California Department of Education Executive Office SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011) dsib-amard-nov15item01 ITEM #11 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION NOVEMBER 2015 AGENDA SUBJECT Developing a New Accountability System: Draft Framework and Implementation Plan for the New Accountability System; Coordination and Alignment of Existing State Reports and Plans with the Local Control Funding Formula; Review of County Offices of Education Local Control and Accountability Plans; Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template (eTemplate) Demonstration; Update on the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics as Specified in California Education Code Section 52064.5. Action Information Public Hearing SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S) California’s new accountability system will build on the foundations of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) consisting of the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), Annual Update, and evaluation rubrics. 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 draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system (Attachment 1); proposed coordination and alignment of the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) with the LCFF (Attachment 2); review of county offices of education LCAPs, (Attachment 3); and a demonstration of the LCAP eTemplate (Attachment 4). In addition, an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics will be presented (Attachment 5). Attachment 6 presents communication, outreach, timeline, and next steps. Finally, Attachment 7 includes relevant California Education Code (EC) pertaining to the LCFF. This agenda item is the fifth in a series of regular progress updates on the implementation of LCFF as the proposed foundation of the new accountability system to the State Board of Education (SBE) and the public. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the SBE take action as deemed necessary and appropriate but recommends no specific action at this time. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Page 2 of 6 BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES Existing law requires the SBE to adopt templates for the development of LCAPs that must include, for every school district and each of their schools, a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the state priorities for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils. Each LCAP must also describe specific actions to achieve those goals, and list and describe annual expenditures necessary to implement the specific actions. Existing law specifies that LCAP data must, to the extent practicable, be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way information is reported in the SARC or other state accountability reports. Further, EC Section 64001 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires schools that receive state and federal funds through the Consolidated Application and Reporting System (CARS) and ESEA Program Improvement (PI) funds to consolidate all school plans into the SPSA. In preparation for California to transition to a new accountability system that is coherent and aligned with LCFF, Attachment 1 presents an overview of the draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system. Attachment 2 builds on the draft framework and implementation plan presented in Attachment 1 with a presentation on a proposal to coordinate and align state and federal reports and plans with LCFF. As recommended by the new accountability system framework and implementation plan, the initial coordination and alignment will focus on the state reports and plans, beginning with the SARC and the SPSA. Background information on this attachment is located in the October 2015 Information Memorandum (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memodsibamardoct15item01.doc). The SARC is an accountability tool that reports local and state data on various indicators in order to keep parents and the public apprised of school conditions and performance. The SARC was included in Proposition 98, which passed over 26 years ago in 1988. While the SARC has been amended legislatively over time, its content does not reflect all of the current state priorities. As a result, current SARC reporting requirements only partially align with the LCAP and state priorities. In addition, there are several important state priorities that are not currently addressed in the SARC. To assist local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in meeting the content requirements for consolidating all school plans for programs into the SPSA, the CDE, in collaboration with school, district, and county office of education (COE) practitioners, developed a planning guide, plan template, and resource index. Together, these provide a structured means to enhance the planning and implementation process for improving student academic performance. The SPSA serves as the organizer for an individual school’s improvement process. The plan is reviewed relative to the LCFF state priorities and the LCAP/Annual Update to provide recommendations to align the required state 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Page 3 of 6 school level and district level plans and to integrate the SPSA and LCAP development, implementation, and evaluation process. Attachment 3 provides an update on the CDE’s review of county LCAPs and shares their lessons learned from this review process with recommendations for including executive summaries to support the LCAP development process. Attachment 4 builds on the overview of the CDE’s LCAP electronic template (eTemplate) field test presented to the SBE in the September 2015 Agenda Item (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14.doc). CDE staff will provide a demonstration of the eTemplate. Attachment 5 includes an update on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. This update features a brief overview on the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) process and development of the electronic version of the evaluation rubrics. Attachment 6 provides updated information on communication and outreach strategies to support the new accountability system. This attachment also includes updates on recent changes in foster youth legislation, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (SSPI) Task Force on Accountability and Continuous Improvement, and resources that feature LEA efforts to streamline LCAP information through the use of infographics, executive summaries, and dashboards. Lastly, Attachment 7 contains EC sections referencing the LCFF and LCAP. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION In September 2015, the SBE received an update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics that included a discussion of existing accountability components with the SBE guiding principles for accountability planning; a presentation from the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) on the accountability system they are developing; a presentation on technical assistance needed for developing high-functioning systems for professional development, implementation of curriculum and assessments, and improvement in human resources from California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) representatives; and a review of the LCAP eTemplate field test (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14.doc). 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 on the data analyses of the California context, using existing data on specific metrics (e.g., the relationship between the graduation cohort rate and the percentage of students taking A-G courses), 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 framework to develop the evaluation rubrics based on the following: (1) align with state priorities and values related to certain learning conditions 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Page 4 of 6 (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) conducting further research to identify relationships and correlations among metrics that will be included in the evaluation rubrics. (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, the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, 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, founder and president of EdImagine Strategy Group and Professor of Education at the University of Oregon, 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 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).As a result of the May SBE discussion, it was determined that more time is needed to develop the evaluation rubrics. 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 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Page 5 of 6 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 new 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: (1) align school plan and reporting requirements with the LCAP state priorities (e.g., SARC), (2) initiate the next phase of plan alignment analyses and activities (e.g., Title III and Special Education), (3) continue outreach efforts to expand stakeholder engagement to strengthen an integrated system of state support, (4) pursue streamlined submissions of required plans through an electronic process, and (5) 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 the investment of over $6 billion provided over the last two years. As a result of this increase, the 2015–16 Budget Act 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 COEs to support their new responsibilities required under the evolving accountability structure of LCFF and develop greater capacity and consistency within and between COEs. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: Draft Framework and Implementation Plan for the New Accountability System (11 Pages) Attachment 2: Coordination and Alignment of Existing State Reports and Plans with the Local Control Funding Formula (3 Pages) Attachment 3: Review of County Office of Education Local Control and Accountability Plans (3 Pages) 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Page 6 of 6 Attachment 4: Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template (eTemplate) Demonstration (1 Page) Attachment 5: Update on Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics: Background on User Acceptance Testing and Development of the Online Evaluation Rubrics System (4 Pages) Attachment 6: Timeline for the Proposed Transition to a New Accountability System, Including Communication, Resources, and Outreach (6 Pages) Attachment 7: California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5, 52072, 52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052 (15 Pages) 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 11 Draft Framework and Implementation Plan for the New Accountability System Introduction California’s new state accountability system will be designed to strengthen teaching and learning, improve the individual capacity of teachers and school leaders, and increase the institutional capacity for continuous improvement for schools, districts, and state agencies. 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, Annual Update, and the evaluation rubrics. For example, the LCFF state priorities provide the foundation of accountability by defining what the state seeks to accomplish for its students and measuring the progress of local educational agencies (LEAs) relative to these priorities (see Appendix A). To ensure that the new accountability system and the components of the existing accountability system are cohesive and well aligned, the SBE recognizes the need to carefully phase in policy changes related to accountability as state and local capacity grows. Consistent with the phased-in approach, regular updates on transitioning to a new accountability system have been presented to the SBE and members of the public since November 2014. A comprehensive list of these updates on accountability and direct Web links to the SBE items and Information Memoranda is provided on page three of this item in the Summary of Previous State Board of Education Discussion and Action section. The development of the draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system is based upon a series of important actions, recommendations, and discussions from the SBE. Following the action to suspend the Academic Performance Index (API), the SBE requested updates on the development of guiding principles for the new accountability system and analyses of the current state accountability components (e.g., Williams settlement legislation and Annual Independent Audits) relative to these guiding principles and the LCFF. Specifically, the SBE requested that an analysis be completed to determine what more, if anything, is needed, and what needs to be modified, to develop a cohesive accountability system. In September 2015, the SBE reviewed a comparative analysis that identified the extent of alignment and lack of alignment among the state accountability components and the LCFF state priorities and SBE guiding principles (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14.doc). It is these gaps that were identified through the comparative analysis that function as recommendations for action items in the draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system. Based on the series of updates to the SBE, in addition to public input provided at regularly scheduled SBE meetings, there is vast consensus that the majority of the components in the current state accountability system align with LCFF and the SBE guiding principles, and that the gaps that remain can be strengthened through the draft framework and implementation plan. Therefore, of the current accountability 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 11 components that conflict with the SBE guiding principles, such as the Academic Performance Index (API), the implementation plan provides recommendations to address the necessary action for modifying or eliminating these components to better align and establish a new coherent accountability system. Draft Framework and Implementation Plan Overview This draft framework and implementation plan represents another step forward in creating the new accountability system. As with any change of this magnitude, some challenges will need to be overcome as each part of the system is operationalized. However, the plan itself seeks to minimize those challenges by taking into account the research on implementation. This research identifies several key practices associated with the successful roll out of initiatives, including, but not limited to: (1) clarifying and communicating the vision for the initiative; (2) engaging critical stakeholders; (3) adopting evidence-based strategies; and (4) allowing sufficient time to implement and assess new strategies fully before engaging in any significant modifications. These and other implementation practices from the literature should be utilized when putting into practice each action item, and those identified in the years to come. The following tables depict the draft framework and implementation plan. Each table highlights: (1) a guiding principle; (2) the components that are currently in place within the existing accountability system that are applicable to that principle; (3) the action items and tasks that are necessary to fully align existing accountability components with the foundational accountability components of LCFF; (4) the coordinating agency to maintain successful implementation; and (5) the identified connections to the LCFF state priorities to establish system coherence. For the purposes of this framework and implementation plan, an Action Item is listed no more than once—in the most relevant area. The draft framework and implementation plan is not meant to answer every question, but to provide a structure for deeper action by clearly identifying the core elements and issues that need to be addressed early in developing a coherent accountability system. While the tasks and actions may seem quite clear, complex issues such as identifying valid outcome measures, developing growth models, establishing diagnostic reviews, and ensuring significant, effective interventions when needed will require a phased-in implementation approach. Thus, this draft represents phase one of the framework and implementation plan with additional action items and tasks to be phased-in later in the implementation cycle. With LEAs now responsible for more local accountability components (LCAP, Annual Update, and evaluation rubrics), purposes and roles within the new accountability system must be redefined, and will need to include cross-agency conversations and coordination. LEAs, defined as county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools, represent the entities that will be impacted by the implementation of each action item and task. The draft framework and implementation plan also depicts the big picture approach for California to strengthen and expand leadership of the state as the coordinating entity to reinforce the assistance that is necessary to implement the proposed action and move the new accountability system forward. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 11 Draft Framework and Implementation Plan–Phase I SBE Guiding Principle: Articulate the state’s expectations for districts, charter schools and county offices of education. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update, and Establishing Goals Under the State Priorities  County Superintendents/County Offices of Education (COEs) and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)  School Accountability Report Card (SARC)  Williams Settlement Legislation  High School Graduation Requirements  Charter School Petitions  Annual Independent Audits  Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 Fiscal Oversight Action Items Eliminate the Academic Performance Index (API). Strengthen the understanding of standards, curriculum, and instruction. Tasks Review existing Legislation to identify the obsolete and outdated references to the API that need to be removed in order to support Legislation that will eliminate the API. Define the process to support LEAs and programs impacted by the elimination of the API. Align charter petitions, LCAPs, and Annual Updates. For example, the suspension of the API, has impacted the charter renewal process. Align SARC to include priorities 2, 7, and 8. Coordinating Entities CDE State Priorities1 4,5 CDE CDE Strengthen technical support for LCAP and Annual Update development to include priorities 2, 7, and 8. County Offices Develop professional development modules reflecting the goals and expectations of the curricular frameworks to better ensure equitable access to high quality, rigorous instruction to prepare students to be college and career ready. CDE Strengthen the state’s expectations through technical support (e.g., high functioning systems) that emphasizes continuous improvement. CDE CCEE/ COEs Define college and career readiness. Define growth expectations for Smarter Balanced assessments. SBE/CDE/ WestEd 2,7,8,4,5 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 11 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. SBE Guiding Principle: Foster equity. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update  Supplemental and Concentration Funding  Focus on Increased and Improved Services for Unduplicated Students  Goals for All Student Groups  Technical Assistance (CDE, COE, CCEE, Charter Associations)  Williams Settlement Requirements  High School Graduation Requirements Action Items Tasks Develop a statewide system of support. Disaggregate data by student groups for both reporting and accountability purposes. Ensure the incorporation of and alignment across programs of effective student, family, and community engagement strategies. Make accessible current data on new collections (e.g., foster youth and homeless youth, also include gender). Coordinating Entities CDE State Priorities1 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10 CDE 4,5,8 Continue to support state resources (e.g., LCFF State Priorities Snapshot) and strengthen local use of data to improve instruction. Technical Assistance (TA) and practice guides will target areas of need identified by disaggregated data. Expand the understanding of student and program characteristics. Include additional indicators and metrics for CDE 1,2,3,6,7,8, elementary and middle grades, charter 9,10 schools, and alternative education programs in the LCAP and evaluation rubrics to build capacity and increase support for LEAs. 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 11 SBE Guiding Principle: Provide useful information that helps parents, districts, charter schools, county offices of education and policymakers make important decisions. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update  Evaluation Rubrics  School Accountability Report Card (SARC)  Annual Independent Audits  AB 1200 Fiscal Oversight Action Items Tasks Align SARC, LCAP, e-template, Annual Update and evaluation rubrics for information and accountability purposes. Develop a data dashboard for state comparison purposes that is aligned with the research- and policy-based framework of the evaluation rubrics. Implement the Parent Engagement Frameworks. 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. Coordinating Entities CDE State Priorities1 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10 CDE 3 CDE 1,3 Create tools to support decision-making on evaluating strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement for districts, county offices of education and charter schools. Coordinate multiple reporting functions, including SARC, LCFF Snapshots, evaluation rubrics, potential data dashboard, and DataQuest/EdData. Support LEAs in building parent engagement strategies that are embedded in schools. Determine how to best share UCP tools, resources and training modules with multiple audiences. Develop a Parent Information page on the CDE Web site to explain how to use the UCP. 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 11 SBE Guiding Principle: Build capacity and increase support for districts, charter schools and county offices. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update  State Superintendent of Public Instruction/CDE  California Collaborative for Educational Excellence  County Offices of Education  Charter Associations Action Items Tasks Differentiate technical assistance. Provide multiple opportunities for deliberate practice and feedback to educators, including access to a range of meaningful practical experiences, as they learn and implement differentiated core instruction, monitor student progress, and apply evidence-based practices to meet the needs of all students within a tiered system of support. Provide the CCEE with the time and resources necessary to successfully establish its footprint as a state agency. Apply lessons learned from Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance The CCEE will mobilize expertise in the Team (FCMAT). state to help districts improve the quality of teaching and school leadership, and meet the needs of special populations. Develop a Establish a coordinated network of schools, robust charters, county offices of education, and communication state agencies to provide relevant and exchange timely information about accountability. program to support Create a regular bulletin of local and state capacity accountability events and activities (e.g., building. highlights from North-South Meeting) to further strengthen local and state relationships through ongoing two-way accountability communications. Coordinating Entities CDE State Priorities1 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10 CCEE 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8 CDE 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 11 SBE Guiding Principle: Encourage continuous improvement focused on studentlevel outcomes, using multiple measures for state and local priorities. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update  Use of Formative and Summative Assessments (e.g., State and Local Priorities Four and Eight)  Community Engagement/ Parent Engagement (Priority Three)  Annual Independent Audits  AB 1200 Fiscal Oversight  Williams Settlement Legislation Action Items Tasks Define and implement continuous improvement in the new accountability system. Define status and growth measures. Identify resources and processes for selecting measures at the state and local levels. Use formative and summative assessments (state and local). Coordinating State Entities Priorities1 CDE 4 Include additional assessments, such as performance-based assessments, portfolio, capstones, and digital badges. CDE 2,7,8 Provide support through the evaluation rubrics on the use of the data metric selection tool to promote equity-focused actions at the district level. Support the Introduce course information (e.g., course CDE 4,5,7,8,9, inclusion of taking and performance) as a multiple 10 student measure and predictor of secondary access, course graduation and postsecondary pathway participation development. and performance in Include the State Seal of Biliteracy as a programs that measure of college and career readiness. foster college and career readiness. 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 11 SBE Guiding Principle: Promote system-wide integration and innovation. Current Accountability Components  Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update Action Items Tasks Review alignment of local, state, and federal reports and plans to ensure equity is addressed across the plans. Identify innovative ways to align and consolidate reports and plans for local (e.g., strategic plan), state (e.g., Western Association of Schools and Colleges, SARC) and federal (e.g., Title I LEA Plan/SPSA, Title II, Title III, Consolidated Application, Special Education) requirements. For example, through the electronic submission processes of the LCAP e-template, create an appendix to support LEA Plan submission. Coordinating Entities CDE State Priorities1 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9,10 Be deliberate Test assumptions of stability in student CDE 4,8,9,10 about populations (e.g., rural, charter, and supporting the alternative schools) to support innovation. impact of innovation and Use lessons learned from LCAP continuous implementation to improve the improvement accountability system on an ongoing basis. efforts on teaching and learning to prevent unintended consequences to greater reform. 1 Note: A description of each state priority, including the priorities that apply to county offices of education, is located in Appendix A. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 11 Conclusion Similar to the implementation of new assessments, new academic content standards, and a new educational finance system, the policy and implementation considerations for a new accountability system are still evolving. As the SBE reviewed in September 2015, there are a number of existing accountability components that could further align and coordinate with the LCFF and SBE guiding principles. The SBE must now consider the implications of system coherence on the development of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. Specifically, the development of the rubrics must coincide with the state’s transition to the new framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system. For example, there is a need to consider the development of the rubrics as the state pursues the consolidation and alignment of existing reports and plans and eliminates certain vestiges of the prior system, such as the API (Attachment 1). The No Child Left Behind-era notions of accountability no longer apply, and the state is engaged in a major cultural and systems shift from a punitive system to a performancebased system that distributes resources based on student needs and expectations for performance, provides LEAs with discretion to respond to local needs and circumstances, and delivers meaningful and effective support and assistance where required. The evolving accountability system should promote, not hinder, innovation in teaching and learning and models of schooling, as well as in accountability itself. In response to these recommendations, the draft framework and implementation plan focuses on key actions that are necessary to make significant changes, reflecting each of the SBE guiding principles, and providing for evidence-based reflection to support continuous improvement practices. A phase-in approach to the action items is presented to reflect realistic deadlines and to provide ongoing reports of progress to be communicated broadly, early, and often. Thus, the draft framework and implementation plan will also function as a “living document” that enables the SBE to review and revise it periodically as the implementation of the new accountability system evolves. Regular communication on the progress of implementation will be provided through future SBE Information Memoranda and SBE meeting items. The SBE will need to continuously evaluate and improve the policy elements of the accountability system for maximum effectiveness. Continuous improvement routines may include selecting from a range of research, evaluation, and measurement options, to enrich the validity, reliability, and efficacy of the accountability system to drive progress on state goals and identify any unintended consequences. While there are several actions that will strengthen current accountability systems, that state has yet to determine what works best to drive continuous growth and improvement across all schools and districts at scale. It will take openness to judgment and innovation, with rigorous evaluation, to drive continuous improvement and the kind of dramatic improvements in student achievement that is necessary at all levels. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 10 of 11 Appendix A Overview of LCFF State Priorities The LCFF state priorities provide the foundation of an accountability system by defining what the state seeks to accomplish for its students and measuring the progress of LEAs relative to these priorities. The LCFF clearly articulates the state priorities in the LCAP and the evaluation rubrics as specified in California EC sections 52060, 52066, and 52064.5. LEAs are expected to address each of the state priorities in their LCAPs and Annual Update, and when implemented, will rely on the evaluation rubrics to help assess program strengths and weaknesses. Charter schools must address the priorities in EC Section 52060(d) that apply to the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated, by the charter school. The LCFF state priorities are the foundation that enable the state and LEAs to communicate progress, design assistance that is tailored to meet the needs of all students, and when necessary, guide intervention. Below is a description of each of the eight state priorities for school districts, as applicable, and for charter schools that apply to the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated by the charter school. Priorities nine and ten only apply to county offices of education. Conditions of Learning Basic: degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned pursuant to EC Section 44258.9, and fully credentialed in the subject areas and for the pupils they are teaching; pupils have access to standards-aligned instructional materials pursuant to EC Section 60119; and school facilities are maintained in good repair pursuant to EC Section 17002(d). (Priority 1) Implementation of State Standards: implementation of academic content and performance standards and English language development standards adopted by the state board for all pupils, including English learners (ELs). (Priority 2) Course access: pupil enrollment in a broad course of study that includes all of the subject areas described in EC Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable. (Priority 7) Expelled pupils (for county offices of education only): coordination of instruction of expelled pupils pursuant to EC Section 48926. (Priority 9) Foster youth (for county offices of education only): coordination of services, including working with the county child welfare agency to share information, responding to the needs of the juvenile court system, and ensuring transfer of health and education records. (Priority 10) 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 11 Pupil Outcomes Pupil achievement: performance on standardized tests, score on API, share of pupils that are college and career ready, share of ELs that become English proficient, EL reclassification rate, share of pupils that pass Advanced Placement exams with 3 or higher, share of pupils determined prepared for college by the Early Assessment Program. (Priority 4) Other pupil outcomes: pupil outcomes in the subject areas described in EC Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of EC Section 51220, as applicable. (Priority 8) Engagement Parental involvement: efforts to seek parent input in decision making at the district and each schoolsite, promotion of parent participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and special need subgroups. (Priority 3) Pupil engagement: school attendance rates, chronic absenteeism rates, middle school dropout rates, high school dropout rates, high school graduations rates. (Priority 5) School climate: pupil suspension rates, pupil expulsion rates, other local measures including surveys of pupils, parents and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness. (Priority 6) 10-23-15 [State Board of Education] 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 3 Coordination and Alignment of Existing State Reports and Plans with the Local Control Funding Formula Overview In order to integrate existing accountability components and the State Board of Education (SBE) guiding principles, the draft framework and implementation plan recommends action items to further align required state and federal reports and plans with the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) development, implementation, and evaluation (Attachment 1). Specifically, in an effort to implement the guiding principles of promoting system-wide integration and innovation in the new accountability system, the draft framework and implementation plan proposes a review of the alignment among local, state, and federal reports and plans to ensure equity is addressed across the plans and to support the efficiency and impact of local planning processes. For example, the state can identify innovative ways to align and consolidate reports and plans for local (e.g., strategic plan), state (e.g., School Accountability Report Card [SARC]) and federal (e.g., Title I Local Educational Agency [LEA] Plan/Single Plan for Student Achievement [SPSA]) requirements. Further, the draft framework and implementation plan specifies that through the electronic submission processes of the LCAP eTemplate, there may be an opportunity to leverage this submission process to support additional plan requirements (e.g., create an appendix to support additional district plan submissions, such as the LEA Plan). The California Department of Education (CDE), as the coordinating entity of this action item and identified task, has initiated work on aligning the required state reports and plans with the LCFF. This attachment provides the initial focus of the report and plan consolidation and alignment task by focusing on the relationship of the SARC and SPSA with the LCFF. The CDE will continue to provide updates on this work and next steps for pursuing further report and plan consolidation and alignment tasks that will be completed and presented in future SBE items. The objective is to support the continued development of local planning processes that maximize and align local, state, and federal resources. Education Code (EC) Section 52060 requires the SBE to adopt templates for the development of the LCAPs. LCAPs must include, for every school district and each of their schools, a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each of the state priorities for all students and each subgroup of students. Each LCAP must also describe specific actions to achieve those goals, and list and describe annual expenditures necessary to implement the specific actions. EC 52066 specifies that LCAP data must, to the extent practicable, be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way information is reported in the SARC or other state accountability reports. The alignment between accountability reports and the LCAP will direct attention to the state priorities at the school level and minimize local efforts in meeting state and federal 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 3 accountability requirements, while continuing to provide parents and the public with a powerful tool to facilitate the understanding of school conditions and performance. School Accountability Report Card The SARC is an accountability tool that reports local and state data on various indicators in order to keep parents and the public apprised of school conditions and performance. The SARC was included in Proposition 98, which passed over 26 years ago in 1988. While the SARC has been amended legislatively over time (e.g., EC Sections 33126, 33126.1, 35256, and 35258), its contents do not reflect all of the state priorities. The October 2015 Information Memorandum presented three tables that provided a crosswalk between the data elements in the current SARC and the LCFF/LCAP (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memodsibamard-oct15item01.doc). The crosswalk further clarifies the SARC content does not reflect all of the current state priorities, and, as a result, the reporting requirements in the SARC only partially overlap with the LCAP and LCFF state priorities. In addition, there are several important state priorities that are not currently addressed in the SARC. Single Plan for Student Achievement EC Section 64001 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires schools that receive state and federal funds through the Consolidated Application and Reporting System (CARS) and ESEA Program Improvement (PI) funds to consolidate all school plans into the SPSA. The October 2015 Information Memorandum also presented one table that provided a crosswalk between the data elements in the current SPSA requirements and the data elements required by the LCAP statute and demonstrated the SPSA elements only partially overlap with the LCAP and LCFF state priorities. To assist LEAs and schools in meeting the content requirements for consolidating all school plans for programs into the SPSA, the CDE, in collaboration with school, district, and county office of education practitioners, developed a planning guide, plan template, and resource index. Together, these provide a structured means to enhance the planning and implementation process for improving student academic performance. The SPSA serves as the organizer for an individual school’s improvement process. The plan should be developed with a deep understanding of student academic challenges and identify and implement research-based instructional strategies to raise the achievement of students who are not yet proficient by state standards. The current intent of the content of the SPSA is to align with school goals for improving student achievement based on an analysis of verifiable state data and may include any data voluntarily developed by districts to measure student achievement. The SPSA shall, at a minimum, address how funds provided to the school will be used to improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the school’s performance goals, 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 3 as established by verifiable state data. The plan shall also identify the school’s means of evaluating progress toward accomplishing those goals and how state and federal law governing these programs will be implemented. Alignment The alignment between the SARC and SPSA data elements and the LCAP and LCFF state priorities will enhance the focus on the state priorities at the school level and minimize local efforts in meeting state and federal accountability requirements, while continuing to provide parents and the public with a powerful tool to facilitate the understanding of school conditions and performance. Recommendations The CDE recommends the SARC include all data elements required under the LCFF. Data elements in the SARC that are not aligned with the LCFF will be further reviewed to determine if: (1) the element is required by federal statute or (2) the element provides important contextual information. Based on this analysis, the CDE will determine if certain data elements will remain in the SARC or integrated into other reporting tools (i.e., DataQuest). It is important to note that many of the data elements in the SARC are available from various CDE sources (e.g., California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System). The CDE also recommends consolidation and alignment of the SPSA with the LCAP state priorities. Consistent with EC Section 52062, district superintendents shall review SPSAs to ensure specific actions included in the LCAP are consistent with strategies in the school plans. Recommendations include adding language to state that the school plan shall align to the state priorities pursuant to EC sections 52853 and 64001(f). Further, the school goals articulated in the SPSA shall align with the state priorities identified in EC sections 52060 and 52066 and shall align with the goals identified in the LEAs LCAP. The CDE provides a SARC Web application and a SPSA template for the required elements and their use is completely voluntary. Any proposed changes to support consolidation and alignment of these state reporting requirements with LCFF requires legislation. Thus, the CDE will be researching the best options for this consolidation and alignment (e.g., minimizing the nomenclature and reporting requirements, and streamlining submission processes) to better serve the needs of all LEAs. 10-23-15 [California Department of Education] 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 3 Page 1 of 3 Review of County Office of Education Local Control and Accountability Plans California Department of Education Review and Support of County Office of Education 2015 Local Control and Accountability Plans The California Department of Education (CDE) received and reviewed 65 Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP) for the 2015–16 school year. These included LCAPs for the 58 county offices of education (COEs) and the seven districts that are the sole district within a county. Most plans were submitted within the required timeframe, and most received an initial review within the first two weeks of receipt. Program and fiscal staff within the CDE reviewed each LCAP, first independently, then collaboratively, to identify any potential plan elements requiring clarification and areas for support. In those cases where clarification was deemed necessary, CDE staff contacted the COE or district by phone to seek clarification, and a majority of the requests for clarification were completed within a few days of the initial notification. In a small number of instances, the clarification process was not completed by August 15, 2015, the date by which local educational agencies (LEAs) were to be notified in writing of such requests. In those instances, the CDE submitted a written request for clarification by the August 15 deadline to those LEAs, and subsequently received the necessary clarifications from most of the affected LEAs. At the time of this writing, the CDE has now approved 64 LCAPs. The CDE began notifying COEs and districts of LCAP approvals in late August and will continued until all 65 LEAs are subsequently notified. Promising Practice Many LEAs chose to include an “Executive Summary” at the beginning of their LCAP. These introductory narratives provided LEAs an opportunity to provide pertinent information regarding their community, the programs being offered, their student demographics, and made the LCAP more accessible to their diverse stakeholders. Though not required, the practice of including an introduction or summary has proven beneficial for improving communication regarding an LCAP. Growth in Support Capacity The LCFF called for broad “system changes” for the delivery of Kindergarten through grade twelve (K–12) education, and the LCAP continues to be a key element of those changes. In the 2014–15 school year, LEAs were required to rapidly transition to the development and implementation of an LCAP, engage stakeholders in the process, and establish goals and planned actions to achieve those goals under the 8 state priorities (10 for COEs). The emergency regulations governing the expenditure of LCFF supplemental and concentration funds and the template for the LCAP were finalized and adopted in January 2014, two months ahead of the statutory deadline, providing LEAs a little more than five months to complete their first LCAPs. Thus, the first year was widely 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 3 regarded as a learning year for all LEAs and the CDE in terms of LCAP development, review, and support. Despite initial implementation issues, there were areas of strength and growth in the second-year LCAPs. Many plans reviewed by the CDE included goals and actions to particularly address the needs of English learners and foster youth. Several plans provided especially detailed goals, actions, and services to address the implementation of Common Core State Standards. Some plans provided in-depth descriptions of new methods of outreach to parents and plans to promote stronger parent involvement. The 2015–16 LCAPs just completed were a second year of firsts, as it was the first year that LEAs utilized the permanent LCAP template and also completed their Annual Update. In response to some of the first year implementation issues, and to be proactive in anticipation of the 2015–16 LCAPs, CDE program staff from the Local Agency Systems Support Office (LASSO) dedicated resources to provide technical assistance to all LEAs, but specifically to the COEs to support the development of the 2015–16 LCAPs. This support included:  Developing training sessions and materials presented via Webinars and at California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) steering committees that demonstrated how to convert and transfer information from the emergency regulations LCAP template to the permanent LCAP template;  Participating with CCSESA in implementing professional learning opportunities regarding LCAP review guidelines and applying guidelines consistently in all counties statewide;  Offering to meet with all COEs individually to discuss and answer questions specific to the COE. Note: 44 counties took advantage of this and met with LASSO staff individually; and  Making staff available to review any draft LCAPs submitted by a COE in advance of statutory deadlines to provide feedback as requested. 29 COEs submitted draft LCAPs for review. CDE LCAP Support Team Formation To further expand the CDE’s capability to provide support to LEAs with the development and implementation of LCAPs, the CDE is forming an “LCAP Support Team.” The LCAP Support Team will be coordinated by the Chief Deputy’s and LASSO offices and will include members taking lead responsibility for at least one of the LCFF state priorities. The team met in October to initiate planning and operations. Some of the key 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 3 responsibilities of the team members will be to:  Co-develop with other LCAP Support Team members, a methodology for identifying, reviewing, and disseminating high-quality LCAP support resources and techniques;  Serve as liaison with the member’s home branch/division to ensure strong communications between the LCAP Support Team and relevant CDE branches/divisions; and  Identify, review, and make available high-quality LCAP support resources and techniques specific to the member’s assigned state LCFF priority. This will include utilization of online resource exchanges, collaborating with statewide organizations including CCSESA, utilizing existing and creating new support networks, and in-person support/communications. 10-23-15 [California Department of Education] 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1 Local Control and Accountability Plan Electronic Template (eTemplate) Demonstration At the January 2014 State Board of Education (SBE) meeting, the board requested the California Department of Education (CDE) staff development of an electronic version 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. CDE staff subsequently began to consult with the SBE on the early stages of the creation of an electronic template (eTemplate) and an online process for Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP) submissions. Originally, CDE anticipated the eTemplate would be completed for the 2015–16 LCAP planning cycle and made available for voluntary use. To accomplish this, CDE and SBE staff met with accountability, data reporting, and technology services staff to consider the existing SBE-adopted LCAP template in addition to anticipated minor revisions emerging from the permanent rulemaking process. Technology services staff identified design decisions necessary for the initial development of the eTemplate. In response to public comment during the regulatory process, the 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. Once the final regulations governing the template were adopted by the SBE and approved by the OAL, an initial version of the eTemplate was built out, including the development of data entry pages and the construction of a database to store Local Educational Agency (LEA) information necessary for the eTemplate system. The next phase of development included field testing the eTemplate before making it available to all LEAs. The field test version of the eTemplate was released on June 2, 2015, and the anticipated full release of the eTemplate will be February 1, 2016, in time to be used by any interested LEA for the development of their 2016-17 LCAP. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 4 Update on Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics: Background on User Acceptance Testing and Development of the Online Evaluation Rubrics System On July 1, 2013, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 97 (Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013) to enact the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The LCFF is designed to enhance the allocation of resources, integrating the budgets with locally approved goals, services, and actions for local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve student outcomes. The State Board of Education (SBE) is charged with adopting the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) template for LEAs (Education Code [EC] Section 52064), as well as developing the regulations for how LEAs can use their supplemental and concentration funds (EC Section 42238.07). The permanent regulations for the LCAP template and spending regulations were approved by the SBE in November 2014 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on January 8, 2015. In addition, the SBE is charged with developing and adopting the LCFF evaluation rubrics for self-assessment of LEA performance and for use in providing technical assistance (EC Section 52064.5). The evaluation rubrics are an integral part of the LCFF performance and accountability system. Once developed, the rubrics will direct attention to areas in need of additional support to meet the adopted standards for district and school performance relative to the state priorities (e.g., pupil achievement, parental involvement, and other pupil outcomes). Specifically, the evaluation rubrics will: (1) assist LEAs in evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement; (2) assist county superintendents of schools in identifying Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) in need of technical assistance and providing resources for technical assistance; and (3) assist the Superintendent of Public Instruction in identifying LEAs for which technical support and/or intervention is warranted. The SBE must adopt the evaluation rubrics by October 1, 2016. Regular updates on the options for designing the LCFF evaluation rubrics have been provided to the SBE since September 2014. As the updates transitioned from concepts to specific examples, the SBE directed that the rubrics be grounded in the larger accountability policy context and research on meaningful educational indicators. The design of the evaluation rubrics requires a thoughtful, phased-in approach that entails more research, data analysis and technical assistance to better serve LEAs and to become a key component of the new local and state accountability system. The additional year for development provides the SBE with additional time to solicit extensive input from the primary end-user of the evaluation rubrics to inform their development. Evaluation Rubrics The evaluation rubrics will reflect a holistic and multidimensional assessment of school district and individual school site performance and shall include all of the state priorities 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 5 Page 2 of 4 that are set forth in EC Section 52060 (d). Further, as part of the rubrics, the SBE must adopt standards for school district and individual school site performance and expectations for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities. The information that follows outlines the content that will be included in the development of the rubrics, how that content will be applied in an online environment, and how select users will provide feedback to inform the development of the rubrics. At the September SBE meeting, the SBE provided guidance for organizing the indicators and metrics identified in statute for each of the state priorities for inclusion in the development of the rubrics (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/documents/sep15item14slidesrev.pdf). Based on existing research and the preliminary analysis of California data, the SBE endorsed specific policy statements that will inform the consolidation of key and associated indicators to help determine LEA strengths and weaknesses in meeting local goals. This consolidation of expectations is organized into three policy areas: (1) Access and Opportunity, (2) Graduation, and (3) College and Career Readiness. These categories provide the conceptual framework for analyzing progress relative to the standards and state priorities. The conceptual framework presented in September 2015, outlined two types of standards within the evaluation rubrics: (1) Practice Standards (qualitative narrative statements that convey research supported practices), and (2) Quality Standards (measurement-based data displays). These standards align to the SBE’s evaluation rubrics policy areas and provide specific reference to practices and measurements against which an LEA may assess strengths, areas in need of improvement, and local performance. Practice Standards will describe research-supported practices related to areas within the policy areas inclusive of all state priorities. The Practice Standards will convey characteristics and examples of high functioning practices for LEAs to use as part of the reflective process. Quality Standards will complement practice standards by providing a measurementbased system against which to assess local progress for all state priorities. The Quality Standards establish specific expectations for performance based on consideration of improvement and outcomes, which are assigned based upon how an LEA, school, or subgroups performs for a specific metric relative to the overall distribution of results for the state. In addition to practice and quality standards, the LCFF evaluation rubrics will offer customized narrative statements that will be based on data analyses, a data metric selection tool comprised of pre-populated locally defined metrics, and practice guides to function as a resource to provide a deeper inquiry into data results and define effective practices. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 5 Page 3 of 4 User Acceptance Testing (UAT) A statewide sample of LEAs (county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools) will participate in a pilot test of select components of the LCFF evaluation rubrics. The pilot participants will provide information on the proposed content and user interface with the evaluation rubrics system (e.g., user access, file upload and interface with front-end data display). Recommendations from the UAT will be used to develop the technical requirements of the system. The goal will be to test portions of the developing system with the UAT so that the system as a whole (practice standards, quality standards, customized narratives, and practice guides) will be finalized based upon research and the reported usefulness by LEA users. The LEAs participating in the UAT will provide input on select prototype sections of the evaluation rubrics as the rubrics are being developed. Specifically, representatives from 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 options 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 technical assistance provider. These interactions with prototype versions of the evaluation rubrics will take into consideration the planning, reflecting, and evaluating processes of LEAs. The UAT project is designed in the following three phases: Phase I II III Topic Content and Structure Feedback Standards and Design Acceptance TestingOnline Prototype Schedule October 12, 2015 – November 16, 2015 December 1, 2015 December 18, 2015 March 14, 2016 March 25, 2016 Time Required 3-4 total hours 6-8 total hours 6-8 total hours The LEA UAT representative will receive a packet of materials that includes the latest draft of the evaluation rubrics presented to the SBE at the September 2015 meeting. Phase I testing will also include a review of the draft practice standards, an assessment of the alignment of the rubrics with the LCAP planning process, and feedback on the parameters and functionality needed to support the selection of local measures (e.g., parent involvement) for use in the online Web-based evaluation rubrics system. Next, in Phase II the LEA UAT representative will review a prototype of the display options that are available for data analysis and program effectiveness related to district goals and indicators and metrics for determining progress. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 5 Page 4 of 4 Finally, in Phase III, the LEA UAT representative will receive a password and secure access to test the online Web-based evaluation rubrics system. The materials used for the UAT will be posted on the WestEd LCFF Web Portal (http://lcff.wested.org/) and will be shared with the SBE during the regularly scheduled public meetings as part of the status update on the LCFF evaluation rubrics. The information obtained from LEAs will be summarized and the group responses will be shared with the SBE and members of the public in the form of Information Memoranda and SBE items. Online Evaluation Rubrics System On June 24, 2015, Governor Brown signed AB 104 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015), which appropriated $350,000 for the California Department of Education (CDE), in collaboration with and subject to the approval of the executive director of the State Board of Education, to enter into a contract with the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE) to perform activities that ensure alignment of the evaluation rubrics with California’s accountability system, accommodate state and local data availability, and reflect consistency with implementation of the LCFF. The online (Web-based) evaluation rubrics system will include, but will not be limited to, the following components: (1) data analysis and report section, (2) data metric selection tool, (3) practice standard analysis and report section, (4) quality standard analysis and report section, and (5) practice guide sections. Based on the content and design specifications provided by the SBE and WestEd, the SJCOE will build the technological infrastructure to support an online Web-based application system for the evaluation rubrics. Specifically, the SJCOE will develop the system design and architecture, user requirements, functional requirements, and implementation of the requirements. The SJCOE is the contractor for the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) and their extensive experience and expertise with the latest programming technology, languages, and best practices allow them to develop Web, mobile, and software applications that provide unique solutions to over 5,000 school districts nationwide. The SJCOE will provide support for the final stages of the UAT through a validation testing of the final evaluation rubrics system. Progress on the Web-based evaluation rubrics system will be provided for the SBE through Information Memoranda and SBE items. Once completed, the SJCOE and WestEd will continue to provide ongoing support for the research and content development and technological infrastructure of the Web-based evaluation rubrics system. 10-23-15 [State Board of Education] 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 1 of 6 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. Each part of the emerging system will be aligned with one or more of the SBE guiding principles (Attachment 1). The draft framework and implementation plan for the new accountability system will support continuous learning and improvement, equity, and transparency and will be grounded in state and local partnerships to sustain its implementation. 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 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. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 2 of 6 SBE Meeting September 2015 Proposed Transition to New Accountability System Present recommendations for proposed policy framework for developing a new accountability system. These recommendations will create support structures to foster transparency, flexibility, and equity. September 2015December 2015 Development Activities Analysis of “underbrush, or existing accountability language in statutes and regulations that may need to be modified or eliminated to align with and support California’s new accountability system. November 2015 Recommendations for a Framework and Implementation Plan for Accountability System – Comprehensive design architecture with specifications reflecting policy implications for a new accountability system. (Attachment 1) Update on LCAP Development of LCFF Template/ Evaluation Rubrics Implementation Process Present Report on LCAP recommendations to electronic template structure the pilot test results. 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. 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). Update on UAT piloting select components of the LCFF evaluation rubrics design options and integration of data. (Attachment 5) Lessons learned from submitting Year 2 LCAP and first year Annual Update. (Attachment 3) 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 3 of 6 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 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 September SBE meeting are presented below. The SBE and CDE will continue to work with the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd to convene meetings to gather information that will help inform the implementation of the new accountability system.  Foster Youth – The 2015 Budget Act appropriated $25.4 million for foster youth services. The supplemental funding is contingent upon Assembly Bill (AB) 854 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 4 of 6 (Weber) that was signed by the Governor on October 11, 2015 (Chapter 781, Statutes of 2015) to modify the Foster Youth Services (FYS) program to align with the LCFF. The proposal to restructure the FYS program to align with the LCFF requires the provision of services for all foster youth students, regardless of placement, and replaces the direct services model with a coordinated service model that specifically focuses on reducing duplicative efforts in providing services for foster youth. It is the intent of the Legislature that a county office of education, in the development and adoption of its LCAP, include information specific to the transition from FYS program to the Foster Youth Services Coordinating (FYSC) program when describing the coordination of services for foster youth. Similarly, the Legislature intends that school districts include information specific to the transition requirement for the 2015–16 and 2016–17 fiscal years in their LCAP when describing services for foster youth. In addition, the CDE successfully completed the first year of data collection on foster youth using a match process with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). The statewide process matches the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) enrollment data to data from the CWS/CMS. CALPADS reports and extracts are available so that LEAs are informed as to the students identified as foster youth from this match. The foster data are updated in CALPADS on a weekly basis so that LEAs will receive regular reports on foster youth. The certified counts of foster youth in CALPADS were 30,038 for 2013-14 and 45,152 for 2014-15. The purpose of these reports is to identify for LEAs the foster youth students enrolled in their schools so that services can be better coordinated and provided to these youth and LEAs can continuously serve the appropriate population. Additional information on the coordination of services and data collection for foster youth will be reported out in a future Information Memorandum for the SBE.  Policy Stakeholder Session – On October 27th, WestEd convened representatives from statewide and community-based organizations to review the mock-up of the practice and quality standards, customized narratives, and draft practice guides for the prototype of the Graduation section of the evaluation rubrics. The mock-ups shared with the group were the same sections reviewed and tested through the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) process (Attachment 5). The input provided will be used to help inform the content and structure of the evaluation rubrics and Phase II of the UAT that will focus on the standards and design of the evaluation rubrics. Additional sessions will be scheduled to review and discuss specific components 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).  State Superintendent of Public Instruction Task Force on Accountability – The SSPI’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement Task Force (Task Force), co10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 5 of 6 chaired by Eric Heins, President of the California Teachers Association, and Wes Smith, Executive Director of the Association of County School Administrators, held their first meeting on September 21, 2015. Additional meeting dates are planned for November 2015 and January and February 2016. The Task Force is studying accountability and continuous improvement issues and anticipates making recommendations early next year on more effective ways to measure and support progress among schools and students. Task Force findings will be offered in a final report summarizing recommendations for a new California system of public education accountability/continuous improvement; and strategies for modifying and removing existing law, regulations, and other items supporting the previous Academic Performance Index-based system. The final report will be provided to the SSPI who will utilize it as the basis for his required submission of recommendations to the SBE and state Legislature as required by existing legislation (AB 484). Resources With the recent completion of the second year of LCAPs and the first year of the Annual Update, LEAs have successfully navigated the use of two LCAP templates and two sets of expenditure regulations. As the state continues to transition to full implementation of the LCFF by increasing the funding targets, staffing the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) and developing the evaluation rubrics, LEAs are providing valuable lessons learned from the implementation process to date. In many cases, LCAPs are challenging due to the length and complexity of information, and as a result, the implementation is falling short of coherent goals and transparent decisions about strategic resource allocation. Based on the feedback and lessons learned to date, fine-tuning of the template for the 2016–17 year may be needed. One of the ways LEAs are adopting innovative strategies to streamline the LCAP is by adding an executive summary and posting it along with the full plan. Although these executive summaries are not required, when there is a local decision to develop and post these summaries, the local educational communities benefit from the condensed versions of the LCAPs and they become a more useful communication tool. Further, there is great potential to restructure the eTemplate (Attachment 4) to best meet the needs of all LEAs. Policy recommendations have recently emerged in various reports that encourage LEAs to maximize this opportunity to exercise local control and strategic thinking through the implementation of the LCAP. For example, the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) released a policy paper entitled From Accountability to Actionability: Making Sense of Multiple Measures in Local Control and Accountability Plans (http://www.epiconline.org/from-accountability-to-actionability/). The report recommends that LEAs coordinate and synthesize information through the following: (1) use of multiple measures to develop greater coherence between inputs, processes, and outcomes linked to specific LCAP goals; (2) employ the matrix approach to monitor 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 6 Page 6 of 6 progress over time and as a communication tool for internal stakeholders; and (3) create infographics and narrative descriptions as a means to communicate critical information to external stakeholders. The list of resources below provides some examples of LEAs that coordinated and synthesized LCAP content through the use of infographics, executive summaries, dashboards, and blogs/Websites that were devoted to LCFF and LCAP information. Future SBE items will continue to showcase examples of strategic decision making and effective communication of the LCAP and Annual Update that LEAs are producing for their educational communities. Infographics  Bear Valley Unified School District http://bearvalleyusd.edliotest.com/ourpages/LCAP/LCAP_BearValleyUSD15_082 015_Infographic.pdf  West Contra Costa Unified School District http://www.wccusd.net/Page/5246 Executive Summaries  Etiwanda School District (http://www.etiwanda.org/) http://www.etiwanda.org/district/LCAPExecutiveSummary.pdf  Orange Unified School District (http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/) http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/LCFF/pdf/LCAPExecutiveSummary6-6.pdf  Red Bluff Joint Union High School District (http://www.rbhsd.org/) (https://d3jc3ahdjad7x7.cloudfront.net/w9nTdNSim7eEFL3KAfhHVETPQutRmW QKRgBE1gpUqPSdhuk0.pdf  Santee Unified School District (http://www.santeesd.net) http://www.santeesd.net/cms/lib/CA01000468/Centricity/Domain/847/LCAP %202015%20Executive%20Summary%2003%2004%2015%20-%20Single %20Pages.pdf  West Contra Costa Unified School District (http://www.wccusd.net) http://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib03/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/961/2%202015 -16%20LCAP%20Executive%20Summary%20Rev%2006042015.pdf Dashboards  Etiwanda School District http://www.etiwanda.org/district/LCAPDashboard.pdf  Madera Unified School District http://lcap.madera.k12.ca.us/  West Contra Costa Unified School District http://www.wccusd.net/dashboard Blogs and LCFF Specific Websites  Elk Grove Unified School District http://blogs.egusd.net/lcff-lcap/  Berkeley Unified School District http://www.berkeleyschools.net/localcontrol/lcap/ 10-23-15 [State Board of Education and California Department of Education] 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 1 of 15 California Education Code Sections 52064.5, 47607.3, 52071, 52071.5, 52072, 52072.5, 52060, 52066, 52064, and 52052 Please note: the California Education Code sections referenced below do not reflect the changes included in the 2015-2016 budget adoption and the enacted revisions to legislation through the recently passed budget bills. Education Code Section 52064.5. (a) On or before October 1, 2015, the state board shall adopt evaluation rubrics for all of the following purposes: (1) To assist a school district, county office of education, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. (2) To assist a county superintendent of schools in identifying school districts and charter schools in need of technical assistance pursuant to Section 52071 or 47607.3, as applicable, and the specific priorities upon which the technical assistance should be focused. (3) To assist the Superintendent in identifying school districts for which intervention pursuant to Section 52072 is warranted. (b) The evaluation rubrics shall reflect a holistic, multidimensional assessment of school district and individual schoolsite performance and shall include all of the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060. (c) As part of the evaluation rubrics, the state board shall adopt standards for school district and individual schoolsite performance and expectation for improvement in regard to each of the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060. Education Code Section 47607.3. (a) If a charter school fails to improve outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052, or, if the charter school has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the charter school’s pupil subgroups, in regard to one or more state or school priority identified in the charter pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605 or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605.6, in three out of four consecutive school years, all of the following shall apply: (1) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the chartering authority shall provide technical assistance to the charter school. (2) The Superintendent may assign, at the request of the chartering authority and with the approval of the state board, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide advice and assistance to the charter school pursuant to Section 52074. (b) A chartering authority shall consider for revocation any charter school to which the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance pursuant to subdivision (a) and about which it has made either of the following findings, which shall be submitted to the chartering authority: 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 15 (1) That the charter school has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. (2) That the inadequate performance of the charter school, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or so acute as to require revocation of the charter. (c) The chartering authority shall consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all pupil subgroups served by the charter school as the most important factor in determining whether to revoke the charter. (d) A chartering authority shall comply with the hearing process described in subdivision (e) of Section 47607 in revoking a charter. A charter school may not appeal a revocation of a charter made pursuant to this section. Education Code Section 52071. (a) If a county superintendent of schools does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a governing board of a school district, or if the governing board of a school district requests technical assistance, the county superintendent of schools shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following: (1) Identification of the school district’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, communicated in writing to the school district. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the school district’s goals. (2) Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts to assist the school district in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The county superintendent of schools may also solicit another school district within the county to act as a partner to the school district in need of technical assistance. (3) Request that the Superintendent assign the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide advice and assistance to the school district. (b) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the county superintendent of schools shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any school district that fails to improve pupil achievement across more than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060 for one or more pupil subgroup identified pursuant to Section 52052. (c) Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a school district shall be paid for by the school district requesting the assistance. Education Code Section 52071.5. (a) If the Superintendent does not approve a local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan approved by a county board of education, or if the county board of education requests technical assistance, the Superintendent shall provide technical assistance, including, among other things, any of the following: 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 3 of 15 (1) Identification of the county board of education’s strengths and weaknesses in regard to the state priorities described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066, communicated in writing to the county board of education. This identification shall include a review of effective, evidence-based programs that apply to the board’s goals. (2) Assignment of an academic expert or team of academic experts, or the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence established pursuant to Section 52074, to assist the county board of education in identifying and implementing effective programs that are designed to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. The Superintendent may also solicit another county office of education to act as a partner to the county office of education in need of technical assistance. (b) Using an evaluation rubric adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 52064.5, the Superintendent shall provide the technical assistance described in subdivision (a) to any county office of education that fails to improve pupil achievement in regard to more than one state priority described in subdivision (d) of Section 52066 for one or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052. (c) Technical assistance provided pursuant to this section at the request of a county board of education shall be paid for by the county board of education receiving assistance. Education Code Section 52072. (a) The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify school districts in need of intervention. (b) The Superintendent shall only intervene in a school district that meets both of the following criteria: (1) The school district did not improve the outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the school district has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the school district’s pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years. (2) The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the school district pursuant to Section 52071 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent: (A) That the school district has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. (B) That the inadequate performance of the school district, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent. (c) For school districts identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following: (1) Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of the school district. (2) Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 4 of 15 school district to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities. (3) Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the school district from improving outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities. (4) Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf. (d) The Superintendent shall notify the county superintendent of schools, the county board of education, the superintendent of the school district, and the governing board of the school district of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section. Education Code Section 52072.5. (a) The Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, identify county offices of education in need of intervention. (b) The Superintendent shall only intervene in a county office of education that meets both of the following criteria: (1) The county office of education did not improve the outcomes for three or more pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 or, if the county office of education has less than three pupil subgroups, all of the county office of education’s pupil subgroups, in regard to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years. (2) The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance to the county office of education pursuant to Section 52071.5 and submits either of the following findings to the Superintendent: (A) That the county office of education has failed, or is unable, to implement the recommendations of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. (B) That the inadequate performance of the county office of education, based upon an evaluation rubric adopted pursuant to Section 52064.5, is either so persistent or acute as to require intervention by the Superintendent. (c) For county offices of education identified pursuant to subdivision (a), the Superintendent may, with the approval of the state board, do one or more of the following: (1) Make changes to a local control and accountability plan adopted by the county board of education. (2) Develop and impose a budget revision, in conjunction with revisions to the local control and accountability plan, that the Superintendent determines would allow the county office of education to improve the outcomes for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state and local priorities. (3) Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a local collective bargaining agreement, that would prevent the county office of education from improving outcomes 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 5 of 15 for all pupil subgroups identified pursuant to Section 52052 in regard to state or local priorities. (4) Appoint an academic trustee to exercise the powers and authority specified in this section on his or her behalf. (d) The Superintendent shall notify the county board of education and the county superintendent of schools, in writing, of any action by the state board to direct him or her to exercise any of the powers and authorities specified in this section. Education Code Section 52060. (a) On or before July 1, 2014, the governing board of each school district shall adopt a local control and accountability plan using a template adopted by the state board. (b) A local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of a school district shall be effective for a period of three years, and shall be updated on or before July 1 of each year. (c) A local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of a school district shall include, for the school district and each school within the school district, both of the following: (1) A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities identified in subdivision (d) and for any additional local priorities identified by the governing board of the school district. For purposes of this article, a subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052 shall be a numerically significant pupil subgroup as specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052. (2) A description of the specific actions the school district will take during each year of the local control and accountability plan to achieve the goals identified in paragraph (1), including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary for that year to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). The specific actions shall not supersede the provisions of existing local collective bargaining agreements within the jurisdiction of the school district. (d) All of the following are state priorities: (1) The degree to which the teachers of the school district are appropriately assigned in accordance with Section 44258.9, and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for the pupils they are teaching, every pupil in the school district has sufficient access to the standards-aligned instructional materials as determined pursuant to Section 60119, and school facilities are maintained in good repair, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 17002. (2) Implementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the state board, including how the programs and services will enable English learners to access the common core academic content standards adopted pursuant to Section 60605.8 and the English language development standards adopted pursuant to former Section 60811.3, as that section read on June 30, 2013, or Section 60811.4, for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 6 of 15 (3) Parental involvement, including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individual schoolsite, and including how the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs. (4) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: (A) Statewide assessments administered pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 or any subsequent assessment, as certified by the state board. (B) The Academic Performance Index, as described in Section 52052. (C) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with state board-approved career technical education standards and frameworks, including, but not limited to, those described in subdivision (a) of Section 52302, subdivision (a) of Section 52372.5, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54692. (D) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board. (E) The English learner reclassification rate. (F) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination with a score of 3 or higher. (G) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program, as described in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 99300) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3, or any subsequent assessment of college preparedness. (5) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: (A) School attendance rates. (B) Chronic absenteeism rates. (C) Middle school dropout rates, as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052.1. (D) High school dropout rates. (E) High school graduation rates. (6) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: (A) Pupil suspension rates. (B) Pupil expulsion rates. (C) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness. (7) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study that includes all of the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 7 of 15 (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable, including the programs and services developed and provided to unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs, and the programs and services that are provided to benefit these pupils as a result of the funding received pursuant to Section 42238.02, as implemented by Section 42238.03. (8) Pupil outcomes, if available, in the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable. (e) For purposes of the descriptions required by subdivision (c), the governing board of a school district may consider qualitative information, including, but not limited to, findings that result from school quality reviews conducted pursuant to subparagraph (J) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052 or any other reviews. (f) To the extent practicable, data reported in a local control and accountability plan shall be reported in a manner consistent with how information is reported on a school accountability report card. (g) The governing board of a school district shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan. (h) A school district may identify local priorities, goals in regard to the local priorities, and the method for measuring the school district’s progress toward achieving those goals. Education Code Section 52066. (a) On or before July 1, 2014, each county superintendent of schools shall develop, and present to the county board of education for adoption, a local control and accountability plan using a template adopted by the state board. (b) A local control and accountability plan adopted by a county board of education shall be effective for a period of three years, and shall be updated on or before July 1 of each year. (c) A local control and accountability plan adopted by a county board of education shall include, for each school or program operated by the county superintendent of schools, both of the following: (1) A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities identified in subdivision (d), as applicable to the pupils served, and for any additional local priorities identified by the county board of education. (2) A description of the specific actions the county superintendent of schools will take during each year of the local control and accountability plan to achieve the goals identified in paragraph (1), including the enumeration of any specific actions necessary for that year to correct any deficiencies in regard to the state priorities listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). The specific actions shall not supersede the provisions of existing local collective bargaining agreements within the jurisdiction of the county superintendent of schools. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 8 of 15 (d) All of the following are state priorities: (1) The degree to which the teachers in the schools or programs operated by the county superintendent of schools are appropriately assigned in accordance with Section 44258.9 and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for the pupils they are teaching, every pupil in the schools or programs operated by the county superintendent of schools has sufficient access to the standards-aligned instructional materials as determined pursuant to Section 60119, and school facilities are maintained in good repair as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 17002. (2) Implementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the state board, including how the programs and services will enable English learners to access the common core academic content standards adopted pursuant to Section 60605.8 and the English language development standards adopted pursuant to Section 60811.3 for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency. (3) Parental involvement, including efforts the county superintendent of schools makes to seek parent input in making decisions for each individual schoolsite and program operated by a county superintendent of schools, and including how the county superintendent of schools will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs. (4) Pupil achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: (A) Statewide assessments administered pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 or any subsequent assessment, as certified by the state board. (B) The Academic Performance Index, as described in Section 52052. (C) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with state board-approved career technical education standards and frameworks, including, but not limited to, those described in subdivision (a) of Section 52302, subdivision (a) of Section 52372.5, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54692. (D) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board. (E) The English learner reclassification rate. (F) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination with a score of 3 or higher. (G) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program, as described in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 99300) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3, or any subsequent assessment of college preparedness. (5) Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 9 of 15 (A) School attendance rates. (B) Chronic absenteeism rates. (C) Middle school dropout rates, as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052.1. (D) High school dropout rates. (E) High school graduation rates. (6) School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable: (A) Pupil suspension rates. (B) Pupil expulsion rates. (C) Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness. (7) The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study that includes all of the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable, including the programs and services developed and provided to unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs, and the program and services that are provided to benefit these pupils as a result of the funding received pursuant to Section 42238.02, as implemented by Section 42238.03. (8) Pupil outcomes, if available, in the subject areas described in Section 51210 and subdivisions (a) to (i), inclusive, of Section 51220, as applicable. (9) How the county superintendent of schools will coordinate instruction of expelled pupils pursuant to Section 48926. (10) How the county superintendent of schools will coordinate services for foster children, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Working with the county child welfare agency to minimize changes in school placement. (B) Providing education-related information to the county child welfare agency to assist the county child welfare agency in the delivery of services to foster children, including, but not limited to, educational status and progress information that is required to be included in court reports. (C) Responding to requests from the juvenile court for information and working with the juvenile court to ensure the delivery and coordination of necessary educational services. (D) Establishing a mechanism for the efficient expeditious transfer of health and education records and the health and education passport. (e) For purposes of the descriptions required by subdivision (c), a county board of education may consider qualitative information, including, but not limited to, findings that result from school quality reviews conducted pursuant to subparagraph (J) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052 or any other reviews. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 10 of 15 (f) To the extent practicable, data reported in a local control and accountability plan shall be reported in a manner consistent with how information is reported on a school accountability report card. (g) The county superintendent of schools shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the county office of education, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan. (h) A county board of education may identify local priorities, goals in regard to the local priorities, and the method for measuring the county office of education’s progress toward achieving those goals. Education Code Section 52064. (a) On or before March 31, 2014, the state board shall adopt templates for the following purposes: (1) For use by school districts to meet the requirements of Sections 52060 to 52063, inclusive. (2) For use by county superintendents of schools to meet the requirements of Sections 52066 to 52069, inclusive. (3) For use by charter schools to meet the requirements of Section 47606.5. (b) The templates developed by the state board shall allow a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school to complete a single local control and accountability plan to meet the requirements of this article and the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 related to local educational agency plans pursuant to Section 1112 of Subpart 1 of Part A of Title I of Public Law 107-110. The state board shall also take steps to minimize duplication of effort at the local level to the greatest extent possible. The template shall include guidance for school districts, county superintendents of schools, and charter schools to report both of the following: (1) A listing and description of expenditures for the 2014–15 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, implementing the specific actions included in the local control and accountability plan. (2) A listing and description of expenditures for the 2014–15 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, that will serve the pupils to whom one or more of the definitions in Section 42238.01 apply and pupils redesignated as fluent English proficient. (c) If possible, the templates identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) for use by county superintendents of schools shall allow a county superintendent of schools to develop a single local control and accountability plan that would also satisfy the requirements of Section 48926. (d) The state board shall adopt the template pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). The state board may adopt emergency regulations for purposes of implementing this section. The adoption of emergency 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 11 of 15 regulations shall be deemed an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the state board may adopt the template in accordance with the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). When adopting the template pursuant to the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the state board shall present the template at a regular meeting and may only take action to adopt the template at a subsequent regular meeting. This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 31, 2018. (f) Revisions to a template or evaluation rubric shall be approved by the state board by January 31 before the fiscal year during which the template or evaluation rubric is to be used by a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school. (g) The adoption of a template or evaluation rubric by the state board shall not create a requirement for a governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or a governing body of a charter school to submit a local control and accountability plan to the state board, unless otherwise required by federal law. The Superintendent shall not require a local control and accountability plan to be submitted by a governing board of a school district or the governing body of a charter school to the state board. The state board may adopt a template or evaluation rubric that would authorize a school district or a charter school to submit to the state board only the sections of the local control and accountability plan required by federal law. Education Code Section 52052. (a) (1) The Superintendent, with approval of the state board, shall develop an Academic Performance Index (API), to measure the performance of schools and school districts, especially the academic performance of pupils. (2) A school or school district shall demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement as measured by the API by all numerically significant pupil subgroups at the school or school district, including: (A) Ethnic subgroups. (B) Socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils. (C) English learners. (D) Pupils with disabilities. (E) Foster youth. (3)(A) For purposes of this section, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that consists of at least 30 pupils, each of whom has a valid test score. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for a subgroup of pupils who are foster youth, a numerically significant pupil subgroup is one that consists of at least 15 pupils. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 12 of 15 (C) For a school or school district with an API score that is based on no fewer than 11 and no more than 99 pupils with valid test scores, numerically significant pupil subgroups shall be defined by the Superintendent, with approval by the state board. (4)(A) The API shall consist of a variety of indicators currently reported to the department, including, but not limited to, the results of the achievement test administered pursuant to Section 60640, attendance rates for pupils in elementary schools, middle schools, and secondary schools, and the graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools. (B) The Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, may also incorporate into the API the rates at which pupils successfully promote from one grade to the next in middle school and high school, and successfully matriculate from middle school to high school. (C) Graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools shall be calculated for the API as follows: (i) Four-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be three school years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the total calculated in clause (ii). (ii) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year three school years before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred into the class graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year that was three school years before the current school year and the date of graduation, less the number of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year that was three school years before the current school year and the date of graduation who were members of the class that is graduating at the end of the current school year. (iii) Five-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be four school years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the total calculated in clause (iv). (iv) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year four years before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred into the class graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year that was four school years before the current school year and the date of graduation, less the number of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year that was four years before the current school year and the date of graduation who were members of the class that is graduating at the end of the current school year. (v) Six-year graduation rates shall be calculated by taking the number of pupils who graduated on time for the current school year, which is considered to be five school years after the pupils entered grade 9 for the first time, and dividing that number by the total calculated in clause (vi). (vi) The number of pupils entering grade 9 for the first time in the school year five years before the current school year, plus the number of pupils who transferred into the class graduating at the end of the current school year between the school year that was five 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 13 of 15 school years before the current school year and the date of graduation, less the number of pupils who transferred out of the school between the school year that was five years before the current school year and the date of graduation who were members of the class that is graduating at the end of the current school year. (D) The inclusion of five- and six-year graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools shall meet the following requirements: (i) Schools and school districts shall be granted one-half the credit in their API scores for graduating pupils in five years that they are granted for graduating pupils in four years. (ii) Schools and school districts shall be granted one-quarter the credit in their API scores for graduating pupils in six years that they are granted for graduating pupils in four years. (iii) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), schools and school districts shall be granted full credit in their API scores for graduating in five or six years a pupil with disabilities who graduates in accordance with his or her individualized education program. (E) The pupil data collected for the API that comes from the achievement test administered pursuant to Section 60640 and the high school exit examination administered pursuant to Section 60851, when fully implemented, shall be disaggregated by special education status, English learners, socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnic group. Only the test scores of pupils who were counted as part of the enrollment in the annual data collection of the California Basic Educational Data System for the current fiscal year and who were continuously enrolled during that year may be included in the test result reports in the API score of the school. (F)(i) Commencing with the baseline API calculation in 2016, and for each year thereafter, results of the achievement test and other tests specified in subdivision (b) shall constitute no more than 60 percent of the value of the index for secondary schools. (ii) In addition to the elements required by this paragraph, the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, may incorporate into the index for secondary schools valid, reliable, and stable measures of pupil preparedness for postsecondary education and career. (G) Results of the achievement test and other tests specified in subdivision (b) shall constitute at least 60 percent of the value of the index for primary schools and middle schools. (H) It is the intent of the Legislature that the state’s system of public school accountability be more closely aligned with both the public’s expectations for public education and the workforce needs of the state’s economy. It is therefore necessary that the accountability system evolve beyond its narrow focus on pupil test scores to encompass other valuable information about school performance, including, but not limited to, pupil preparedness for college and career, as well as the high school graduation rates already required by law. (I) The Superintendent shall annually determine the accuracy of the graduation rate data. Notwithstanding any other law, graduation rates for pupils in dropout recovery high schools shall not be included in the API. For purposes of this subparagraph, “dropout 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 14 of 15 recovery high school” means a high school in which 50 percent or more of its pupils have been designated as dropouts pursuant to the exit/withdrawal codes developed by the department or left a school and were not otherwise enrolled in a school for a period of at least 180 days. (J) To complement the API, the Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, may develop and implement a program of school quality review that features locally convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers, interview pupils, and examine pupil work, if an appropriation for this purpose is made in the annual Budget Act. (K) The Superintendent shall annually provide to local educational agencies and the public a transparent and understandable explanation of the individual components of the API and their relative values within the API. (L) An additional element chosen by the Superintendent and the state board for inclusion in the API pursuant to this paragraph shall not be incorporated into the API until at least one full school year after the state board’s decision to include the element into the API. (b) Pupil scores from the following tests, when available and when found to be valid and reliable for this purpose, shall be incorporated into the API: (1) The standards-based achievement tests provided for in Section 60642.5. (2) The high school exit examination. (c) Based on the API, the Superintendent shall develop, and the state board shall adopt, expected annual percentage growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score from the previous year. Schools are expected to meet these growth targets through effective allocation of available resources. For schools below the statewide API performance target adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (d), the minimum annual percentage growth target shall be 5 percent of the difference between the actual API score of a school and the statewide API performance target, or one API point, whichever is greater. Schools at or above the statewide API performance target shall have, as their growth target, maintenance of their API score above the statewide API performance target. However, the state board may set differential growth targets based on grade level of instruction and may set higher growth targets for the lowest performing schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. To meet its growth target, a school shall demonstrate that the annual growth in its API is equal to or more than its schoolwide annual percentage growth target and that all numerically significant pupil subgroups, as defined in subdivision (a), are making comparable improvement. (d) Upon adoption of state performance standards by the state board, the Superintendent shall recommend, and the state board shall adopt, a statewide API performance target that includes consideration of performance standards and represents the proficiency level required to meet the state performance target. (e)(1)A school or school district with 11 to 99 pupils with valid test scores shall receive an API score with an asterisk that indicates less statistical certainty than API scores based on 100 or more test scores. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM dsib-amard-nov15item01 Attachment 7 Page 15 of 15 (2) A school or school district annually shall receive an API score, unless the Superintendent determines that an API score would be an invalid measure of the performance of the school or school district for one or more of the following reasons: (A) Irregularities in testing procedures occurred. (B) The data used to calculate the API score of the school or school district are not representative of the pupil population at the school or school district. (C) Significant demographic changes in the pupil population render year-to-year comparisons of pupil performance invalid. (D) The department discovers or receives information indicating that the integrity of the API score has been compromised. (E) Insufficient pupil participation in the assessments included in the API. (F) A transition to new standards-based assessments compromises comparability of results across schools or school districts. The Superintendent may use the authority in this subparagraph in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years only, with approval of the state board. (3) If a school or school district has fewer than 100 pupils with valid test scores, the calculation of the API or adequate yearly progress pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.) and federal regulations may be calculated over more than one annual administration of the tests administered pursuant to Section 60640 and the high school exit examination administered pursuant to Section 60851, consistent with regulations adopted by the state board. (4) Any school or school district that does not receive an API calculated pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) shall not receive an API growth target pursuant to subdivision (c). Schools and school districts that do not have an API calculated pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) shall use one of the following: (A) The most recent API calculation. (B) An average of the three most recent annual API calculations. (C) Alternative measures that show increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils schoolwide and among significant subgroups. (f) Only schools with 100 or more test scores contributing to the API may be included in the API rankings. (g) The Superintendent, with the approval of the state board, shall develop an alternative accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a county board of education or a county superintendent of schools, community day schools, nonpublic, nonsectarian schools pursuant to Section 56366, and alternative schools serving highrisk pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity schools. Schools in the alternative accountability system may receive an API score, but shall not be included in the API rankings. (h) For purposes of this section, county offices of education shall be considered school districts. 10/27/2015 6:38 PM