending downward, and they may
end up identified at the next go-around. And we have plans to do that in the draft
model that you’ll see on the website. But who would we identify,
the every three years? We would identify as a mandate from ESSA, any of your Title I schools who
are performing in the bottom 5%. We would also identify non-Title I schools
who are performing in the bottom 5%. And high schools with graduation
rates lower than 67%. And I think that’s gonna climb on in our
graduation rate model to be less than 70%, because we have moved our graduation
rate up in South Carolina and we would probably set a threshold at 70. We also have an opportunity to identify
schools for comprehensive support and intervention if you have a chronically
low performing subgroup. And you can see our definition of
chronically low performing is that any subgroup that has been identified for
targeted support intervention for at least three years, and
I’ll talk about targeted support next. The other category that ESSA
requires us to identify, to provide support intervention,
is the targeted support intervention. And those are schools
that specifically have problems with their subgroup performance. And ESSA requires that you
look at two groups there. It requires you to look at
low performing subgroups and consistently underperforming subgroups. So low performing subgroups, as defined by
our state model, are schools with one or more subgroups performing as poorly as the same subgroup in any
of our bottom 5% schools. So any virtually high performing school
that has a subgroup performing where the bottom 5% of some schools are
performing could have a subgroup gap, so that’s one. And then secondly your consistently
underperforming subgroups that we defined as schools with one or more historically
underperforming subgroups that is one standard deviation below the state’s
performance in that subgroup for two consecutive years. Those schools are also entitled for
increased funding and interventions to support
their subgroup growth. I will end with this slide. There is a great deal of concern and discussion in our state about the new
Read to Succeed law that will begin the same year this accountability model
kicks in, which will require us to look very closely at third graders who are
reading significantly below grade level. Because that law has a retention
clause that students can be retained, there is some discussion that we need to
really focus on what’s happening in our early childhood literacy and
numeracy, but particularly literacy. So early in our accountability
discussions, we talked a lot about do we need some type of early childhood
report on the accountability model, on the report card, or does it need to be
in some other portion of our state report? And so I put this slide in to tell you
that the discussion about is there something we can look at, that’s
happening in our K to 2 literacy programs across our state,
that would indicate students who are and are not reading on grade level, beginning
at kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade? And we would look at their performance
at the end of those grades, so that would be a spring to spring look. So spring of kindergarten, spring to
first grade, spring to second grade. The considerations that make
this a complicated decision is the fact that there’s no single
summative assessment in grades K to 2. And we’re certainly not proposing testing
young children on a state summative test. But we do across the districts use
a myriad of formative assessments that indicate on-grade level reading. The challenge for an accountability
model is streamlining the six or seven, maybe more, eight or nine,
different formative assessments that districts use into some
type of report on a report card. And we’re still working
through that challenge. We have our instructional leaders
roundtable and our early childhood roundtable with SCASA working with us
to identify some possible solutions. We’re also considering a website that’s
completely focused on early childhood. I’m partnering with our Children’s Trust,
with DSS, DHHS, First Steps and others to create a birth to grade 3 website that
would focus on this early childhood piece. We need your input and
at this point in time, we’re going to stop the presentations and
begin the question and answer. And so we would like to open that up for
any questions that you have and we will try to have our moderator field
those and we’ll answer those questions.>>Thank you, Sheila. This is Scott Winburn. I know we are approaching 7:30 and I think
we’ve had a lively discussion via chat. So I appreciate all of
those that participated. Given that it’s 7:30 here,
here’s what I propose. What we are doing,
if we didn’t say earlier, we are gathering all of the questions that
were asked via chats, we will have those. If you have any specific questions
that we were not able to get to, please just email me. Again, my email is [email protected] Go to our website. You’re free to submit
comments that way as well. But please do email me. What we’ll develop is a frequently
asked questions document so that we can capture what was asked today
and your questions for the future. So please take a minute to do that. Write your questions in and
we can still capture those today. But since it is 7:30,
we’ll conclude the webinar. But one more reminder, on the 21st
of November, we will host a focus group meeting, and so be on the lookout
for an invitation for that. We’ll post that on our website and again, please read the proposed draft
framework posted on our website. Read it in detail and
provide specific feedback. So thank you very much for participating and at this point, this will conclude our webinar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *