Accountability: Where Are We Going?

1
Accountability Where Are We Going?

• Ira Schwartz, Coordinator
• NYS Education Department

2
This May be the Dawning of the Age of
Accountability

• NYS Enhanced Accountability System
• NCLB Reauthorization
• Local accountability initiatives

3
Enhanced Accountability System

• Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 calls for creation
  of an enhanced State accountability system,
  including
• New accountability standards based on State
  assessments and other indicators of progress,
  such as graduation rates or college attendance
  and completion rates to be established by July
  2008.
• Growth model by 2008-09.
• Value-added model by 2010-2011 based on new or
  revised state assessments.
• Expanded SURR system, resulting in the
  identification of up to 5 of State schools by
  2011-2012 for restructuring or reorganization.
• Contracts for Excellence and District Improvement
  Plans for Selected School Districts.

4
Student Enrollment by Accountability Status
NYC NYC Rest of State Rest of State Total Total
  Schools Enrollment Schools Enrollment Schools Enrollment
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 1 9 10845 36 40043 45 50888
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 2 6 5957 38 53161 44 59118
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 3 10 21515 17 18481 27 39996
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 4 36 82411 15 19412 51 101823
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 5 14 19748 1 1032 15 20780
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 6 5 1335 0 0 5 1335
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 7 6 1759 0 0 6 1759
In Need of Improvement - Year 1 62 49523 46 28107 108 77630
In Need of Improvement - Year 2 58 49617 33 27957 91 77574
In Corrective Action 44 32074 23 223305 67 54379
Planning for Restructuring 46 61551 31 30436 77 91987
Restructuring - Year 1 22 17050 20 20459 42 37509
Restructuring - Year 2 57 52336 7 3741 64 56077
Restructuring - Year 3 47 46862 10 7460 57 54322
Total Title I SINI 336 309013 170 140465 506 449478
Total SRAP 86 143570 107 132129 193 275699
Grand Total 422 452583 277 272594 699 725177
Note Enrollment is based on counts from October 2005 BEDS survey. Note Enrollment is based on counts from October 2005 BEDS survey. Note Enrollment is based on counts from October 2005 BEDS survey. Note Enrollment is based on counts from October 2005 BEDS survey.
5
Statewide Status of SINI and SRAP Schools 2005-06
vs. 2006-07
Status 05-06 Status Improved or Stayed the Same Status Became Worse Total Schools In Status Percent Improving or Staying the Same
SINI 1 61 70 131 46.6
SINI 2 33 51 84 39.3
Corrective Action 19 76 95 20.0
Planning for Restructuring 12 31 43 27.9
Restructuring 1 17 58 75 22.7
Restructuring 2 11 62 73 15.1
SRAP 1 44 28 72 61.1
SRAP 2 28 14 42 66.7
SRAP 3 15 44 59 25.4
SPAP 4 6 9 15 40.0
SRAP 5 or 6 3 1 4 75.0
Total 249 444 693 35.9
Note A schools status would improve or stay the
same if the school made AYP in the area(s) of
identification which gave the school its status.
A schools status becomes worse if it fails to
make AYP in one or more of the area of
identification which gave the school its status.
6
WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS WEIGHTED PI BY ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS - ALL SCHOOLS
  3-8 ELA 3-8 ELA 3-8 Math 3-8 Math HS ELA HS ELA HS Math HS Math
Acct Status Acct Enrolgt30 Wtd PI Acct Enrolgt30 Wtd PI Acct Enrolgt30 Wtd PI Acct Enrolgt30 Wtd PI
In Good Standing 920,862 163 914,553 168 109,948 183 109,948 185
In Need of Improvement - Year 1 37,283 132 37,069 137 3,694 152 3,694 159
In Need of Improvement - Year 2 41,845 133 41,132 136 4,386 146 4,386 150
In Corrective Action 24,988 127 24,747 125 3,989 144 3,989 149
Planning for Restructuring 32,143 117 31,639 110 9,971 138 9,971 145
Restructuring - Year 1 20,826 119 20,447 114 1,619 122 1,619 130
Restructuring - Year 2 37,304 116 36,921 116 874 132 874 139
Restructuring - Year 3 41,208 116 40,601 111 867 103 867 124
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 1 9,314 154 9,214 154 8,346 180 8,346 184
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 2 16,516 158 16,364 161 8,700 178 8,700 182
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 3 9,700 150 9,602 145 6317 169 6,317 170
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 4 12,526 142 12,418 141 17,151 149 17,151 150
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 5 3,763 125 3,722 113 3,628 132 3,628 141
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 6 443 114 427 99 419 116 419 118
Requiring Academic Progress - Year 7 1,236 94 1,220 91 212 118 212 118
Has No Status - Regulations Do Not Apply 316 145 308 140 0 0 0 0
Total Title I SINI 235,597 123 232,556 122 25,400 140 25,400 147
Total SRAP 53,498 148 52,967 147 44,773 161 44,773 164
Grand Total 1,210,273 154 1,200,384 158 180,121 171 180,121 175
7
Enhanced Accountability System Learning Standards

• Requirement to periodically review learning
  standards.
• ELA standards must be reviewed no later than
  2007-08.
• Teachers, school administrators, teacher
  educators, and others with educational expertise
  on improvement are to be consulted.
• Goal for students to be prepared in an
  appropriate progression for post-secondary
  education or employment.

8
Status, Growth and Value- Added Models Defined
Contract for Excellence requires SED implement
growth and value added models meet any Federal
requirements for such models.
9
Status Models Defined

• Status or improvement models, the current
  requirement for measuring Adequate Yearly
  Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind,
  measure progress by tracking the improvement at
  the same grade levels within the school over
  time. (This years grades 3-5 compared to last
  years grades 3-5.)

10
Growth Models Defined

• Growth models generally refer to accountability
  models that assess the progress of a cohort of
  individual students over time with the intent of
  measuring the progress these students have made
  (Performance in fourth grade compared to
  performance in third grade.)

11
Value-Added Models Defined

• Value-added models generally refer to a specific
  type of growth model in which student demographic
  data or other statistical controls are used to
  attempt to analyze the specific effects of a
  particular school, program, or teacher on student
  learning.
• These models ask whether the school has increased
  the measured achievement of students more than
  expected based on data from similar schools.

12
NYS Principles for Development of a Growth Model

• Be consistent with USDE growth models principles.
• Neither require new assessments nor be made
  unusable by new assessments.
• Supported by nyStart not require collection of
  new data.
• Measure student progress towards proficiency
  within a timeframe that shall be established by
  the Commissioner.
• Use a transparent, open architecture that can
  be clearly and easily explained to school staff,
  parents, and the general public.
• Provide information that is useful to districts
  and schools in planning school and district
  improvement efforts.
• Serve as a platform for the development by
  2010-2011 of a value added accountability system
  based on the next generation of State
  assessments.
• Be implemented no later than the 2008-09 school
  year.

13
NYS Possible Growth Models

• Value Tables Model
• Residual Growth Models
• Rate of Expected Academic Change Model

14
Enhanced Accountability System Plans for
Intervention

• School Quality Review Teams conduct resource,
  program and planning audits of SINI and SURR
  schools and assist all SINI and SURR schools in
  development of improvement plans.
• Joint School Intervention Teams, whose members
  are appointed by Commissioner and include
  educators from the district, review and recommend
  plans for reorganizing or reconfiguring
  restructuring or SURR schools that have failed to
  demonstrate progress.
• Distinguished educators assist schools and
  districts that have failed to make AYP for four
  years. Serve on Joint School Intervention Teams
• Recommendations of School Quality Review Teams
  and Joint Intervention Team are advisory.
• The services of all the above are a charge to the
  school district.

15
Plans for Intervention in SURR and Restructuring
Schools That Fail to Demonstrate Progress

• Commissioner shall develop criteria for school
  closure and processes to be followed.
• Process shall include research based options,
  alternatives and strategies for reorganizing,
  restructuring or reconfiguring schools.
• Plans shall be identified with input from
  parents, teachers, administrators and
  distinguished educators.
• .

16
District Improvement Plans

• DINIs or districts that have a SINI or SURR must
  submit action plans to the Commissioner for
  approval. District must link plans to the menu of
  allowable programs and activities or explain why
  they are not linked..
• Plans must be subject to public hearing prior to
  adoption and the transcript of the hearing must
  be sent to the Commissioner.
• First plans expected to be required for the 08-09
  school year.

17
School Quality Review Teams

• For 07-08 school year, SQR teams will be
  comprised of SED staff, Regional School Support
  Center Staff, and representatives of District
  Superintendents.
• BOCES district superintendents will oversee SQR
  teams in schools that are SINI I and SINI 2s.
  SED staff will oversee SQR teams in the Big 5 and
  in schools that are in Corrective Action,
  Planning for Restructuring or Restructuring
  status.
• SQR teams will use a set of Quality Indicators to
  review school and make recommendations.
• No charge to districts for SQR teams assigned to
  districts in 07-08.
• In 08-09 SQR teams will offer a basic, advanced
  or intensive level of services based upon needs
  of schools.

18
Distinguished Educators and Deficient Performance

• Regents to establish distinguished educator
  program.
• Superintendents, principals, teachers, and other
  individuals with demonstrated educational
  expertise eligible.
• Distinguished educators assess the learning
  environment in schools and assist in development
  and implementation of improvement plans.
• Distinguished educator may either endorse plans
  or make recommendations for change.
• District must either modify the plans or explain
  in writing to the Commissioner why plans have not
  been modified.
• Unless the Commissioner finds the districts
  explanation has compelling merit, the
  Commissioner shall direct the district to modify
  the plans as recommended by the distinguished
  educator.
• Distinguished educator becomes ex-officio member
  of the school board.
• Superintendent must cooperate fully with the
  distinguished educator as per superintendents
  contract.

19
Other Chapter 57 Provisions

• School leadership and school progress report
  cards.
• Student progress reports by July 1, 2008
  providing information on performance on State
  assessments over multiple years.
• Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher
  preparation programs and expand alternative
  teacher preparation programs.
• Explore the development of a P-16 data system to
  track student performance.
• Regents to develop minimum standards for tenure
  determinations, including incorporation of
  student performance data, and peer and principal
  or administrative review.
• Raise the cap on charter schools by 100, giving
  SUNY and Regents 50 new charters each to issue,
  with up to 50 reserved for New York City.

20
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft

• Places in law much of the flexibility that USDE
  has given States through regulation or policy,
  including Performance Indices, multi-year
  averaging, inclusion of former LEPs and SWDs
  (three years instead of two).
• Maintains the goal of proficiency for all by
  2013-2014.
• Allows states under certain conditions to use
  assessments other than in reading and math to
  make a final AYP determination. Other measures
  can be a 15 factor for elementary and middle
  level schools and 25 for high schools.
• Allows growth models, generally as per USDE rules
  for current pilots. Students must be on track
  for proficiency in three years.

21
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft

• Permits use of Performance Index, such as New
  Yorks.
• Sets a uniform, maximum national N size of 30
  and confidence interval of 95, same as New
  Yorks. Sets a safe harbor confidence interval
  of 75.

22
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft (ELLs)

• Requires native language tests where more than
  10 of ELL students in a State share the same
  language.
• Allows States to use English language proficiency
  tests to determine AYP for first two years of
  reauthorization for students in the lowest two
  levels of proficiency.
• Allows assessments of a LEP students in native
  language and using other alternate valid and
  reliable means for up to five years, with an
  additional two years on a case by case basis.
• Continues one year exemption for newly arrived
  students.
• Allows former LEPs to be included in calculation
  of AYP for up to the three years following exit
  from LEP status.

23
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft (SWDs)

• Provides funding for states to develop
  appropriate assessments for SWDs and requires
  them to do so within two years of
  reauthorization.
• Continues the 1 rule for students to
  participate in alternate assessments and
  continues for 3 years the 2 rule for modified
  assessments.
• Allows former SWDs to be counted in the SWD group
  for three years following declassification.
• Allows up to 1 of students with severe
  disabilities who graduate with IEP diplomas to be
  counted as graduates.

24
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft (Consequences)

• Creates two separate and distinct improvement and
  assistance programs one for priority schools
  that miss AYP for one or two groups and one for
  High Priority schools that miss AYP for most
  groups.
• Only high priority schools must offer choice and
  SES.
• High priority schools must offer choice and SES,
  proven instructional programs, formative
  assessments, and at the high school level,
  personalized learning environments.
• Creates two separate redesign programs one for
  priority schools and one for high priority
  schools.
• Priority redesign requires significant revision
  to the instruction, leadership, and support
  services provided to the group of students that
  did not make AYP.
• High priority redesign requires a school to be
  closed and be reopened only after a comprehensive
  redesign that includes changes to instructional
  program, staffing and school leadership. School
  districts may have no more than 10 percent of 50
  schools, which ever is less, in high priority
  redesign.
• Identification as a District in Need of
  Improvement based upon failure of same subgroup
  at same level on same measure.

25
NCLB Reauthorization The House Committee on
Education and Labor Working Draft (Graduation
Rate)

• Establishes uniform, national definition for how
  graduation rate to be calculated.
• Permits the rate to be set based upon a four or
  five year graduation rate.
• Requires that groups below the graduation target
  of 90 increase their graduation rates by 2.5
  percent per year if using a four year rate and 3
  percent per year if using a five year rate.
• Alternatively, states may using a closing the gap
  methodology based upon schools meeting the 90
  target for all groups by 2019-2020.
• States may develop alternative graduation
  standards for alternative education settings.
• Allows schools fully meeting graduation standards
  to get up to 25 credit towards meeting their ELA
  and math AYPs.

26
This may be the Dawning of the Age of
Accountability

• Key Questions
• How do we design accountability models that
  compel movement from awful to adequate without
  impeding the movement from good to great?
• How do we move from beating the odds to changing
  the odds?
• How do we resist the temptation to improve scores
  without improving learning?
• How do we take data and turn it into actionable
  information that improves teaching and learning?

27
More Information

• Ira Schwartz, Coordinator
• Office of School Improvement and Community
  Services (NYC)
• ischwart_at_mail.nysed.gov
• 718 722-2796