California Department of Education Executive Office SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011) pptb-amard-nov17item01 ITEM #03 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION NOVEMBER 2017 AGENDA SUBJECT Developing an Integrated Local, State, and Federal Accountability and Continuous Improvement System: Approval of the Recommended Revisions to the Academic Indicator and the Recommendation for Chronic Absenteeism for the Fall 2017 Dashboard Release; Updates and Recommended Action Regarding Local Indicators; and Update on the California School Dashboard. Action Information Public Hearing SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S) With the approval of a new accountability system in May 2016, the State Board of Education (SBE) established an annual review process of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) evaluation rubrics, which is reported through the online California School Dashboard (Dashboard). This process includes the review of state and local indicators and performance standards to consider necessary changes or improvements based on newly available data, recent research, and/or stakeholder feedback. Under this process, the California Department of Education (CDE) includes state and local indicators that need revisions or updates in the work plan presented at each March SBE meeting. This process allows for a gradual and deliberate approach to improving the state and local indicators and incorporating changes prior to the annual release of the Dashboard each fall. RECOMMENDATION The CDE recommends that the SBE take the following action: 1. For the Academic Indicator: approve new Change cut scores, new High and Medium Status cut scores for mathematics, and a new color designation for the five-by-five grid (as detailed in Attachment 1). 2. For the Chronic Absenteeism Indicator: include information in the Fall 2017 Dashboard that redirects users to the Chronic Absenteeism reports on DataQuest. Additionally, direct CDE staff to develop a recommendation for the March 2018 SBE meeting on proposed Status cut scores that will subsequently be used to update the Fall 2017 Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism Indicator. Finally, direct CDE staff to develop a recommendation for the September or 11/5/2017 3:49 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Page 2 of 5 November 2018 SBE meeting on proposed Change cut scores (as detailed in Attachment 2). 3. For the local indicator for LCFF Priority 7-Access to Broad Course of Study: adopt standards for the local indicator consistent with the standards adopted by the SBE for the current local indicators (as detailed in Attachment 4). BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES Throughout the development of the new Accountability and Continuous Improvement System, the SBE has emphasized its commitment to review and revise the indicators and performance standards, as appropriate, as new data become available and as LEAs and stakeholders provide feedback on using the Dashboard over time. Academic Indicator At prior SBE meetings, the SBE has demonstrated a commitment to this principle of continuous improvement leading up to the adoption of the Academic Indicator. Specifically, in September 2016, the SBE decided that using one year of Smarter Balanced Assessment data provided limited information to base accountability decisions for LEAs and schools upon, and directed staff to incorporate the second year of Smarter Balanced Assessment data to determine the “Change” results. At the SBE November 2016 meeting, the SBE requested the use of scale scores to calculate the Academic Indicator results to provide a more precise measure of LEA and school Status and Change. Additionally, at the January 2017 meeting, the SBE approved a methodology based on the scale scores (Distance from Level 3) and set the Status and Change cut scores for the Academic Indicator. In September 2017, the CDE informed the SBE that it would present the analysis of the 2017 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments results to the Technical Design Group in October 2017, and bring any recommended changes for SBE consideration to the November 2017 SBE meeting. Chronic Absenteeism Indicator In September 2016, the SBE adopted the Chronic Absenteeism Indicator. Chronic Absenteeism is a metric required under LCFF (as part of Priority 5: Pupil Engagement). In addition, under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states are required to collect data to identify students who are chronically absent and report Chronic Absenteeism rates for schools in the State Report Card (California Education Code (EC) Section 1111[h][1][C] [viii]). The CDE collected information on Chronic Absenteeism for the first time at the end of the 2016–17 school year through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. In September 2017, the CDE indicated that, based on the availability and review of the data, this item would return for SBE action in November 2017. School Conditions and Climate Workgroup 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Page 3 of 5 The CDE convened the CCWG to advise the State Superintendent of Public Instruction on proposed revisions to LCFF Priortiy 6. The CCWG explored multiple options for the further development of school conditions and climate measures in California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System. The group includes a broad range of stakeholders, including practitioners, researchers, and advocates. A description of the recommendations and work of the CCWG is included in the October 2017 SBE Information Memorandum. (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-ocdoct17item01.doc and https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-ocdoct17item01a1.pdf) Local Performance Indicator for Access to a Broad Course of Study (Priority 7) At their July 2016 meeting, the SBE approved the College/Career Indicator (CCI) as a state indicator to address standards for LCFF Priority 7 (Access to Access to a Broad Course of Study) and Priority 8 (Outcomes in Access to a Broad Course of Study). As a measure of postsecondary preparedness, an LEA’s performance on the CCI is calculated using multiple appropriate measures including, but not limited to, career technical pathway completion, Early Assessment Program scores, Advanced Placement exam scores, dual enrollment, International Baccalaureate Diploma completion, and a-g course completion. The CCI Workgroup continues to work on the further improvement of the CCI. These measures, however, do not provide sufficient information to determine an LEA’s progress toward addressing the extent to which students have access to, and are enrolled in, Access to a Broad Course of Study (Priority 7). In September 2017, the CDE indicated to the SBE that they would develop a local indicator for Priority 7 for consideration at the November 2017 SBE meeting and adopt standards for the local indicator consistent with the standards adopted by the SBE for the current local indicators. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION Academic Indicator In January 2017, the SBE adopted performance standards for the Academic Indicator, using the methodology known as “Distance from Level 3,” or DF3. DF3 is the average distance between students’ scale scores on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for English language arts/literacy (ELA) and mathematics and the lowest possible score for the Standard Met Achievement Level (Level 3). (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/jan17item02.doc and http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/jan17item02a1addendum.doc) In September 2016, the SBE directed CDE staff to develop recommended cut scores and performance categories for the ELA and mathematics assessments in grades three through eight. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/sep16item01.doc) Chronic Absenteeism Indicator 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Page 4 of 5 In May 2016, the SBE adopted Chronic Absenteeism as a state indicator. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/may16item02revised.doc) In November 2014, the SBE adopted the LCFF template, which included the formula for calculating the Chronic Absenteeism rate. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr14/documents/nov14item14.doc) School Conditions and Climate Workgroup In October 2017, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  School Conditions and Climate Work Group: Recommendation Framework. (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-ocd-oct17item01.doc) In June 2017, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Update on the School Conditions and Climate Work Group (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-exec-ocd-jun17item01.doc) In March 2017, the SBE received an update on the School Conditions and Climate Workgroup. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/mar17item02.doc) In January 2017, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Update on the School Conditions and Climate Work Group (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-exe-jan17item01.doc) In December 2016, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Update on the Components of LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Including School Climate Priority 6 (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-dec16item02.doc) In November 2016, the SBE approved self-assessment tools for LEAs to determine progress on the local performance indicator for Priority 6-School Climate. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/nov16item03.doc) In September 2016, the SBE approved the standard for the local performance indicator Priority 6: Local Climate Surveys. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/sep16item01.doc) In August 2016, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Update on the Establishment of the Workgroup (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-sbe-aug16item01.doc) 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Page 5 of 5 In July 2016, the SBE approved the inclusion of a standard for the use of local climate surveys to support a broader assessment of performance on Priority 6. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/jul16item02.doc) In June 2016, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Process to Identify Options for School Climate Surveys (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-jun16item02.doc) Local Performance Indicator for Access to a Broad Course of Study (Priority 7) In December 2016, the SBE received the following Information Memorandum:  Overview on the Collection of Course Enrollment and Completion Data (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-nov16item01.doc) FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE) The 2017–18 state budget funds the Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee at $74.5 billion. This includes an increase of more than $1.4 million to support the continued implementation of LCFF and builds upon the investment of more than $15.7 billion provided over the last four years. This increase brings the formula to 97 percent of full implementation. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: Proposed Revisions for the Academic Indicator (29 Pages) Attachment 2: Update on the Chronic Absenteeism Indicator (3 Pages) Attachment 3: School Climate Local Indicator: Update on the School Conditions and Climate Work Group (CCWG) Recommendations (8 Pages) Attachment 4: Local Performance Indicator for Priority 7-Access to a Broad Course of Study (4 Pages) Attachment 5: Update on the California School Dashboard (1 Page) 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 29 Proposed Revisions for the Academic Indicator Background In January 2017, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved the Academic Indicator for inclusion in the California School Dashboard (Dashboard). The Academic Indicator is based on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments results for English language arts/literacy (ELA) and mathematics and applies to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with grades three through eight. (Grade eleven results are included in the College/Career Indicator and are not included in this indicator.) Calculations for Status and Change use a methodology known as Distance from Level 3, or DF3. The scale score ranges for the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments vary by both content area (ELA and mathematics) and grade level. DF3 represents the distance between a student’s score on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments and the lowest possible scale score for the Standard Met Achievement Level for each grade level and content area. For example, for the grade five mathematics test, the lowest Level 3 scale score is 2,528. Therefore, each grade five student’s math score is compared to this fixed number. A score of 2,505 is 23 points below Level 3, as illustrated below: Each grade level has different scale score ranges for each of the four achievement levels. In addition, the scale score ranges also differ by content area. As a result, each student’s distance from Level 3 is calculated separately by grade level and content area, and then all of the distances are combined to determine an average. The result is the DF3. The DF3 is calculated for each LEA, school, and student group. These results will show which areas are in need of improvement and the extent to which the average student score falls short of, meets, or exceeds the Level 3 threshold. Key Issues The central premise of California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System is the consideration of necessary changes or improvements based on newly available data, recent research, and/or stakeholder feedback. 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 29 In May 2016, the SBE approved the design for the Dashboard that included the establishment of a unique set of cut scores for each indicator, using distributions based on LEA-level data, which includes charter schools, and applying the LEA cut scores to all schools, where appropriate. The methodology used to produce the cut scores considers the LEA level distributions for Status and Change, respectively. This methodology is effective with data that is relatively stable year to year, producing a smooth trend in the data. Trend data show a pattern of gradual change in a certain direction over time—up, down, or sideways. Trend data provides the information to establish cut points that will remain stable over multiple years. For the Academic Indicator, three years of status data (2015, 2016, and 2017) and only two years of Change data (2016 and 2017) are available. While the distributions of Status are similar enough to create a smooth trend in the three years of data, the distributions of Change vary considerably from year to year, making it difficult to predict future change results. Even if the 2018 Change data were to closely match one of the current Change distributions, a smooth trend is unlikely to be established until at least three years of similarly distributed data are available, likely 2019 or later. When the performance standards were set for the Academic Indicator, only two years of Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment data were available (2015 and 2016), producing one year of Change data. The distributions used to set the performance standards were positively skewed, meaning that more than half of all LEAs had a positive change from 2015 to 2016. In fact, over 80 percent of LEAs experienced a positive change. The 2017 Change distribution is more symmetrical, with 45 percent of LEAs having a positive change from the prior year. Thus, the application of the 2016 cut scores to the 2017 Distance from Met results in far fewer LEAs identified with a Change level of Increased or Increased Significantly in 2017. 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 29 Tables 1 to 4 provide the performance levels for LEAs and schools based on the 2016 and 2017 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment results using the current cut scores and methodology for ELA and mathematics. For details on the cut scores and methodology, see the Addendum to the January 2017 SBE Item, at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/jan17item02a1addendum.doc. Table 1: Statewide LEA Performance— ELA Level Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Total LEAs 2016 81 177 751 354 208 1,571 2017 169 487 607 248 109 1,620 Table 3: Statewide School Performance —ELA Level Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Total Schools 2016 454 915 3,320 1,420 1,048 7,157 2017 933 2,097 2,577 1,182 473 7,262 Table 2: Statewide LEA Performance— Mathematics Level Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Total LEAs 2016 119 217 723 320 191 1,570 2017 231 410 605 259 114 1,619 Table 4: Statewide School Performance —Mathematics Level Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Total Schools 2016 581 1,018 3,166 1,424 966 7,155 2017 1,083 1,612 2,649 1,275 641 7,260 While the distributions for Status have remained constant from 2015 through 2017, the current Change cut scores have produced dramatic downward swings. For example, a school with a 2016 DF3 of +116.3 and 2017 +99.3 would move from a Blue to Yellow performance level. Some 200 highly successful schools (at the “High” or “Very High” Status level) dropped two performance levels in 2017 (from Blue to Yellow), even as the vast majority of their students continued to meet or exceed the state standards. Under the current set of cut scores, high performing schools must sustain continued improvement that may be untenable. In reverse, schools with a very low Status (more than 95 points below the DF3), that improve by just 15 points from the prior year could jump two performance levels (i.e., Red to Yellow). Applying the current cut scores and methodology to the 2017 DF3 would result in 1,117 schools (15 percent) moving up or down at least two performance levels in ELA. 11/5/2017 3:49:19 AM pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 29 This section shows the current color designations and cut scores for the five-by-five table, along with detailed information on the performance of LEAs and schools, using this methodology. Table 5: Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—ELA Change Level Very High 45 or more points above Declined Significantly Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by more than 15 points by 1 to 15 points Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 7 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow Declined by 7 to less than 20 points by 20 points or more Status High 10 above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below 2016 and 2017 ELA Results Using Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores Based on the current cut scores and methodology, the number of LEAs identified in the Red performance level for ELA would double from 81 (5.2 percent) to 169 (10.4 percent), as shown in Table 6. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 29 Table 6 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,571)1 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 81 (5.2%) 169 (10.4%) Orange 177 (11.3%) 487 (30.1%) Yellow 751 (47.8%) 607 (37.5%) Green 354 (22.5%) 248 (15.3%) Blue 208 (13.2%) 109 (6.7%) Based on the current cut scores and methodology, the number of schools identified in the Red performance level would also double from 455 (6.4 percent) to 933 (12.8 percent), as shown in Table 7. Table 7 School Results 2016 (n = 7,158)2 2017 (n = 7,262) 1 2 Red 455 (6.4%) 933 (12.8%) Orange 915 (12.8%) 2,097 (28.9%) Yellow 3,320 (46.4%) 2,577 (35.5%) Based on data posted in the Spring 2017 California School Dashboard. Based on data posted in the Spring 2017 California School Dashboard. Green 1,420 (19.8%) 1,182 (16.3%) Blue 1,048 (14.6%) 473 (6.5%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 29 Table 8: Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—Mathematics Change Level Declined Significantly Declined 35 or more points above Increased Increased Significantly by 1 to 10 points by 5 to less than 15 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow by more than 10 points Very High Maintained Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 5 points by 15 points or more High Status 5 below to less than 35 points above Medium More than 5 points below to 25 points below Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below 2016 and 2017 Mathematics Results Using Current Color Designation and Cut Scores Based on the current cut scores and methodology, the number of LEAs identified in the Red performance level for mathematics would almost double, from 119 (7.6 percent) to 231 (14.3 percent), as shown in Table 9. Table 9 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,570)3 2017 (n = 1,619) 3 Red 119 (7.6%) 231 (14.3%) Orange 217 (13.8%) 410 (25.3%) Based on data in the Spring 2017 Dashboard. Yellow 723 (46.1%) 605 (37.4%) Green 320 (20.4%) 259 (16.0%) Blue 191 (12.2%) 114 (7.0%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 29 Based on the current cut scores and methodology, the number of schools identified in the Red performance level for mathematics would nearly double, from 582 (8.1 percent) to 1,083 (14.9 percent), as shown in Table 10. Table 10 School Results 2016 (n = 7,156)4 2017 (n = 7,260) Red 582 (8.1%) 1,083 (14.9%) Orange 1,018 (14.2%) 1,612 (22.2%) Yellow 3,166 (44.2%) 2,649 (36.5%) Green 1,424 (19.9%) 1,275 (17.6%) Blue 966 (13.5%) 641 (8.8%) Considerations for Continued Use of Current Methodology As previously indicated, when the performance standards were set for the Academic Indicator, only two years of Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment data were available (2015 and 2016), producing one year of Change data. The California Department of Education (CDE) is concerned that the current methodology—based on only one year of Change data for the Academic Indicator—does not meet the intended purpose of the accountability system, which is to establish goals that are ambitious but also attainable by all schools throughout the state. The system should be stable and minimize volatility from year to year, and control for large swings (two or more) in performance levels (colors). The results produced in Tables 1 through 10 demonstrate that, while the distributions for Status have remained constant from 2015 through 2017, the current Change cut scores have produced dramatic downward swings. At the same time, the system should be fair and understandable so LEAs and schools are comfortable working with the system over time and able to frame their own communications, including the establishment of goals for their Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). Additionally, since the Academic Indicator uses scale scores rather than percentages, it is by design more susceptible to large swings in performance levels. The error of variance in scale scores is +20 to -20 for every student. Although, this only represents 1/3 of a standard deviation, which is substantially better than most standardized assessments, it contributes to the variability from year to year in the performance levels. The CDE consulted with the Technical Design Group (TDG) regarding the concerns with the current methodology. The TDG agreed that this should be further reviewed and requested that staff conduct multiple simulations to consider revisions to the methodology and cut scores for the Academic Indicator. Possible Options for Revising the Academic Indicator 4 Based on data posted in the Spring 2017 Dashboard. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 29 Although a smooth trend of Change data is not yet available, the large swing in the Change results—based on the current methodology and/or cut scores—are producing volatile results. The TDG explored the following alternative methodologies at their October 25, 2017 meeting: 1. Establish new Change cut scores and apply the results to a new color designation, as proposed by the TDG (i.e., change the arrangement of the colors within the five-by-five grid). 2. Maintain the current cut scores and apply the results to a new color designation. 3. Revise the cut scores and apply the change scores to: a. The current color designation b. An alternate new color designation, as proposed by the TDG 4. Use a two-year average to calculate Change (i.e., average of the average) and apply results to the:  Current color designation adopted by the SBE in September 2016 After reviewing multiple simulation results, and taking into consideration all of issues, the TDG recommended revisions to the Change level cut scores, a revision to the mathematics Status cut scores, and a new color designation. Below are the simulation results based on the TDG’s recommendation (Option 1). The following section provides simulation results for the remaining three options (labeled Options 2 through 4) as reviewed by the TDG. Option 1: TDG Recommended Methodology—New Change Cut Scores and New Color Designation Prior to setting any cut scores for the state indicators, the distributions (that includes statewide LEA data) are examined. The TDG followed this process and reviewed the Change distributions and the interaction of the change scores for: a) 2016, b) 2017, and c) the combined 2016 and 2017 change results before recommendations on the Change cut scores. After reviewing the data, the TDG determined it was important that the Change cut scores be more symmetrical to align with the cut scores established for the other indicators. The current cut scores for the Maintained range from less than -1 to less than +7 (ELA) and less than -1 to less than +5 (mathematics)—which is positively skewed (as discussed earlier). In comparison, the proposed revised Change cut score for Maintain ranges from less than negative three (-3) to less than positive three (+3). (Note: the CDE simulations were based on the Maintained Change cut score being set at less than negative two (-2) to less than positive two (+2). However, the TDG widened this range based on further review of the distributions and the standard deviation of the change scores.) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 29 The TDG also recommended revising the High and Medium Status cut scores for mathematics. The recommended proposed cut scores for High Status is zero points to less than 35 points above DF3 and the proposed Medium cut scores are 25 points below DF3 to less than zero points. These revisions ensures that LEAs and schools cannot receive a high status unless they have a positive DF3. This change addresses issues raised by advocacy groups after the release of the Spring 2017 Dashboard. In addition, the TDG recommended a revision to the color designation to bring more stability to the indicator. In the current five-by-five colored grid, most of the rows contain three colors, and one row contains four colors. The new recommended color designation limits each row to two colors. Since each row only has two colors, LEAs and schools that maintain their Status will always be one of two colors regardless of their change. As a result, a school with a very high status can only move from Blue to Green if it declines. A school will a very low status can only move from Red to Orange if it increases. Therefore, a school with a Red performance level must obtain a Low Status to move to a Yellow performance level (e.g., move from -85 DF3 to -70 DF3). The revisions to the color designations results in more Green cells (8) than the current five-by-five colored grid (5). The TDG agreed with having more green cells to ensure that very high performing schools do not receive a Yellow performance level. Members also supported having maintaining the current number of Blue cells, indicating that it should be difficult for schools and LEAs to achieve the Blue performance level. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 10 of 29 Table 11: TDG Recommended Methodology—New Change Cut Scores and New Color Designation—ELA Change Level Very High 45 or more points above Declined Significantly Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly By 3 to 15 points Declined by less than 3 points or Increased by less than 3 points by 3 to less than 15 points Green* Green Blue Blue Blue Green* Green* Green Green* Blue Yellow* Yellow* Yellow Green Green Orange* Orange Orange* Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Orange* by more than 15 points By 15 points or more Status High 10 points above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 points below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 points below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below *Change in Color Designation. Note: Italicized text indicates a change in cut scores. Tables 12 and 13 show the impact on schools and LEAs if both the new cut scores and new color designation were applied for ELA. The methodolgy was applied to the 2016 DF3 and the 2017 DF3. This shows the difference in results between the two years, using the same methodolgoy. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 29 Table 12 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,571) 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 48 (3.1%) 64 (4.0%) Orange 266 (16.9%) 628 (38.7%) Yellow 629 (40.0%) 404 (24.9%) Green 379 (24.1%) 391 (24.1%) Blue 249 (15.9%) 133 (8.2%) Red 306 (4.3%) 501 (6.9%) Orange 1,377 (19.2%) 2,660 (36.6%) Yellow 2,794 (39.0%) 1,698 (23.4%) Green 1,446 (20.2%) 1,806 (24.9%) Blue 1,235 (17.3%) 597 (8.2%) Table 13 School Results 2016 (n = 7158 ) 2017 (n = 7,262) Note: The data for 2016 represent the number of LEAs and schools assigned to each performance level with the application of TDG’s recommended methodology. As Tables 12 and 13 show, revising both the cut scores and color designation results in an increase in the number of LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017 compared to 2016 (64 vs. 48). The number of LEAs in Orange performance level also increases in 2017 when compared to 2016 (628 vs. 266). This divide applies to schools as well, with more schools assigned to the Red performance level in 2017 (501 vs. 306) and significantly more assigned to the Orange performance level (2,660 vs, 1,377). Conversely, fewer LEAs are in the Blue performance level in 2017 (133 in 2017 vs. 249) and fewer schools are Blue (597 vs. 1,235). The changes from 2016 to 2017 reflect that the 2017 ELA Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments were flat, but the changes are not as dramatic as they would be if the current methdology is maintained. When comparing the 2017 Option 1 results to the 2016 results based on the current methodology:  Fewer LEAs will be Red in 2017 compared 2016 (64 vs. 81), but more LEA will be Orange (628 vs. 177).  More schools will be Red in 2017 compared to 2016 (501 vs. 455), and more schools will be Orange (1,698 vs. 915).  Fewer LEAs will be Blue in 2017 compared to 2016 (133 vs. 208), but slightly more LEAs will be Green (391 vs. 354).  Fewer schools will be Blue in 2017 compared to 2016 (597 vs. 1,048), but more schools will be Green (1,806 vs. 1,420). pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 12 of 29 The new cut scores and color designation will results in an increase of LEAs and schools identified as Red or Orange in 2017 compared to 2016. In addition, fewer LEAs and schools will be Blues. These results reflect that the Smarter Balanced scores were relatively flat in 2017.). This section shows the impact of the TDG recommended methodology on mathematics. Table 14: TDG Recommended Methodology— New Change Cut Scores and New Color Designation—Mathematics Change Level Very High 35 or more points above Declined Significantly Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly By 3 to 15 points Declined by less than 3 points or Increased by less than 3 points by 3 to less than 15 points Green* Green Blue Blue Blue Green* Green* Green Green* Blue Yellow* Yellow* Yellow Green Green Orange* Orange Orange* Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange* Orange by more than 15 points By 15 points or more Status High zero points to less than 35 points above Medium 25 points below to zero Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below *Change in Color Designation. Note: Italicize text indicates a change in cut scores. Tables 15 and 16 show the impact on schools and LEAs if both the new cut scores and new color designation were applied for mathematics. Again, the methodolgy was applied to the 2016 DF3 and the 2017 DF3. This shows the difference in results between the two years, using the same methodology. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 13 of 29 Table 15 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,570) 2017 (n = 1,619) Red 47 (3.0%) 89 (5.5%) Orange 381 (24.3%) 600 (37.1%) Yellow 579 (36.9%) 456 (28.2%) Green 374 (23.8%) 349 (21.6%) Blue 189 (12.0%) 125 (7.7%) Red 276 (3.9%) 409 (5.6%) Orange 1,746 (24.4%) 2,419 (33.3%) Yellow 2,551 (35.7%) 2,050 (28.2%) Green 1,639 (22.9%) 1,702 (23.4%) Blue 944 (13.2%) 680 (9.4%) Table 16 School Results 2016 (n = 7,156) 2017 (n = 7,260) Similar to the impact noted in the ELA section above, Tables 15 and 16 show that revising both the cut scores for mathematics and color designation results in an increase in the number of LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017 compared to 2016. The number of LEAs assigned to Red is 89 vs. 47 and the number assigned to Orange is 600 vs. 381. This divide also occurs with schools in Red (409 vs. 276) and with schools in Orange (2,419 vs. 1,746). Conversely, fewer LEAs would be Blue (125 vs. 189). Fewer schools would also be Blue (680 vs. 944). When comparing the 2017 Option 1 results to the 2016 results based on the current methodology:  Fewer LEAs will be Red in 2017 compared 2016 (89 vs. 119), but more LEA will be Orange (600 vs. 217).  Fewer schools will be Red in 2017 compared to 2016 (409 vs. 582), but more schools will be Orange (2,419 vs. 1,018)  Fewer LEAs will be Blue in 2017 compared to 2016 (125 vs. 191) and fewer LEAs will be Green (349 vs. 320).  Fewer schools will be Blue in 2017 compared to 2016 (680 vs. 966). However, more schools will be Green (1,702 vs. 1,424). Again, the new cut scores and color designation will results in an increase of LEAs and schools identified as Red or Orange in 2017 compared to 2016, and fewer LEAs and schools being Blue, which reflects that the Smarter Balanced scores were relatively flat in 2017. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 14 of 29 This section provides the simulation results reviewed by the TDG for Options 2 through 4. Each simulation displays the methodology results for the 2016 and 2017 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment results, providing a comparison between the two years of data and a more realistic view of the impact that the proposed methodologies would have for LEAs and schools in California. Option 2: New Color Designation and Current Cut Scores Although the TDG recommended a new color designation, which limits each row to two colors in order to provide more stability over time, they determined that the Very High Status and Declined Change level should remain Green, rather than changing it to Blue (as shown below). In addition, they demined that the Change cut scores should also be revised. The revisions to the color designations below results in more Green cells (7) than the current five-by-five colored grid (5). The TDG agreed with having more Green cells to ensure that very high performing schools do not receive a Yellow performance level. In addition, the final decision was not to increase the number of Blue cells. Table 17: New Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—ELA Change Level Very High 45 or more points above Declined Significantly Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by 1 to 15 points Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 7 points by 7 to less than 20 points Green* Blue* Blue Blue Blue Green* Green* Green Green Blue Yellow* Yellow* Yellow Green Green Orange* Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Orange* by more than 15 points by 20 points or more Status High 10 above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below *Change in color designation. Tables 18 and 19 show the impact for ELA that the new color designation would have on LEAs and schools. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 15 of 29 Table 18 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,571) 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 59 (3.8%) 74 (4.6%) Orange 174 (11.1%) 481 (29.7%) Yellow 746 (47.5%) 569 (35.1%) Green 375 (23.9%) 323 (19.9) Blue 217 (13.8%) 173 (10.7%) Red 381 (5.3%) 553 (7.6%) Orange 915 (12.8%) 2,069 (28.5%) Yellow 3,276 (45.8%) 2,338 (32.2%) Green 1,474 (20.6%) 1,460 (19.6%) Blue 1,112 (15.5%) 842 (12.1%) Table 19 School Results 2016 (n = 7,158) 2017 (n = 7,262) As Tables 18 and 19 show, the application of the new color designation to 2016 and 2017 ELA data still results in more LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017. This reflects the drop in scale scores on the 2017 ELA Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments. In additon, fewer LEAs and schools are identified in the Blue and Green performance levels in 2017. The table below shows the impact of the new color designation for mathematics. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 16 of 29 Table 20: New Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—Mathematics Change Level Very High 35 or more points above Declined Significantly Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by 1 to 10 points Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 5 points by 5 to less than 15 points Green* Blue* Blue Blue Blue Green* Green* Green Green Blue Yellow* Yellow* Yellow Green Green Orange* Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Orange* by more than 10 points by 15 points or more Status High 5 below to less than 35 points above Medium More than 5 points below to 25 points below Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below *New color designation Tables 21 and 22 show the impact for mathematics on schools and LEAs if the new cut scores and current new color designation were applied. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 17 of 29 Table 21 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,570) 2017 (n = 1,619) Red 52 (3.3%) 93 (5.7%) Orange 242 (15.4%) 434 (26.8%) Yellow 723 (46.1%) 609 (37.6%) Green 357 (22.7%) 336 (20.8%) Blue 196 (12.5%) 147 (9.1%) Table 22 School Results 2016 (n = 7,156) 2017 (n = 7,260) Red 305 (4.3%) 432 (6.0%) Orange 1,140 (15.9%) 1,849 (25.5%) Yellow 3,160 (44.2%) 2,551 (35.1%) Green 1,520 (21.2%) 1,589 (21.9%) Blue 1,031 (14.4%) 839 (11.6%) As Tables 21 and 22 show, the application of the new color designation to 2016 and 2017 mathematics data results in more LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017 compared to 2016. In additon, fewer LEAs and schools are identified in the Blue performance levels in 2017. The following section shows the impact applying new cut scores to the current color designation. Option 3: New Cut Scores For all of the other state indicators, the Change cut scores are symmetrical. For example, the range for the “Maintained” Change level for the Graduation Rate Indicator is -1 to +1. However, since the 2016 results for the Academic Indicator were positively skewed, the cut scores were also positively skewed. As a result, the Change cut scores for the Academic Indicator are asymmetrical. For example, the range for the “Maintained” Change level is -1 to +7 for ELA, and -1 to -5 for mathematics. Since the 2017 Change results have a normal distribution, revising the cut scores based on 2017 data would align the cut scores to those set for the other state indicators. In addition, the Status cut scores for the High and Maintained Status level in mathematics were revised to ensure that LEAs and schools could not receive a High Status if they had a negative DF3. The following tables reflects the simulated results using two different color designations. a. Current color designation b. Alternate color designation (proposed by TDG) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 18 of 29 Option 3(a): New Cut Scores and Current Color Designation Table 23: New Cut Scores and Current Color Designation—ELA Change Level Declined Significantly Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by more than 15 points By 2 to 15 points Declined by less than 2 points or Increased by less than 2 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow Very High 45 or more points above Declined by 2 to less than 15 points By 15 points or more Status High 10 points above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 points below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 points below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below Tables 24 and 25 show the impact for ELA that the new cut scores would have on LEAs and schools. Table 24 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,571) 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 65 (4.1%) 155 (9.6%) Orange 172 (11.0%) 453 (28.0%) Yellow 725 (46.2%) 599 (37.0%) Green 363 (23.1%) 285 (17.6%) Blue 246 (15.7%) 128 (7.9%) Table 25 School Results 2016 (n = 7,158) 2017 (n = 7,262) Red 354 (5.0%) 871 (12.0%) Orange 860 (12.0%) 1,975 (27.2%) Yellow 3,344 (46.7%) 2,580 (35.5%) Green 1,378 (19.3%) 1,279 (17.6%) Blue 1,222 (17.1%) 557 (7.7%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 19 of 29 As Tables 24 and 25 show, revising only the cut scores while using the current color designation results in a significant increase in the number of LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017. When comparing the 2017 results to the simulated results for 2016, well over twice as many LEAs would be assigned to the Red performance level (155 compared to 65) and the Orange performance level (453 compared to 172), as shown in the tables above. This divide applies to schools as well, with more than double the number assigned to the Red performance level (871 in 2017 as compared to 354 in 2016) and the Orange performance level (1,975 in 2017 compared to 860 in 2016). Please note that the data for 2016 represent the number of LEAs and schools that would have been assigned to each performance level had the new cut scores been applied. Therefore, changing the cut scores alone, may not be sufficient. The next section shows the impact of the new cut scores for mathematics. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 20 of 29 Table 26: New Cut Scores and Current Color Designation—Mathematics Change Levels Declined Significantly Increased Increased Significantly by more than 15 points By 2 to 15 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow Very High 35 or more points above High Status Maintained Declined by less than 2 points or Increased by less than 2 points 1 point to less than 35 points above Medium 0 to 25 points below Declined by 2 to less than 15 points By 15 points or more Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below Tables 27 and 28 show the impact for mathematics that the new cut scores would have on LEAs and schools. Table 27 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,570) 2017 (n = 1,619) Red 82 (5.2%) 168 (10.4% Orange 226 (14.4%) 428 (26.4%) Yellow 719 (45.8%) 604 (37.3%) Green 355 (22.6%) 305 (18.8%) Blue 188 (12.0%) 114 (7.0%) Table 28 School Results 2016 (n = 7,156) 2017 (n = 7,260) Red 380 (5.3%) 705 (9.7%) Orange 1,084 (15.2%) 1,808 (24.9%) Yellow 3,185 (44.5%) 2,650 (36.5%) Green 1,573 (22.0%) 1,451 (20.0%) Blue 934 (13.1%) 646 (8.9%) As Tables 27 and 28 show, the application of the new cut scores to 2016 and 2017 mathematics data are similar to those found for ELA. Revising only the cut scores pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 21 of 29 results in a significant increase in the number of LEAs and schools assigned to the Red and Orange performance levels in 2017. In fact, when comparing the 2017 results to the 2016 results, twice as many LEAs and almost twice as many schools are assigned to the Red performance level. Neither model in isolation—the application of new cut scores only (Option 3a) or a new color designation (Option 2)—resolves the issue of Change distribution swings. Option 3(b): New Cut Scores and Alternate New Color Designation In this option, both the new cut scores and an alternate new color designation are applied. (Note: the revised cut scores are the same for both ELA and mathematics, so only the Status scores differ.) Table 29: New Cut Scores and Alternate New Color Designation—ELA Change Level Very High 45 or more points above Declined Significantly Declined Maintained Increased Increased Significantly By 2 to 15 points Declined by less than 2 points or Increased by less than 2 points by 2 to less than 15 points Green Blue Blue Blue Blue Green Green Green Green Blue Yellow Yellow Yellow Green Green Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Orange by more than 15 points By 15 points or more Status High 10 points above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 points below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 points below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below Tables 30 and 31 show the impact on schools and LEAs if both the new cut scores and first new color designation were applied together for ELA. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 22 of 29 Table 30 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,571) 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 43 (2.7%) 60 (3.7%) Orange 173 (11.0%) 460 (28.4%) Yellow 720 (45.8%) 567 (35.0%) Green 381 (24.3%) 349 (21.5%) Blue 254 (16.2%) 184 (11.4%) Red 280 (3.9%) 491 (6.8%) Orange 898 (12.6%) 1,984 (27.3%) Yellow 3,282 (45.9%) 2,363 (32.5%) Green 1,420 (19.8%) 1,542 (21.2%) Blue 1,278 (17.9%) 882 (12.2%) Table 31 School Results 2016 (n = 7158 ) 2017 (n = 7,262) As Tables 30 and 31 show, the number of LEAs and schools identified as Red increases slightly between 2016 and 2017, but the number identified as Orange more than doubles. Revising both the color designation along with the cut scores reduces the number of schools moving down two or more performance levels (Blue to Yellow). However, a significant number of LEAs and schools moved down one performance level (Yellow to Orange), which is consistent with the lower 2017 DF3 results. The next section shows the impact of the new cut scores and alternate color designation for mathematics. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 23 of 29 Table 32: New Cut Scores and Alternate New Color Designation—Mathematics Change Level Declined Significantly 35 or more points above Maintained Increased Increased Significantly By 2 to 15 points Declined by less than 2 points or Increased by less than 2 points by 2 to less than 15 points Green Blue Blue Blue Blue Green Green Green Green Blue Yellow Yellow Yellow Green Green Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Orange by more than 15 points Very High Declined By 15 points or more Status High 1 point to less than 35 points above Medium 0 to 25 points below Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below Tables 33 and 34 show the impact on schools and LEAs if both the new cut scores and alternate new color designation were applied together for mathematics. Table 33 LEA Results 2016 (n = 1,570) 2017 (n = 1,619) Red 46 (2.9%) 88 (5.4%) Orange 225 (14.3%) 405 (25.0%) Yellow 728 (46.4%) 641 (39.6%) Green 380 (24.2%) 335 (20.7%) Blue 191 (12.2%) 150 (9.3%) Red 258 (3.6%) 398 (5.5%) Orange 1,078 (15.1%) 1,735 (23.9%) Yellow 3,205 (44.8%) 2,696 (37.1%) Green 1,623 (22.8%) 1,582 (21.8%) Blue 983 (13.7%) 849 (11.7%) Table 34 School Results 2016 (n = 7,156) 2017 (n = 7,260) As Tables 33 and 34 show, the number of LEAs identified as Red for mathematics in 2017 is slightly higher than the number of LEAs identified as Red for ELA. Fewer schools were identified in the Red performance level for mathematics than ELA. However, revising both the color designation along with the cut scores reduces the pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 24 of 29 number of schools moving down two or more performance levels (e.g., Blue to Yellow or Green to Red) as compared to other methodologies. Next, we examine the impact of Option 4: Using a two-year average to calculate Change. Option 4: Two-Year Average (Current Cut Scores and Current Color Designation) Status Table 35: Two-Year Average Using the Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—ELA Change pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 25 of 29 Level Very High 45 or more points above Declined Significantly Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by more than 15 points by 1 to 15 points Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 7 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow Declined by 7 to less than 20 points by 20 points or more High 10 above to less than 45 points above Medium 5 below to less than 10 points above Low More than 5 below to 70 points below Very Low More than 70 points below Tables 36 and 37 show the impact of the new methodology for LEAs and schools. Note that in order to calculate the two-year Change average for 2017, three years of data are used (i.e., 2015, 2016, and 2017). Three years of data would be needed to calculate the two-year Change average for 2016 (i.e., 2014, 2015, and 2016). However, since the 2014 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments was a field test, no results were produced. For this reason, no comparision data for 2016 is provided in the tables below. Table 36 LEA Resultsit 2017 (n = 1,620) Red 96 (5.9%) Orange 273 (16.9%) Yellow 788 (48.6%) Green 315 (19.4%) Blue 148 (9.1%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 26 of 29 Table 37 School Results 2017 (n = 7,262) Red 599 (8.3%) Orange 1,171 (16.1%) Yellow 3,328 (45.8%) Green 1,392 (19.1%) Blue 772 (10.6%) Using a two-year average for Change resolves the temporary problem exhibited by the negative Change scores in 2017, but brings about its own series of issues. Using an average score for LEAs and schools will not reflect the true year-to-year growth/decline from the prior year, and instead distorts the results by meeting in the middle. This may hinder the LCAP process by not allowing LEAs to see what is really happening each year at their schools. It will also reflect artificial improvement or decline in years when good/bad scores drop out of the averaging calculation. The next section shows the impact of the two-year average for mathematics. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 27 of 29 Table 38: Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores—Mathematics Change Level Declined Significantly 35 or more points above Maintained Increased Increased Significantly by 1 to 10 points Declined by less than 1 point or Improved by less than 5 points by 5 to less than 15 points Yellow Green Blue Blue Blue Orange Yellow Green Green Blue Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Red Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Orange Yellow by more than 10 points Very High Declined by 15 points or more Status High 5 below to less than 35 points above Medium More than 5 points below to 25 points below Low More than 25 points below to 95 points below Very Low More than 95 points below Tables 39 and 40 show the impact of the two-year average on schools and LEAs. Table 39 LEA Results 2017 (n = 1,619) Red 134 (8.3%) Orange 287 (17.8%) Yellow 733 (45.3%) Green 320 (19.8%) Blue 145 (9.0%) Red 585 (8.1%) Orange 1,231 (17.0%) Yellow 3,066 (42.2%) Green 1,601 (22.1%) Blue 777 (10.7%) Table 40 School Results 2017 (n = 7,260) Again, the two-year average resolves the most immediate issues confronting LEAs and schools that had performance levels dramatically drop in 2017 using the current methodology and cut scores. However, the caveats raised earlier continue to apply. (Please see discussion followng Table 37.) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 28 of 29 The Academic Indicator, by defintion, is an average of the DF3 at the LEA, school, and student group levels. Combining more than one year of data creates an average of an average, which is difficult to intrepret and communicate, especially when discussing progress and setting goals for the annual LCAP. In addition, it masks the difference in results from one year to the next and it is not the best statistical method for use in an accountability system. The TDG also agrees that using “an average of an average” for the Academic Indicator is not a techanically vialable option. In the next section, a side-by-side comparison of all options is provided. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 29 of 29 Summary Comparison of All Options for Local Educational Agencies Tables 41 through 46 below summarize the results for the current methodology, as well the TDG recommended methodology and Options 2, 3, and 4. Table 41: Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores Year Content Area 2016 ELA 2017 ELA 2016 Math 2017 Math Red 81 (5.2%) 169 (10.4%) 119 (7.6%) 231 (14.3%) Orange 177 (11.3%) 487 (30.1%) 217 (13.8%) 410 (25.3%) Yellow 751 (47.8%) 607 (37.5%) 723 (46.1%) 605 (37.4%) Green 354 (22.5%) 248 (15.3%) 320 (20.4%) 259 (16.0%) Blue 208 (13.2%) 109 (6.7%) 191 (12.2%) 114 (7.0%) Table 42: Option 1—TDG Recommended Methodology—New Cut Scores and New Color Designation Year Content Area 2016 ELA 2017 ELA 2016 Math 2017 Math Red 48 (3.1%) 64 (4.0%) 47 (3.0%) 89 (5.5%) Orange 266 (16.9%) 628 (38.7%) 381 (24.3%) 600 (37.1%) Yellow 629 (40.0%) 404 (24.9%) 579 (36.9%) 456 (28.2%) Green 379 (24.1%) 391 (24.1%) 374 (23.8%) 349 (21.6%) Blue 249 (15.9%) 133 (8.2%) 189 (12.0%) 125 (7.7%) Table 43: Option 2—New Color Designation and Current Cut Scores Year Content Area 2016 ELA 2017 ELA 2016 Math 2017 Math Red 59 (3.8%) 74 (4.6%) 52 (3.3%) 93 (5.7%) Orange 174 (11.1%) 481 (29.7%) 242 (15.4%) 434 (26.8%) Yellow 746 (47.5%) 569 (35.1%) 723 (46.1%) 609 (37.6%) Green 375 (23.9%) 323 (19.9) 357 (22.7%) 336 (20.8%) Blue 217 (13.8%) 173 (10.7%) 196 (12.5%) 147 (9.1%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 1 Page 30 of 29 Table 44: Option 3a—New Cut Scores and Current Color Designation Year Content Area 2016 ELA 2017 ELA 2016 Math 2017 Math Red 65 (4.1%) 155 (9.6%) 82 (5.2%) 168 (10.4%) Orange 172 (11.0%) 453 (28.0%) 226 (14.4%) 428 (26.4%) Yellow 725 (46.2%) 599 (37.0%) 719 (45.8%) 604 (37.3%) Green 363 (23.1%) 285 (17.6%) 355 (22.6%) 305 (18.8%) Blue 246 (15.7%) 128 (7.9%) 188 (12.0%) 114 (7.0%) Table 45: Option 3b—New Cut Scores and Alternate New Color Designation Year Content Area 2016 ELA 2017 ELA 2016 Math 2017 Math Red 43 (2.7%) 60 (3.7%) 46 (2.9%) 88 (5.4%) Orange 173 (11.0%) 460 (28.4%) 225 (14.3%) 405 (25.0%) Yellow 720 (45.8%) 567 (35.0%) 728 (46.4%) 641 (39.6%) Green 381 (24.3%) 349 (21.5%) 380 (24.2%) 335 (20.7%) Blue 254 (16.2%) 184 (11.4%) 191 (12.2%) 150 (9.3%) Table 46: Option 4—Two-Year Average (Current Color Designation and Current Cut Scores) Year Content Area 2017 ELA 2017 Math Red 96 (5.9%) 134 (8.3%) Orange 273 (16.9%) 287 (17.8%) Yellow 788 (48.6%) 733 (45.3%) Green 315 (19.4%) 320 (19.8%) Blue 148 (9.1%) 145 (9.0%) pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 3 Update on the Chronic Absenteeism Indicator Background In September 2016, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted Chronic Absenteeism as a state indicator in the California School Dashboard (Dashboard). Chronic Absenteeism is a metric required under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) as part of Priority 5: Pupil Engagement. In addition, under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states are required to collect data to identify students who are chronically absent and report chronic absenteeism rates for schools in the State Report Card (California Education Code (EC) Section 1111[h][1][C][viii]). In accordance with the Local Control and Accountability Plan Template (Appendix A), (http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/documents/approvedlcaptemplate.doc), Chronic Absenteeism is defined as being absent ten percent or more of the schooldays in the school year. The Chronic Absenteeism rate is calculated by dividing the number of students who are chronically absent by an unduplicated count of the number of students enrolled during the school year. To facilitate the collection of these data elements, the California Department of Education (CDE) developed and implemented a new data collection in the California Longitudinal and Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) effective in the 2016–17 school year. This collection occurred between May 15 and August 25, 2017. Accordingly, this data was not available for inclusion in the Spring 2017 Dashboard release. To support local educational agencies (LEAs) with this new data collection, the CALPADS team offered special training courses in April and May 2017. The courses provided participants with a review of the required data elements, validation rules, reports, and certification components in CALPADS. Staff from approximately 828 LEAs participated in these trainings. To assist LEAs in preparing for this new data collection cycle, the CDE emphasized during the implementation process that the absenteeism data collected through CALPADS is a separate collection from the average daily attendance (ADA) data submission. The purpose of the ADA collection is for funding the LCFF or other similarly based programs. However, to the extent possible, the CDE utilized the same definitions so that LEAs could use the data that they already collected through the ADA submission process for their student-level submission to CALPADS. In addition, since this data collection occurs through CALPADS on an annual basis, the CDE also emphasized to LEAs that it: (1) is not intended to be an early warning system, and (2) will be useful to identify schools/LEAs that may require assistance in addressing attendance problems. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 3 Data Elements Collected The information collected in CALPADS for each enrolled student includes the following aggregate counts for the year:    The number of days a student could have attended The number of days a student attended o Regular Classroom o In-house Suspension The number of days a student was absent o Excused o Unexcused o Out-of-school Suspension Based on the student-level data submitted, LEAs received a certification report in CALPADS with the following information: CALPADS Certification Report 14.1 Absence Category Count of Students with Percent Absence Satisfactory Attendance < 5% At-Risk > 5% and < 10% Moderate Chronic Absent > 10% and < 20% Severe Chronic Absent > 20% Status of Data Analysis As indicated in the September 2017 SBE Agenda 2, Attachment 6 (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/sep17item02.doc), the CDE anticipated completing the data analysis to provide to the Technical Design Group (TDG) at their meeting on October 25, 2017. The initial review indicates that the first data collection is of high quality; however, additional analysis is required at the student group level that could not be completed prior to the TDG meeting. The CDE plans to continue the technical review of the data and is currently preparing the data for posting to the CDE’s data reporting Web site, DataQuest, for release at the same time as the Fall 2017 Dashboard. Following the completion of the student-level analysis and review by the TDG, the CDE recommends that the SBE include information in the Fall 2017 Dashboard to redirect users to the Chronic Absenteeism reports on DataQuest. It also recommends that the SBE direct CDE staff to develop a recommendation for the March 2018 SBE meeting on pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 3 proposed Status cut scores that will subsequently be used to update the Fall 2017 Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism Indicator. Finally, it recommends that the SBE direct CDE staff to develop a recommendation for the September or November 2018 SBE meeting on proposed Change cut scores. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 1 of 8 School Climate Local Indicator: Update on the Work Of School Conditions and Climate Work Group (CCWG) Recommendations At its July 2016 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved a methodology for establishing standards for local performance indicators, including one related to the use of local climate surveys to support a broader assessment of performance related to Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Priority 6-School Climate. The SBE adopted the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, including the standard for the use of local climate surveys, at its September 2016 meeting (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/sep16item01.doc). The approved approach focuses on the initial year of implementation of the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics as the state transitions to an integrated local, state, and federal accountability and continuous improvement system. Background The California Department of Education (CDE), in partnership with the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd, convened with the CCWG to explore options for the further development of school conditions and climate measures in California’s accountability and continuous improvement system. The role of the CCWG is advisory to the CDE and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI). The CCWG includes a broad range of stakeholders including practitioners, researchers, and advocates. Since September 2016, the CDE and CCWG have actively engaged, the California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG), local educational agencies (LEAs), and other external stakeholders in the process of creating and reviewing emerging ideas generated by the work group. The CCWG has worked diligently to synthesize their thinking and incorporate SBE, CPAG and stakeholder feedback to prepare a comprehensive set of recommendations to the CDE and SPI. The primary recommendations developed by the CCWG provide a framework for state and LEA level action and were included in the CCWG’s final recommendation framework. The framework includes detailed state and LEA level recommendations, a rationale for each, as well as a list of the CCWG members and was presented to the SBE via an Information Memorandum on October 26, 2017 (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-ocd-oct17item01.doc and https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-ocd-oct17item01a1.pdf). SBE members will be presented with a summary report of the work of the CCWG during the November 2017 SBE Meeting. This attachment presents a synthesis of the CCWG recommendations the CDE will likely bring forward to the SBE for discussion and approval which can be acted upon with existing resources and authority at a future SBE Meeting. In the interim, the CDE pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 8 will seek additional stakeholder feedback on the proposed recommendations (see Stakeholder Engagement Timeline) beginning in November 2017. No action is recommended at this time. However, The CDE recommends that the SBE provide direction, feedback, and guidance on the CCWG update. The CDE also recommends that the SBE take additional action as deemed necessary and appropriate on school conditions and climate policy-related decisions. CCWG Scope The CCWG’s process began with SBE direction to explore the development and inclusion of further school climate measures into the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics. 5 The CDE, in partnership with the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd, then convened a working group of experts to review the literature on school climate, socialemotional learning, and academic perseverance, and other states’ approaches to incorporating school climate measures in their accountability and improvement systems. Based on their review of the literature, the approach of other states, the experience of California LEAs and networks, and ongoing input from stakeholders, the working group was charged with identifying and analyzing existing measures for school climate. They identified options for how California could proceed by using or adapting existing measures, or developing one or more new measures for use as an indicator in the accountability and continuous improvement system. In addition, the working group identified tools, resources, and surveys that measure broader aspects of school climate, such as, parental involvement, conditions of learning, implementation of state academic standards, access to broad courses of study, and the coordination of services. Thus, the CCWG’s work continues to inform accountability and continuous improvement activities relevant to LCFF Priorities 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10. 6 An underlying principle guiding the work of the CCWG is the shared commitment to view school climate and conditions through three lenses: 1) equity, 2) validity and 3) meaningful family engagement. In consultation with stakeholders, the CCWG generated a school conditions and climate definition and set of features to establish a common foundation for the CCWG’s suggestions for policy development in the area of school conditions and climate. All of the CCWG’s recommendations are based on this common definition (see below). In light of this, the CCWG has developed a set of comprehensive recommendations for implementation at the state and LEA level to build capacity and supports for LEAs to 5 See SBE Information Memorandum: Process to Identify Options for School Climate Surveys and a Composite Measure of English Learner Proficiency for the Local, State and Federal Accountability and Continuous Improvement System, Attachment 1. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-dsib-amard-jun16item02.doc 6 See SBE Information Memorandum: Update on the School Conditions and Climate Work Group. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-exe-jan17item01.doc pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 8 measure and report their progress on school conditions and climate. These recommendations apply to all LEAs, schools, and student groups (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomically disadvantaged, foster youth, English Learners, and students with disabilities). Several of the CCWG’s recommendations will require additional state financial support, and, potentially, modifications of statute. The SPI and CDE will be actively working towards the implementation of the full set of CCWG recommendations in collaboration with stakeholders. Current SBE Adopted Approach and Self-Reflection Tool The current SBE adopted approach for the School Climate Local Indicator is as follows: Standard: LEA administers a local climate survey at least every other year that provides a valid measure of perceptions of school safety and connectedness, such as the California Healthy Kids Survey, to students in at least one grade within the grade span(s) that the LEA serves (e.g., K-5, 6-8, 9-12), and reports the results to its local governing board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the local governing board and to stakeholders and the public through the dashboard. Evidence: LEA determines whether it administered a survey as specified and reported the results to its local governing board and through the local data selection option in the Dashboard. Criteria: LEA assesses its performance on a [Met / Not Met / Not Met for Two or More Years] scale. The current Dashboard Self-Reflection Tool states that: LEAs will provide a narrative summary of the local administration and analysis of a local climate survey that captures a valid measure of student perceptions of school safety and connectedness in at least one grade within the grade span (e.g., K–5, 6– 8, 9–12) in a text box provided in the Dashboard. Specifically, LEAs will have an opportunity to include differences among student groups, and for surveys that provide an overall score, such as the California Healthy Kids Survey, report the overall score for all students and student groups. This summary may also include an analysis of a subset of specific items on a local survey that is particularly relevant to school safety and connectedness. Text Proposed Draft Recommendations for Future Consideration in 2018 pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 4 of 8 1. Approve the inclusion of useful tools, resources, and supports for school conditions and climate within the developing Statewide System of Support to support the capacity of system actors such as county offices of education, LEAs, and schools. 2. Approve the proposed update to the Self-Reflection Tool that guides LEAs in determining progress on the local performance indicators for School Conditions and Climate (Priority 6). 3. Direct the CDE to conduct further analysis to explore options for a combination and integration of self-reflection tools that can determine progress on multiple local indicators concurrently, to minimize duplication of effort. – i.e., Parent Engagement (Priority 3) and School Climate (Priority 6). Impact on Local Indicators The proposed recommendations will pose an impact on the local indicators for LCFF Priority 6. In addition, should the CDE develop and the SBE approve, a self-reflection tool that combines multiple local indicators, there could be an impact on local level implementation of the approved standards for Priorities 3 and 6 at the time of implementation. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 8 The following is a DRAFT revision to the self-reflection tool, from which the CDE will seek stakeholder feedback. The self-reflection tool is intended to assist LEAs in measuring and reporting progress on the local performance indicator for School Conditions and Climate (Priority 6). Proposed Update for the Self-Reflection Tool for School Climate (Priority 6) LEAs will provide a narrative summary of the local administration and analysis of a local climate survey that captures a valid measure of student perceptions of school safety and connectedness in at least one grade within the grade span (e.g., K–5, 6– 8, 9–12) in a text box provided in the Dashboard. LEAs will have an opportunity to include differences among student groups, and for surveys that provide an overall score, report the overall score for all students and student groups. This summary may also include an analysis of a subset of specific items on a local survey that is particularly relevant to school conditions and climate. Specifically, the LEA should include responses to the following guiding questions to help frame the narrative summary. (1) Reflect on the key learnings from the survey results, and share what the LEA learned. (2) Given the disaggregated results7 of the survey and other data collection methods, what does that reveal about schools in the LEA? (3) What revisions, decisions, or new actions will the LEA implement in response to the results for continuous improvement purposes? Why? Text 7 LEAs should report the results of their school conditions and climate tools on the Dashboard, by including a URL to a district website that shows the school conditions and climate survey results, disaggregated by student groups, with a minimum n-size, for each school site, if applicable. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 6 of 8 Timeline for Ongoing Developmental Activities for School Conditions and Climate (LCFF Priority 6)8 The CDE will continue to explore options to implement the remaining School Conditions and Climate Work Group (CCWG) recommendations to further the development of school conditions and climate measures in California’s accountability and continuous improvement system, including seeking additional stakeholder feedback on the proposed recommendations beginning in November 2017. Suggested Additional School Conditions and Climate Stakeholder Engagement Date Suggested Method Event Details  The CCWG will continue working to develop and refine December 2017 In-person recommendations  January 2017 Webinar   February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 and beyond 8 In-Person In-Person TBD  California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG), December, 5, 2017 The CCWG will continue working to develop and refine recommendations LCFF Evaluation Rubrics Local Performance Indicators: Update on School Conditions and Climate Work Group (Priority 6) (Date and Time to be determined (TBD) The CCWG will continue working to develop and refine recommendations  CPAG, February 15, 2018  Stakeholder Engagement Session (Date, Time, Location, TBD)  The CCWG will continue working to develop and refine recommendations  Note: The CDE anticipates presenting preliminary recommendations/options to the State Board of Education (SBE) for transition plan to support the use of school conditions and climate measures in the accountability and continuous improvement system (SBE Meeting in March 2018)  If necessary, the CCWG will continue working to develop and refine recommendations Dates and proposed development activities are subject to change. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 7 of 8 School Conditions and Climate Work Group Definition and Features Definition “School Conditions and Climate” refers to the character and quality of school life. This includes the values, expectations, interpersonal relationships, materials and resources, supports, physical environment, and practices that foster a welcoming, inclusive, and academically challenging environment. Positive school climate and conditions ensure people in the school community (students, staff, family, and community) feel socially, emotionally, and physically safe, supported, connected to the school, and engaged in learning and teaching. Features Features that promote a positive school climate and affect the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of both students and staff include, but are not limited to: ● An intentional student-centric commitment to meeting the basic cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health needs of youth and fostering the competencies and mindsets that contribute to success in school, career, and life; ● Caring, trusting, respectful relationships among and between students, staff, parents, and families; ● High expectations for academic achievement and behavior and the social-emotional and pedagogical supports students need to meet those expectations; ● The presence of meaningful stakeholder participation that fosters a sense of contribution, empowerment, and ownership; and ● A sense of order and safety grounded in clearly communicated rules and expectations, and fair and equitable discipline ● Well-maintained resources and facilities. Lenses Equity: The landscape of California schools includes a rich diversity of students with diverse needs that should be embraced to support community collaboration in a welcoming and responsive way. The CCWG’s intentional equity frame is intended to drive action aimed at increasing equity utilizing multiple layers of data disaggregation, including state, LEA, school, and student group levels. Validity: When considering what we measure, how we measure it, and how to interpret scores, we must work to ensure stakeholder understanding of the evidence to support particular uses of data. This includes helping data users to better understand tradeoffs when making choices about instruments related to issues with validity, reliability, fairness, and bias. Family Engagement: Research shows that parent engagement improves academic achievement and school connectedness. It is essential to capture and reflect a diverse set of pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 3 Page 8 of 8 parent voices in the recommendation. To that end, the CDE will link existing and ongoing work supporting Family Engagement to the CCWG with an additional work group and/or focus groups as necessary. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 4 Local Performance Indicator for Priority 7-Access to a Broad Course of Study At its November 2016 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved tools for local educational agencies (LEAs) to determine progress on the local performance indicators for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Priority 1-Basics, Priority 6School Climate, Priority 9-Coordination of Services for Expelled Students, and Priority 10-Coordination of Services for Foster Youth (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/nov16item03.doc). At its January 2017 meeting, the SBE approved tools for LEAs to determine progress on the local performance indicators for LCFF Priority 2-State Academic Standards and Priority 3Parent Engagement (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr17/documents/jan17item02.doc). LEAs will use these self-reflection tools to evaluate and report their progress on the California School Dashboard (Dashboard) in the local performance indicators. This attachment describes an approach to determine progress on the local performance indicator for LCFF Priority 7-Access to a Broad Course of Study using a narrative summary based on locally identified measures. The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends the SBE approve the inclusion of a local indicator for Priority 7 and adopt standards for the local indicator consistent with the standards adopted by the SBE for the current local indicators. The CDE will seek stakeholder feedback on the proposed self-reflection tool from October 2017 to February 2018 and present the final draft to the SBE at its March 2018 meeting for approval and integration into the Fall 2018 Dashboard release. Background The LCFF statute requires that the evaluation rubrics include standards for all LCFF priorities. An LEA’s performance, as assessed by the evaluation rubrics, is determined by state and local performance indicators and is reported through the Dashboard. State indicators meet the criteria of: (1) being valid and reliable measures, (2) having comparable state-level data, and (3) being disaggregated by student groups. These criteria ensure a common and comparable way of measuring performance on the indicators across the state, including for student groups. The SBE adopted state indicators for Priority 4-Student Achievement, Priority 5-Student Engagement, and Priority 6 at their September 2016 meeting. However, Priorities 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10, and one metric from Priority 6 do not have indicators that meet the criteria for state indicators. At its September 2016 meeting, the SBE set standards that support LEAs in tracking and reporting their progress within the remaining LCFF priorities through local performance indicators. The initial phase of the evaluation rubrics included local performance indicators for the following LCFF priorities: pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 4  Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities (Priority 1)  Implementation of State Academic Standards (Priority 2)  Parent Engagement (Priority 3)  School Climate—Local Climate Surveys (Priority 6)  Coordination of Services for Expelled Students—County Offices of Education (COEs) Only (Priority 9)  Coordination of Services for Foster Youth—COEs Only (Priority 10) At its September 2016 meeting, the SBE approved standards and the scale by which an LEA will assess its performance of meeting the standards for each of these local performance indicators (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/sep16item01.doc). For each local indicator, the standard involves: 1. Measuring LEA progress on the local performance indicator based on locally available information, and 2. Reporting the results to the LEA’s local governing board at a regularly scheduled meeting and to stakeholders and the public through the evaluation rubrics. LEAs assess their performance of meeting the SBE approved standards on a (Met, Not Met, or Not Met for More than Two Years) scale. LEAs make this determination by using SBE-adopted self-reflection tools that report an LEA’s progress through the Dashboard. The CDE is proposing adding the new local indicator and self-reflection tool for Priority 7-Access to a Broad Course of Study into the Dashboard for the Fall 2018 release. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 4 Page 3 of 4 The following is a DRAFT self-reflection tool, from which the CDE will seek stakeholder feedback. The self-reflection tool is intended to assist LEAs in measuring and reporting progress on the local performance indicator for Access to a Broad Course of Study (Priority 7). Self-Reflection Tool for Access to Access to a Broad Course of Study—Priority 7  Standard: LEA annually measures the extent to which students have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study consistent with California Education Code (EC) Section 51210 and in EC Section 51220 (a) through (i), based on grade spans, unduplicated pupil groups, and individuals with exceptional needs served, and reports the results both to its local governing board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the local governing board and to stakeholders and the public through the Dashboard.  Evidence: LEA determines whether it annually measured its progress through the use of a self-reflection tool included in the Dashboard, and reported the results to its local governing board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the local governing board and through the local data selection option in the Dashboard.  Criteria: LEA determines whether or not it has met the standard on the (Met, Not Met, or Not Met for Two or More Years) scale. Approach for Self-Reflection Tool to Use as Evidence LEAs provide a narrative summary of the extent to which all students have access to and are enrolled in a broad course of study by addressing, at a minimum, the following three prompts: 1. Briefly identify the locally selected measures or tools that the LEA is using to track the extent to which students have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study consistent with EC Section 51210 and in EC Section 51220 (a) through (i), based on grade spans, unduplicated student groups, and individuals with exceptional needs served. [Text] example of Text box 2. Briefly describe why the LEA chose the selected measures or tools. [Text] example of Text box pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 4 Page 4 of 4 3. Using the locally selected measures or tools, summarize the extent to which students have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study. The summary may identify differences across school sites and/or student groups in access to, and enrollment in, a broad course of study, and may describe progress over time in the extent to which students have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study. [Text] example of Text box Additional information about enrollment in courses and the number of courses offered in different subjects at schools is available on the CDE DataQuest Web page at http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?Level=District&subject=Course. pptb-amard-nov17item01 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 1 Update on the California School Dashboard The California Department of Education (CDE) and State Board of Education staff continue to prepare the data, communication resources, and technical components for the public release of the Fall 2017 California School Dashboard (Dashboard) (https://www.caschooldashboard.org/). To support the public rollout planned for the week of November 27, 2017, CDE staff presented at several conferences, including, but not limited to, the annual CDE North/South Assessment and Accountability Meetings; California Association of Administrators of State and Federal Education Programs; Advisory Commission on Special Education; and Local Control Funding Formula Stakeholder meeting. Additionally, a six-part Webinar series began on October 26, 2017 with a general introduction to the Dashboard and the local indicators, and culminates in early December following the 2017 Fall Dashboard release on how to use this new data in the Local Control and Accountability Plan process. Additional information about each of the Webinars is available on the CDE Fall 2017 Dashboard Webinar Series Web page at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/fall2017webinars.asp. The series complements the local educational agency private preview of the Dashboard, which begins November 1, 2017, with a rolling release of two state indicators per week through the week prior to Thanksgiving. An updated Dashboard Technical Guide and resource materials are in development for the public release. The resource materials include handouts that focus on English learners in the Dashboard, an introduction to the College/Career Indicator, overview of the Dashboard Alternative Schools Status, and how to use the 5 x 5 placement grids and reports. Spanish translations of the handouts will be available on the Dashboard Web site and CDE California Accountability Model & School Dashboard Web page at https://www.cde.ca.gov/dashboard.