May  6,  2016     Dr.  Michael  Kirst,  President   California  State  Board  of  Education   1430  N  Street,  Suite  5111   Sacramento,  CA  95814   Via  Email  Only  (sbe@cde.ca.gov)     Re:   SBE  May  2016  Agenda  Item  #02  (Developing  a  New  Accountability  System/LCFF   Evaluation  Rubrics)     Dear  President  Kirst:     We  are  disappointed  by  the  staff  recommendation  not  to  incorporate  college  and  career   readiness  as  a  key  indicator.    A  decision  to  include  graduation  as  a  key  indicator,  but  not   also  college  and  career  readiness,  would  send  the  wrong  message:  that  simply  graduating   students,  regardless  of  the  skills  and  knowledge  they  possess,  is  the  goal  of  our  education   system.    As  you  explained  in  a  recent  commentary  in  EdSource,  the  “underlying  goal  of  [our   public  education  system  is]  ensuring  more  students  are  college  and  career  ready  when  they   graduate.”     We  have  long  expected  a  central  part  of  the  state  accountability  system  to  include   comprehensive  measures  of  college  and  career  readiness.    Concentrated  efforts  to  measure   college  and  career  readiness  began  soon  after  the  enactment  of  SB  1458  (Steinberg,  2012),   which  stated  the  Legislature’s  intent  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…”  and   provided  that  “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.”    College  and  career  readiness  measures  have   been  addressed  repeatedly  through  the  PSAA  advisory  committee,  the  Technical  Design   Work  Group,  CDE’s  contract  with  the  Educational  Policy  Improvement  Center,  and  multiple   presentations  to  the  State  Board.     In  setting  the  framework  for  the  LCFF  evaluation  rubrics,  the  Board  embraced  several   policy  statements  in  July  2015,  including  “All  students  are  college  and  career  ready.”    Prior   versions  of  the  evaluation  rubrics,  dating  back  to  August  2015,  consistently  included   college  and  career  readiness  (incorporating  at  least  A-­‐G  completion  and  CTE  pathways)  as   a  key  indicator.    Unlike  most  other  potential  indicators  addressed  in  the  April  27   information  memorandum  “Further  Analysis  of  Potential  Key  Indicators,”  data  related  to   college  and  career  ready  analysis  are  available,  and  were  already  analyzed  in  the  February   25  CDE  memorandum  on  college  and  career  readiness.    Pointing  to  a  lack  of  data  on  some   potential  metrics,  as  the  April  27  information  memoranda  does  with  regard  to  integrated   course  pathways  that  are  distinct  from  CTE  pathways,  should  not  be  an  excuse  to  include   no  college  and  career  readiness  indicator  when  other  metrics  are  available.     Below,  for  your  consideration,  we  recommend  several  basic  principles  that  a  college  and   career  readiness  indicator  should  address  and  a  possible  framework  for  a  composite   college  and  career  readiness  indicator/index.    We  then  recommend  next  steps  for  adopting   a  key  indicator,  namely:  (1)  the  State  Board  instruct  staff  to  provide,  by  March  2017,  a   preliminary  analysis  of  a  College  and  Career  Readiness  index  that  may  be  a  candidate  for   inclusion  as  a  key  indicator;  and  2)  the  State  Board  adopt  A-­‐G  completion  as  an  interim  key   indicator,  or  A-­‐G  completion  and  CTE  pathway  completion  as  distinct  interim  key   indicators.     Principles  underlying  a  college  and  career  readiness  indicator     In  establishing  a  key  indicator  on  college  and  career  readiness,  we  recommend  that  the   State  Board  rely  on  these  basic  principles:     • Incentivize  multiple  approaches  to  college  and  career  readiness.    A  college  and   career  readiness  indicator  should  reflect  the  variety  of  existing  opportunities  for   students  to  demonstrate  college  and  career  readiness.    It  should  incentivize  schools   and  districts  to  help  students  achieve  both  college  and  career  readiness,  but  only   require  assistance,  support  and  intervention  for  the  lowest  performing  districts  and   schools,  namely  those  with  high  percentages  of  students  demonstrating  neither   college  nor  career  readiness.       • College  and  career  readiness  indicators  should  evolve  over  time.    The   composition  of  a  college  and  career  readiness  index  should  continue  to  evolve,   consistent  with  the  staff  recommendation  to  revisit  the  rubrics  annually  to  assess   what  measures  should  be  added  or  substituted  as  key  indicators.         • Incorporate  more  college  and  career  readiness  indicators  into  CALPADS.     Strengthen  the  State’s  data  systems  by  ensuring  more  individualized  data  relevant   to  college  and  career  readiness  is  available  and  integrated  into  CALPADS.  For   example,  the  SBE  should  call  for  effectively  incorporating  additional  or  improved   student  level  data  into  CALPADS,  including  GPA,  International  Baccalaureate   measures,  and  the  State  Seal  of  Biliteracy.    While  high  school  grades  currently  in   CALPADS  may  not  be  collected  in  a  sufficiently  consistent  manner  yet,  these   challenges  can  be  overcome  with  direction  from  the  State  Board.    Indeed,  the   California  Student  Aid  Commission  already  effectively  collects  grades  to  calculate     2   GPA  for  most  high  school  seniors.    With  strong  evidence  linking  GPA  to  college   success,  it  is  critical  that  GPA  soon  be  incorporated  as  a  measure  of  college  and   career  readiness.       Such  data  could  be  incorporated  into  a  college  and  career  readiness  key  indicator,  as   appropriate,  or  at  a  minimum  be  accessible  to  parents  and  districts  by,  for  example,   pre-­‐populating  the  evaluation  rubrics  with  college  and  career  readiness  related  data   collected  by  the  State  as  associated  indicators.     • • Incentivize  improved  opportunities  and  outcomes  for  all  students,  regardless   of  their  likely  college  or  career  path.    For  example,  it  may  be  appropriate  to   consider  establishing  a  different  college  and  career  readiness  indicator  for   alternative  schools,  as  recommended  in  the  February  25  information  memorandum.     Support  high-­‐quality  CTE  sequences.    Begin  taking  steps  to  ensure  that  CTE   sequences  are  sufficiently  rigorous  to  prepare  students  for  post-­‐secondary  success   by,  for  example,  establishing  a  process  for  establishing  approved  CTE  course   sequences  aligned  with  CTE  model  practice  standards  and/or  establishing   independent  certification  requirements,  such  as  ConnectEd’s  certification  for  Linked   Learning  Pathways.    Alternatively,  a  key  indicator  could  give  more  weight  to   independently  certified  CTE  sequences.     A  possible  framework  for  a  composite  college  and  career  readiness  indicator     Regarding  the  components  of  a  specific  college  and  career  readiness  key  indicator,  we   recommend  a  composite  college  and  career  readiness  index  incorporating  a  tiered   approach  that  reflects  different  methods  by  which  students  could  demonstrate  college  and   career  readiness.    Consistent  with  other  key  indicators,  districts  or  schools  could  be  ranked   as  very  high,  high,  intermediate,  low,  or  very  low  based  on  the  percentage  of  students   achieving  at  each  level.         The  index/indicator  could  incorporate  a  combination  of  these  three  approaches  to  students   demonstrating  college  and  career  readiness.       1. Completion  of  A-­‐G  courses  required  for  UC  and  CSU  acceptance;     2. Evidence  of  being  college  ready  in  Math  and  English  (based  on  Early  Assessment   Program/11th  grade  SBAC  scores,  or  alternative  measures  such  as  passing  AP  tests   or  certified  dual  enrollment  courses  in  English  and  Math);  and     3. Demonstrate  college  or  career  skills  (such  as  through  CTE  pathways,  IB,  State  Seal  of   Biliteracy,  AP  or  certified  dual  enrollment)       3   An  example  of  this  framework  could  be:     Very  high   Satisfy  all  3  criteria     High   Satisfy  2  of  3  criteria     Intermediate   Satisfy  1  of  3  criteria     Low   Graduation  +  “ready”  or  “conditionally  ready”  on  either  Math  or  English  EAP;  or   Non-­‐graduate  and  CTE  pathway  completion     Very  low   Non-­‐graduate;  or   Graduation  without  CTE  pathway  or  scoring  ready  or  conditionally  ready  on  Math  or   English  EAP     CDE  already  has  performed  some  analysis  looking  at  a  combination  of  these  kinds  of   indicators.    For  example,  it  reported  in  the  February  25  memorandum  that  among  A-­‐G   completers,  42.4  percent  scored  “Ready”  on  EAP  tests,  while  21.4  percent  scored   “Conditionally  Ready.”    Among  CTE  completers,  it  found  that  19.8  percent  scored  “Ready”   while  15.7  percent  scored  “Conditionally  Ready”  on  the  EAP.    In  the  same  memorandum,   CDE  also  included  data  that  incorporated  students  meeting  other  benchmarks  such  as   passing  AP  tests,  among  students  overall  and  broken  down  for  A-­‐G  completers  and  CTE   pathway  completers,  respectively.     Next  steps  for  adopting  a  key  indicator  on  college  and  career  readiness     We  recognize  that  during  the  limited  time  frame  before  the  September  Board  meeting,  it   would  be  difficult  to  complete  all  the  analysis  necessary  to  adopt  a  composite  college  and   career  readiness  index.       Still  we  believe  that  it  is  critical  to  incentivize  college  and  career  readiness  through  the  key   indicators  as  soon  as  possible.    Accordingly,  we  recommend  that  the  State  Board   instruct  staff  to  provide,  by  March  2017,  a  preliminary  analysis  of  a  College  and   Career  Readiness  index  that  may  be  a  candidate  for  inclusion  as  a  key  indicator.    This   timeline  would  enable  potential  approval  at  the  September  2017  Board  meeting,  consistent   with  the  proposed  timeline  for  annual  review  of  additional  key  indicators.     4   While  awaiting  completion  of  this  analysis,  given  the  strong  evidence  related  to  course   taking  behavior  as  evidence  of  college  and  career  readiness,  we  recommend  that  the   Board  adopt  A-­‐G  completion  as  an  interim  key  indicator,  or  A-­‐G  completion  and  CTE   pathway  completion  as  distinct  interim  key  indicators.     Thank  you  for  your  consideration.     Sincerely,       Taryn  Ishida   Executive  Director   Californians  for  Justice     Samantha  Tran   Senior  Managing  Director,  Education   Children  Now     Laura  Rodríguez   Senior  Director   California  Government  Relations   College  Board     Ryan  J.  Smith   Executive  Director   The  Education  Trust–West     Dr.  Matt  Coleman   Executive  Director  and  Chief  Academic  Officer     Educational  Policy  Improvement  Center  (EPIC)     Brian  Lee,  J.D.   California  State  Director   Fight  Crime:  Invest  in  Kids     Jake  Ferreira   California  State  Director   Mission:  Readiness   Lieutenant  Commander,  U.S.  Coast  Guard  Reserve     Barrie  Becker   California  State  Director   Ready  Nation     5     CC:       Karen  Stapf  Walters,  Executive  Director,  California  State  Board  of  Education   Judy  Cias,  Chief  Counsel,  California  State  Board  of  Education   David  Sapp,  Deputy  Policy  Director  and  Assistant  Legal  Counsel,  California  State   Board  of  Education   Keric  Ashley,  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction   Nancy  Brownell,  Senior  Fellow,  Local  Control  and  Accountability,  California  State   Board  of  Education   Michelle  Magyar,  Local  Control  Funding  Formula,  California  State  Board  of   Education   Jannelle  Kubinec,  Director  of  National,  State  and  Special  Projects,  WestEd   6