California Department of Education Executive Office SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011) dsib-amard-sep15item01 ITEM #14 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 2015 AGENDA SUBJECT Developing a New Accountability System: Proposed Framework for the New Accountability System; Local Approaches to Accountability and Systems of Support; Update on the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics as specified in California Education Code Section 52064.5, Including a Discussion on Standards and Expectations for Improvement; Review of the Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template Field Test. Action Information Public Hearing SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S) California’s new accountability system will build on the foundation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), including the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update, evaluation rubrics, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. On June 24, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 104 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015), extending the deadline for adoption of the evaluation rubrics to October 1, 2016. This item features a review of existing accountability components, State Board of Education (SBE) guiding principles for accountability (Attachment 1) and local approaches to accountability and systems of support (Attachment 2). In addition, the item also includes a review of draft concepts for performance standards and expectations for improvement to inform the development of the evaluation rubrics consistent with Education Code (EC) Section 52064.5 (Attachment 3). This agenda item is the fourth in a series of regular updates to demonstrate progress on the implementation of LCFF as the foundation of the new accountability system. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the SBE take action as deemed necessary and appropriate but recommends no specific action at this time. BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES With the primary goals to improve classroom instruction and student outcomes, California adopted new statewide academic standards (e.g., Common Core, English Language Development and Next Generation Science Standards) and assessments (e.g., Smarter Balanced assessments), and created a new funding system through the 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Page 2 of 5 LCFF to align the allocation of resources in local districts and charter schools with local student needs. Local educational agencies (LEAs) have recently completed the second year of LCAPs and first year of Annual Updates. The new state assessment system helps improve classroom instruction and student outcomes by providing parents, teachers, schools and districts more timely information about student progress. With LEAs now responsible for more local accountability components (LCAP, annual update, rubrics), purposes and roles within the new accountability system must be redefined. For state accountability purposes, many system components are already in place. A review of these components is needed to determine if they support the current overall goal of continuous system improvement. Some components may need to be modified and/or eliminated. In August 2015, the SBE received an information memorandum that provided a review of California’s existing academic and fiscal accountability components in relation to the LCFF state priorities (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbeaug15item01.doc). This memo informs Attachment 1 that reviews the existing accountability components with the SBE guiding principles for accountability planning. This comparison informs the development of the policy framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system that will be presented to the SBE at the November 2015 meeting. Attachment 2 presents local approaches to accountability and systems of support. The first presentation provides the perspective of accountability from the California Office to Reform Education (CORE), a group of California school districts that received a waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requirements. Representatives from the CORE will present an update on the School Quality Improvement Index (SQII) accountability system that builds upon traditional measures of student, school, and district achievement to include social cognitive behaviors (e.g., self-efficacy) that support the overall goal of college and career readiness for all students. The CORE accountability model also integrates a systems approach that establishes an expectation of mutual accountability for districts to hold each other responsible for progress and provides the school pairing program to build capacity. The second presentation featured in Attachment 2 will focus on technical assistance needed for developing high-functioning systems for professional development, implementation of curriculum and assessments, and improvement in human resources. It is these systems that are the precursor to improving the actions, services, and outcomes in the local accountability plans. Representatives from the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) will share lessons learned from the recent LCAP completion and approval process. These lessons learned will help shape the future of the LCAP and Annual Update implementation and development of the evaluation rubrics. Attachment 3 includes an update on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. This update extends the research that was provided to the SBE in a June Information Memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbejun15item01.doc). Using the evidence-based structure for the rubrics that was reviewed 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Page 3 of 5 by the SBE at the July 2015 meeting, a concept draft of standards for performance and expectations for improvement is presented to the SBE for discussion. These draft performance standards and expectations for improvement are offered as a starting point in developing a coherent policy framework and implementation plan for the evaluation rubrics and new accountability system. Attachment 4 presents an overview of the California Department of Education’s (CDE’s) coordination of the LCAP electronic template field test. Staff will provide an update on the plan for field testing, including the release of a field test version, support to local educational agencies (LEAs) involved in field testing, and collection of feedback to inform modifications to the electronic version of the template. The item concludes with Attachment 5, communication, outreach, resources, and timeline for developing and implementing the new accountability system. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION In August 2015, the SBE received an information memorandum on the review of existing state academic and fiscal accountability components relative to the LCFF state priorities (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug15item01.doc). Additional information memoranda on the data analyses of the California context will be provided to the SBE to inform the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. In July 2015, the SBE received an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that included a discussion on the policy statements to develop the evaluation rubrics based on the following: (1) Align with state priorities and values related to certain learning conditions (i.e., Williams settlement legislation), graduation, and college and career readiness; (2) Incorporate into the evaluation rubrics descriptions of practices and exemplars for each of the state priorities grounded in research and best practices; and (3) Conduct further research that reflects actual experience in California related to the indicators identified in research including data analysis of existing measures. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/jul15item01.doc In June 2015, the SBE received the following information memoranda: (1) research to inform the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-jun15item01.doc), and (2) review of measures being used by other states for college and career readiness (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-jun15item01.doc) . In May 2015, the SBE discussed guiding principles that will be used to frame their future discussions for recommending a framework and implementation plan to align the new accountability system with LCFF. Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond presented on a new concept of accountability that promotes high quality teaching and learning in all schools, provides tools for continuous improvement, and a means for identifying and addressing problems that require correction. Dr. David Conley presented on system coherence and a systems approach to accountability to emphasize that California schools are strongly embedded in their local contexts and while a set of common statewide indicators is necessary for equity purposes, additional indicators should be included to capture 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Page 4 of 5 performance in the local context. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/may15item10.doc Additionally, the SBE received an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that featured major revisions to the rubrics to emphasize data analysis and provide the outcome and practice analyses as complementary tools. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/may15item10a3.doc. In March 2015, the SBE took action to suspend the Academic Performance Index (API) for the 2014–15 school year and recommended that the state move from a single index to a multiple measures accountability system. This item featured a discussion on the transition to a new accountability system with a particular focus on system elements. Additionally, the item provided an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics and determination of multiple measures with a discussion on the relationship between statewide and local measures and processes that combine to form the emerging state accountability system. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/mar15item06.doc In January 2015, the SBE requested that the Technical Design Group (TDG) and the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Advisory Committee provide the SBE with recommendations on two issues: (1) developing a new state accountability system based on multiple measures rather than a single index, and (2) timing for the release of the next state accountability report. The SBE requested that the PSAA provide a report on these recommendations at the March 2015 SBE meeting. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/jan15item03.doc In a separate January 2015 item that provided an update on the LCFF, the SBE received information on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics, including implications for the Statewide Accountability System. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/jan15item04.doc In December 2014, the SBE received an information memorandum on the summary of findings and potential next steps for the plan alignment project. Specifically, it was recommended that the state align school plan and reporting requirements with the LCAP state priorities (e.g., School Accountability Report Card), initiate the next phase of plan alignment analyses and activities (e.g., Title III and Special Education), continue outreach efforts to expand stakeholder engagement to strengthen an integrated system of state support, pursue streamlined submissions of required plans through an electronic process, and identify a process for LEAs to align and coordinate state and federal planning requirements. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-iad-dec4item01.doc FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE) When the LCFF was adopted in the 2013–14 budget year, the budget projections for 2015–16 were approximately $47 billion. With rising state revenues the 2015–16 state budget signed by the Governor allocates $53 billion this coming year. This provides an increase of $6 billion to support the continued implementation of LCFF and build upon 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Page 5 of 5 the investment of over $6 billion provided over the last two years. As a result, the reinvestment provides an opportunity to correct historical inequities and implement the formula well ahead of schedule. Specifically, this reinvestment translates to approximately $3,000 more per student in 2015–16 over the 2011–12 levels and closes more than 51 percent of the remaining LCFF funding target. Additionally, $40 million will be provided to county offices of education to support their new responsibilities required under the evolving accountability structure of LCFF and develop greater capacity and consistency within and between county offices of education. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: Proposed Framework for the New Accountability System (8 Pages) Attachment 2: Local Approaches to Accountability and Systems of Support (2 Pages) Attachment 3: Local Control Funding Formula Update: Evaluation Rubrics (11 Pages) Attachment 4: Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template Field Test (2 Pages) Attachment 5: Timeline for the Proposed Transition to a New Accountability System, Including Communication, Resources, and Outreach (5 Pages) 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8 Proposed Framework for the New Accountability System California’s accountability system is in a period of transition. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) legislation laid the foundation for the new system and charged the State Board of Education (SBE) with adopting critical components, such as the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) template and the evaluation rubrics. To ensure the new system and these components are cohesive and well aligned, a plan is needed for analyzing preexisting academic and fiscal accountability components to determine what more, if anything, is needed, and what needs to be modified. The LCFF state priorities define what the state seeks to accomplish for its students and certain measures of progress relative to these priorities. A preliminary crosswalk on the alignment between the existing accountability components and the LCFF state priorities was reported in an August 2015 Information Memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug15item01.doc). This preliminary analysis revealed the majority of the existing state accountability components are aligned within the LCFF. Some areas that require further exploration include the School Accountability Report Card (SARC). Further, the analysis confirmed that all of the metrics required in statute for the currently-suspended Academic Performance Index (API) are now included under the state priorities. As a result of this analysis, the recommendation is to formally eliminate the API. Before California can successfully develop a unified accountability system, an analysis of alignment between the existing accountability components relative to the SBE’s guiding principles for accountability planning is necessary to identify the extent of policy alignment, misalignment, and proposed gaps to be addressed. A draft of guiding principles for accountability planning was introduced to the SBE at the May 2015 meeting (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/may15item10.doc) and further discussed with an initial timeline to build the new accountability system at the July 2015 meeting (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/jul15item01.doc). The SBE guiding principles are presented below and provide the policy framework for the new accountability system. SBE Guiding Principles for Accountability Planning Articulate the state’s expectations for districts, charter schools and county offices of education. Promote a broad understanding of the specific goals that need to be met at each level of the educational system. Foster equity. Create support structures, including technical assistance for districts and schools, to promote success for all students regardless of background, primary language, or socioeconomic status. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8 Continue to disaggregate data by student subgroup for both reporting and accountability purposes. Provide useful information that helps parents, districts, charter schools, county offices of education and policymakers make important decisions. Assist and engage parents, educators and policymakers through regular communication and transparent, timely reporting of data so they can take action appropriate to their roles. Build capacity and increase support for districts, charter schools and county offices. Seek to build capacity at all levels by reinforcing the importance of sound teaching and learning practices and providing necessary support to help schools reach their goals. Create multiple ways to celebrate district and school success based on state identified and locally designated metrics. Intervene in persistently underperforming districts to build capacity along a continuum of increasing support and attention through state and regional mechanisms of support. Ensure there are services and skills necessary to meet the needs of the students and families they serve. Encourage continuous improvement focused on student-level outcomes, using multiple measures for state and local priorities. Focus on ongoing improvement of student outcomes, including college- and career-readiness, using multiple measures that reflect both status and growth. This means, in part, making determinations based on some version of the following two foundational questions:   How well is this school/district performing? Is the school/district improving? Tie accountability determinations to multiple measures of student progress, based on the state priorities, integrating data from various forms of assessment, some of which will be locally-determined. Balance validity and reliability demands with the ability to clearly and simply explain results to stakeholders, including the use of a multiple measures dashboard. Promote system-wide integration and innovation. Purposely and effectively integrate each accountability system component, including groups and technologies, creating a coherent, effective and efficient support structure for districts, charter schools and county offices of education. Recognizing that there is a new context for accountability in the state, the coming years will provide new insights at all levels of the educational system. To that end, it is important to encourage continued learning, innovation, and improvements related to the accountability system as a whole, core elements of the system, and the impact of the system on individual schools and districts. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 8 Overview of Comparative Analysis In order to establish cohesive alignment between the existing accountability components and the SBE guiding principles, a comparison is presented in Table 1. This comparative analysis identifies the existing accountability components that demonstrate agreement and alignment, or conflict and misalign with the guiding principles. The extent of this relationship (i.e., positive or negative), then reveals potential gaps and lack of depth that needs to be addressed to create a coherent accountability system. Consistent with the crosswalk analysis provided in the August Information Memorandum, the comparison with the SBE guiding principles included the following existing academic and fiscal accountability components:       Williams Settlement Legislation High School Graduation Requirements Charter Petitions Annual Independent Audits SARC API/Alternate Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) In addition to the existing accountability components, the comparison with the SBE guiding principles also included the following components of the LCFF:  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)  LCAP Annual Update  Support and technical assistance provided by the county offices of education (COE)  Support and technical assistance provided by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)  Intervention and support provided by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) As the SBE continues to discuss the development of an accountability policy framework and implementation plan, an analysis of the current components of California’s accountability system need to be reviewed and built upon as appropriate within the context of the guiding principles. The gaps to be filled that are identified through this comparative analysis will function as recommendations for action items in the implementation plan to be presented to the SBE in November 2015. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 8 Table 1 Comparison between existing California academic and fiscal accountability components and the SBE guiding principles. Guiding Principle Articulate the state’s expectations for districts, charter schools and county offices of education Current Components/Alignment Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update, establishing goals under the state priorities Misalignment Gaps to be filled Academic Performance Index (API)/ Alternate Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) 1 Strengthen understanding of standards, curriculum, and instruction through state priorities two, seven, and eight in reporting mechanisms (e.g., SARC) Expectations to complete college and career ready courses and programs (e.g., A-G, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and Career Technical Education) may exceed the minimum high school graduation requirements and disadvantage those who lack access to courses and programs Analyze data of student groups in LCAP/Annual Update and Evaluation Rubrics/SARC School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Williams High School Graduation Requirements Charter School Petitions Foster equity Annual Independent Audits LCAP and Annual Update  Supplemental and Concentration  Focus on Increased and Improved Services for Unduplicated Students  Goals for all student groups Technical assistance (California Department of Education, County Offices of Education, California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, Charter Associations) Williams Introduce course information (e.g., course taking and performance) as a multiple measure and predictor of secondary graduation and postsecondary pathway development Review alignment of local, state, and federal plans to ensure equity is addressed across the plans2 High School Graduation Requirements 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 8 Guiding Principles Provide useful information that helps parents, districts, charter schools, county offices of education and policymakers make important decisions. Current Components/ Alignment LCAP and Annual Update Misalignment API/ASAM 1 Gaps to be filled SARC Develop data dashboard with tools to support decision-making LCFF Rubrics (in process) Annual independent audits Coordinate multiple reporting functions that are not coordinated in a useful way Distinguish among the reports that are provided for accountability purposes (e.g., SARC and LCFF evaluation rubrics) from reports that are provided for informational purposes (e.g., snapshots and dashboards) Create reflective practice at school site around data and goals Build parent engagement strategies that embed in schools Build capacity and increase support for districts, charter schools and county offices. LCAP and Annual Update API/ASAM1 SSPI/CDE Charter school petitions CCEE Elementary and middle grades COEs Charter Associations LCAP/Annual Update  Support the alignment of content in charter school petitions with LCAPs  Strengthen elementary and middle grades metrics  Clarify and strengthen services for student groups (e.g., foster and homeless youth)  Consider the inclusion of additional student characteristics (e.g., age and gender) in analyses 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 8 Guiding Principles Encourage continuous improvement focused on student-level outcomes, using multiple measures for state and local priorities. Promote systemwide integration and innovation. Current Components/ Alignment LCAP and Annual Update  Use of formative and summative assessments (state and local through priorities four and eight)  Community engagement/ parent engagement (priority three) Misalignment API/ASAM1 Define status and growth measures Identifying resources and processes for selecting measures at the state and local levels (possible local metric options for LEAs to consider) Use formative and summative assessments (state and local) Annual independent audits Williams LCAP and Annual Update Gaps to be filled API/ASAM1 Consider additional tools and resources for developing and measuring community engagement/parent engagement and approaches continuous improvement Complete comprehensive plan alignment work (in progress)3 Test assumptions of stability in student populations (e.g., charter and alternative schools)4 Organize ongoing statewide conversations and communication about accountability 1. The API is listed as a discrete metric under the state priority of pupil achievement and all of its corresponding elements (e.g., statewide assessments, graduation rates, dropout rates, and college and career readiness) are encompassed within the LCFF state priorities. 2. Review the State Systemic Plan for Improvement regarding Special Education and plans associated with Titles I, II, and III to ensure alignment with the guiding principles and address equity. 3. Federal accountability systems, pending ESEA reauthorization are not aligned with LCFF and the SBE guiding principles for accountability planning. 4. Rubrics will be developed on large scale research findings that may mask important information about specific student populations, state responsibility versus local control, and relative versus absolute nature of goals. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15itemxx Attachment 1 Page 7 of 8 Comparative Analysis Summary and Next Steps Based on the analysis presented in Table 1, the majority of the components in the current state accountability system and the elements of the LCFF are aligned with the SBE guiding principles. Of those components that conflict with the SBE guiding principles (e.g., API/ASAM) the implementation plan should provide recommendations to address the next steps for modifying or eliminating these components for better alignment with the new system. Of those components that exhibit gaps and/or lack of depth (e.g., SARC and priority two, implementation of standards), the implementation plan can propose next steps to fully develop these components so that there is a stronger alignment with the SBE guiding principles. Thus, the implementation plan to complete the new accountability system that will be presented to the SBE at the November 2015 meeting should consider the following outcomes from the comparative analysis:  Identify state and local accountability system components that need to be further aligned to the SBE’s guiding principles. For example, developing and evaluating the services and actions that build professional capacity to implement California’s academic standards (i.e., Common Core, English Language Development, and Next Generation Science Standards) through the state adopted curriculum frameworks could clarify the state expectations to support standards implementation as specified in state priority two.  Expand the understanding of student and program characteristics that could be captured in the LCAP and evaluation rubrics to emphasize transparency, flexibility, and equity. For example, students over age and under credit by grade nine is a determinant if students are on track to graduate. The implementation plan should also provide recommendations on considering additional indicators and metrics for elementary and middle grades, charter schools, and alternative education programs in the LCAP and evaluation rubrics to build capacity and increase support for LEAs.  Research the implications of transitioning to the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) and the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC). For example, the Smarter Balanced summative assessment scores will be released soon and these scores, along with the potential to measure student growth, should be studied in the multiple measures context of the LCAP, evaluation rubrics, and accountability.  Finalize the evaluation rubrics standards for performance and expectations for improvement that are consistent with and aligned to the SBE’s guiding principles to differentiate performance, reflect equity and transparency, and support continuous improvement (Attachment 3).  Coordinate existing and new reporting functions in a useful way that assists parents, districts, schools, charter schools, and county offices of education with important 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 8 decisions. The LCFF evaluation rubrics will provide data displays to inform local reflective processes, technical support, and intervention needs. A dashboard or state level report should also be considered for state comparative purposes. These reports should also be aligned with existing reporting functions that are required for accountability purposes (e.g., SARC) and new reporting functions that are provided for informational purposes (e.g., LCFF Reports Page, Attachment 5).  Propose specific recommendations in the implementation plan to eliminate the API/ASAM and define the process to support LEAs and programs impacted by these changes (e.g., charter school approval and renewal criteria absent the API). The API is listed as a discrete metric under the state priority of pupil achievement and all of its corresponding elements as defined in statute (e.g., statewide assessments, graduation rates, dropout rates, and college and career readiness) are encompassed within the LCFF state priorities. Further, the purpose of a performance index no longer aligns with the state’s expectations to adopt a multiple measures accountability system that supports continuous improvement.  Develop a statewide system of support (e.g., Multi-Tiered System of Support) to ensure the incorporation of and alignment across programs of effective student, family, and community engagement strategies.  Support the inclusion of student access, course participation and performance in programs that foster college and career readiness (e.g., State Seal of Biliteracy). These courses and programs should be considered as the state develops an accountability system that will strengthen local, regional, and state partnerships for accountability purposes.  Identify how to best incorporate the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), audits, waivers, and flexibility as components in the local and state partnerships for accountability purposes.  Recommend the next steps for the plan alignment work that is necessary to align the federal accountability requirements with the new state accountability system to support system-wide integration.  Integrate lessons learned from the second year of LCAP implementation and first year of the Annual Update (Attachment 2). 8-21-15 [State Board of Education] 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 Local Approaches to Accountability and Systems of Support California Office to Reform Education School Quality Improvement Index In August 2013, the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) received a waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements. To meet the waiver requirements, CORE districts receive flexibility by adopting reforms in three key areas: college and career readiness, standards and assessments, systems of differentiated accountability and support, and teacher and principal evaluations. Overall, the waiver requires the use of multiple measures to determine school and district performance in the areas of assessment, graduation, college and career readiness, and school environment; provide incentives for preparing the hardest-to-serve students for college and career; including comparing the performance of schools and districts with similar student populations; and, set a range of targets for accountability measures that are grounded in research and past performance. The CORE waiver authorized a district-consortium request to adopt an accountability measure called the School Quality Improvement Index (SQII). The SQII consists of an academic domain and social-emotional/culture-climate domain. The academic domain consists of academic performance, academic growth, high-school readiness (of 8th Grade Students), and graduation. The social-emotional/culture-climate domain includes chronic absenteeism, student/staff/parent culture-climate survey, suspension/expulsion rates, social emotional skills, English learner re-designation, and disproportionality in special education identification. Student performance will be examined for all students in addition to subgroups (racial/ethnic, students with disabilities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English learners) with group size of 20 allowing for greater visibility of subgroup performance. Metric scores are converted to index points that are combined to obtain a single score for each school. While the index score will be used for specific federal accountability requirements that are consistent with the terms of the waiver, these scores will also be used for designations to support continuous improvement (reward, priority, and focus). Michael Hanson, Superintendent of Fresno Unified School District and Rick Miller, Executive Director of CORE will provide an update on the SQII. Lessons Learned from Local Control and Accountability Plans and Annual Updates On June 24, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 104 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015), which appropriated forty million dollars to county superintendent of schools. The intent of the Legislature is that county offices of education prioritize the use of these funds for investments that are necessary to support new responsibilities that are required under the evolving accountability structure of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Of primary importance is that the county superintendent of schools develop greater capacity and consistency within and between county offices of 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 education. These funds may be encumbered funds at any time during the 2015–16 or 2016–17 fiscal year. Although California is still in the early stages of LCFF implementation, substantial progress has been made in establishing LCFF as the foundation for California’s new accountability system. Local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to complete a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update every year. This year, LEAs completed an LCAP and Annual Update for adoption and approval that reflects the planning for 2015–16 through 2017–18 with a review of progress for 2014–15. The goals contained in the LCAP align with the term of the LEA budget and multiyear budget projections in order to strengthen the alignment between LEA resource allocations and implementation of actions and services to support local goals. Representatives from the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) will share lessons learned from the recent completion and approval process. These lessons learned will help shape the future of the LCAP and Annual Update implementation and development of the evaluation rubrics. The CCSESA represents the 58 County Offices Education (COEs), most of which are responsible for approving LCAPs for districts within the county. The exceptions are the seven COEs that are single-district counties; their district LCAPs are reviewed by the California Department of Education (CDE). Under the leadership of CCSESA, the Business and Administration Steering Committee (BASC) and the Curriculum and Instruction Steering Committee (CISC) have collaborated to create and provide:  LCAP-related training to COEs to offer to their respective districts  The CCSESA LCAP Approval Manual: A Guide for Review and Approval of District LCAPs Peter Birdsall, executive director of CCSESA and Dave Gordon, County Superintendent of Sacramento County Office of Education will provide an update on the approval of district LCAPs and Annual Update. They will also discuss plans to provide updated resources and technical assistance to LEAs in 2015-16 and an overview of the newly created CCSESA LCAP Coordination Committee. 8-21-15 [State Board of Education] 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 2 Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template Field Test At the January 2014 SBE meeting the board requested staff to pursue the task of developing an electronic version of the LCAP template using the design of the LCAP template included in the emergency regulations adopted by the SBE on January 16, 2014, and approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on February 6, 2014. The SBE and CDE staff began collaboration the creation of an electronic template (eTemplate) and an online process for LCAP submissions. Originally, staff anticipated the eTemplate would be completed for the 2015–16 LCAP planning cycle and made available for voluntary use. Accordingly, CDE and SBE staff met with accountability, data reporting, and technology services staff to consider the existing SBE-adopted LCAP template, and consider anticipated minor revisions emerging from the permanent rulemaking process. Technology services staff identified design decisions to be made prior to the initial development of the eTemplate. However, among the comments the CDE received within the 45-day public comment period that concluded in March 2014 as part of the initial rulemaking package, were proposed modifications to address perceived gaps and confusion in the use of the template. Comments from both practitioners and community stakeholder groups expressed several suggestions that they believed would simplify the template and improve transparency. Thus, CDE and SBE staff made significant revisions to the template portion of the regulations, and in July 2014, the SBE adopted a modified version of the LCAP template that was circulated for a 15-day public comment period. Comments, both oral and written, from practitioners and community stakeholders alike, expressed general satisfaction that this version would result in an LCAP more likely to meet the intent and purposes of the LCFF statute. The CDE received additional comments regarding proposed changes to the template during the second 15-day comment period, but those comments addressed much more narrow adjustments to language or layout and have resulted in less significant modifications to the template. Once the first 15-day public comment period concluded in late July 2014, the work to develop the electronic template was able to continue with greater confidence that a final version of the template was nearing completion. Program and technology staff worked together to create a mockup of the data entry portion of an electronic LCAP template that was developed based on the proposed versions of the LCAP template adopted by the SBE in July 2014 and modified in September 2014 as part of the permanent regulations process. Once the final regulations governing the template were adopted by the SBE and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the initial version of the electronic template was built out, including the development of data entry pages and the construction of the database to be used by the system. The next phase of development was to field test the eTemplate before making it available to all LEAs. Staff developed a detailed plan for field testing, including the release of a field test version, support to LEAs involved in field testing, and collection of feedback to inform 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2 modifications to the electronic version of the template. While it was anticipated that the field test would be made available to a number of LEAs in time for the 2015-16 annual update cycle, technical issues delayed the release. The field test version of the eTemplate was released on June 2, 2015. Originally 19 county offices of education (COEs), and 47 school districts had volunteered to participate in the field testing. To date, 6 COEs and 13 school districts have accessed the eTemplate system, and 5 COEs and 4 districts have created draft LCAPs within the eTemplate system. Of the original COE and district volunteers, the majority of LEAs have indicated they intend to test the system after the COEs and districts have approved the LCAPs and/or have had the LCAPs approved. The anticipated full release of the eTemplate is February 1, 2016, in time to be used by any interested LEA. The functionality for COE-level review and approval of district LCAPs in the testing phase includes:  Internal notation for reviewers  The ability to indicate the LCAP meets approval criteria  The ability to communicate to LEAs areas within the LCAP in need of clarification  The ability for LEAs to respond to clarification requests  The ability for communicating to the LEA LCAP approval Functions to the eTemplate still being developed and anticipated completion prior to full release include:  Create an External Submission portal for LCAP URLs: A portal for external (nonsystem) users to submit the URL for their adopted LCAP for posting on the CDE’s web site.  Add functionality for Charter Schools, including: o The ability to specify which state priorities are being addressed by the charter school; o The ability to create an LCAP aligned to the term of their budget. Items under consideration to be added as time/resources permit:  Adding a link on each LEAs eTemplate landing page to data already collected by the CDE in support of the LCFF state priorities. 8-21-15 [California Department of Education] 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 5 Timeline for the Proposed Transition to a New Accountability System, Including Communication, Resources, and Outreach The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), along with the Annual Update, the Evaluation Rubrics and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) support structure all function as components of the new accountability system. The State Board of Education (SBE) guiding principles for accountability planning provide a framework for system coherence and goals for the implementation plan (Attachment 1). As noted below, the proposed framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system will be presented to the SBE at the November 2015 meeting. Timeline for the Proposed Transition to the New Accountability System Proposed Transition to New SBE Meeting Accountability System June 2015 SBE Information Memorandum on states’ emerging accountability systems. July 2015 SBE Meeting Review and reflections of emerging college and career accountability systems from other states that can inform the design of California’s system. July 2015September 2015 Development Activities completed by CDE/SBE/ & WestEd Staff Develop an Information Memorandum that reviews California accountability components relative to the LCFF state priorities and SBE guiding principles. Development of LCFF Evaluation Rubrics SBE Information Memorandum that summarizes research related to indicators of college and career readiness, early warning systems, and indicator selection. Present SBE updated evaluation rubrics development plan and seek feedback regarding policy frame for the evaluation rubrics. Develop evaluation rubrics prototypes. Analyze data and present findings in an SBE Information Memorandum to define California context for the LCFF evaluation rubrics. Update on LCAP Template/ Implementation Process Field test the electronic LCAP template. Analysis of LCAP electronic template pilot. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 5 Page 2 of 5 SBE Meeting September 2015 SBE Meeting Proposed Transition to New Accountability System Present recommendations for proposed policy framework that articulate expectations for districts, schools, charter schools and county offices of education. These recommendations will create support structures to foster transparency, flexibility, and equity. Development of LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Present recommendations to structure the evaluation rubrics prototype to align with the SBE’s policy statements. Discuss the decision points on standards and expectations for improvement and parameters for local metrics to support the proposed framework. September 2015December 2015 Development Activities Analysis of “underbrush” of the existing accountability statutes and regulations that may need to be modified to align with and support California’s new accountability system. Provide process to gather user feedback for select components of the evaluation rubrics based on state representative sample of LEAs participating in User Acceptance Testing (UAT). November 2015 SBE Meeting Recommendations for a Framework and Implementation Plan for Accountability System – Comprehensive design architecture with specifications reflecting policy implications for a new accountability system. Update on UAT piloting select components of the LCFF evaluation rubrics design options and integration of data. Update on LCAP Template/ Implementation Process Report on LCAP electronic template pilot test results. Lessons learned from submitting Year 2 LCAP and first year Annual Update. 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 5 Page 3 of 5 Proposed Transition to New Accountability System Develop components that provide useful information that helps parents, districts, charter schools, and county offices of education and policymakers make important decisions. Discuss strategies to build capacity and increase support for districts, charter schools and county offices. Update on LCAP Development of LCFF Template/ Evaluation Rubrics Implementation Process Present the SBE with Present the final design features of proposed electronic the evaluation rubrics LCAP template to based on user pilot be released in experiences and February 2016. feedback. May 2016 Present system elements that encourage continuous improvement focused on student-level outcomes, using multiple measures for state and local priorities. Finalize evaluation rubrics based on guidance from the SBE, feedback from LEAs, COEs and as appropriate input from stakeholders. July 2016 Promote system-wide integration and innovation. Final LCFF Evaluation Rubrics for SBE Adoption. SBE Meeting January 2016 SBE Meeting March 2016 Present the SBE with update on use and evaluation of the rubrics prototype. Discussion on efforts to diagnose and respond to challenges through school-based quality improvement. Communication and Outreach A summary of the communication and outreach sessions that have been completed since the July SBE meeting are presented below. The SBE and California Department of Education (CDE) will continue to work with the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd to convene informational meetings to gather information to help inform the creation of the policy framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system.  Parent involvement – Staff from WestEd and SBE collaborated with Californians for Justice (CFJ), PICO California, Families in Schools, and the California State 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 5 Page 4 of 5 PTA on stakeholder sessions to solicit input on parent involvement. The focus of this collaboration was to discuss potential measures and best practices to better understand state priority three, parent involvement in the implementation of LCFF. Beginning with input sessions in June, feedback was provided to inform the development of the local metric selection tool and practice guides in the evaluation rubrics. WestEd is continuing to work with parent involvement advocacy groups and the California Endowment to coordinate the collection of model practices in parent and student engagement that will be included in the practice guides to support the evaluation rubrics. Additional information on these efforts will be reported out to the SBE and members of the public in a future Information Memorandum and SBE Item.  Rubric Technical Design Group – On August 7th, WestEd convened The Rubric Technical Design Group (RTDG) to discuss the most recent version of the evaluation rubrics. The membership of the group was expanded to include the technical advisors to provide input on the research and data analysis that will be completed to develop the evaluation rubrics. Specifically, the group provided input on the draft key and associated indicators, practice standards, and quality standards. The group also discussed the process, timing, and membership for the User Acceptance Testing (UAT). The input provided will inform the revised version of the evaluation rubrics. The RTDG will continue to meet to review and provide feedback on the evaluation rubrics content and process.  Policy Stakeholder Session – On August 18th, WestEd convened a group of representatives from statewide and community-based organizations to review the latest draft of the evaluation rubrics with a focused discussion on the standards for performance and expectations for improvement in relation to the SBE guiding principles for accountability planning (Attachment 3). The input provided will be used to inform the development of the policy framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system. Additional sessions will be scheduled to review and discuss specific sections of the evaluation rubrics (e.g., data displays, use of local metric selection tool, and practice guides to support meaningful engagement and deeper inquiry into LEA performance).  User Acceptance Testing (UAT) – representatives from various local educational agencies (LEAs) will be invited to participate in the UAT. These LEAs will provide input on select prototype sections of the evaluation rubrics as the rubrics are being developed. Specifically, participants and specific LEA testing sites will provide information on local data management practices, design options for data displays and analyses that are user friendly, helpful for local reflective processes, and to determine if technical assistance is necessary. These LEAs will clarify the connection points to the workflow process through their interactions with the rubrics. County offices of education, in particular, will provide input based on internal planning and evaluation teams for LCAP and Annual Update development, as well as completing mock district reviews as the role of the service provider. These interactions with prototype versions of the evaluation 9/15/2015 9:02 PM dsib-amard-sep15item01 Attachment 5 Page 5 of 5 rubrics will capture the planning, reflecting, and evaluating processes within and between LEAs. Resources  CDE LCFF Reports Web Page (http://ias.cde.ca.gov/lcffreports/ ) – The California Department of Education’s (CDE) Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Reports Web page features the LCFF Fiscal Snapshot, LCFF State Priorities Snapshot and data files, and links to LCAP information.  Ed-Data (http://www.ed-data.org/) – The Ed-Data website represents a joint partnership between CDE, EdSource, and Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). The website provides many display options that include fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s K-12 LEAs.  Cal-PASS Plus (https://www.calpassplus.org/CalPASS/Home.aspx) – Cal-PASS Plus is funded through the California Community College Chancellor’s Office to provide accessible, actionable and collaborative pre-K through 16 system of student data. Cal-PASS Plus offers longitudinal data charts, detailed analysis of pre-K through 16 transitions and workplace outcomes, information and artifacts on success factors, and comparisons among like universities, colleges, K-12 school systems and schools.  Information on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics and additional implementation resources is located on the WestEd LCFF Web page at http://lcff.wested.org/.  Regular information updates are distributed to local educational agencies (LEAs) and interested stakeholders through the CDE LCFF listserv. To receive updates regarding the LCFF via e-mail notification, subscribe to the LCFF listserv by sending a "blank" message to join-LCFF-list@mlist.cde.ca.gov. 8-21-15 [State Board of Education] 9/15/2015 9:02 PM