Connecticut Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act U.S. Department of Education OMB Number: 1810-0576 Expiration Date: November 30, 2019 STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION July 17, 2017 Jason Botel Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Dear Assistant Secretary Botel: Recently, we received feedback from the U.S. Department of Education on Connecticut’s consolidated state plan, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Not only was the written feedback helpful, but the Office of State Supports and the Office of the General Counsel reviewed the feedback with us by telephone phone on three occasions. We appreciate the opportunities for clarification and thoughtful discussions. Ultimately, this helped us prepare our best possible plan resubmission. I am pleased to present to you Connecticut’s revised consolidated state plan. We would be happy to provide any additional information requested by the U.S. Department of Education. We remain committed to the work of ensuring all Connecticut students have access to a high-quality education that prepares them for success in college, career, and life. Sincerely, Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Dr. Dianna R. Wentzell Commissioner of Education P.O. BOX 2219 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06145 An Equal Opportunity Employer STATE OF CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION April 3, 2017 Betsy DeVos Secretary of Education U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202 Dear Secretary DeVos: I am pleased to present to you Connecticut’s consolidated state plan under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). We would be happy to provide any additional information requested by the U.S. Department of Education and we look forward to the work ahead in ensuring all Connecticut students have access to a high-quality education that prepares them for success in college, career, and life. Sincerely, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Dr. Dianna R. Wentzell Commissioner of Education P.O. BOX 2219 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06145 An Equal Opportunity Employer Contents Programs Included in the Consolidated State Plan .................................................................................... 2 Section 1: Long-term Goals ..................................................................................................................... 4 Section 2: Consultation and Performance Management .......................................................................... 16 Section 3: Academic Assessments ......................................................................................................... 35 Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools ......................................................... 39 Section 5: Supporting Excellent Educators ......................................................................................... 5957 Section 6: Supporting All Students .................................................................................................... 7674 Appendix A: Consultation and Performance Management ............................................................. 111104 Appendix B: Strategy Profiles ....................................................................................................... 239232 Appendix C: Educator Equity Differences in Rates ........................................................................ 278271 Appendix D: Supporting All Students ............................................................................................ 283276 Appendix E: Information Regarding Equitable Access to, and Participation in, the Programs Included in its Consolidated State Plan ............................................................................................................ 299292 Cover Page Contact Information and Signatures SEA Contact (Name and Position): Ellen E. Cohn. Deputy Commissioner Federal Liaison Telephone: 860?713-6600 Mailing Address: Of?ce ofthe Commissioner PO. Box 2219 Hartford, CT 06145 Email Address: Ellen.cohn@ct.gov By signing this document, I assure that: including the assurances in ESEA section 8304. To the best ofmy knowledge and belief, all inl'omiation and data included in this plan are true and con?ectl The SEA will submit a comprehensive set of assurances at a date and time established by the Secretary, Consistent with ESEA section 8302(b)(3), the SEA will meetthe requirements of ESEA sections 17 and 850i regarding the participation ofprivate school children and teachers. Authorized SEA Representative (Printed Name) Dr. Dianna R. Wentzell, Commissioner Telephone: 860-713?6500 Signature of Authorized SEA Representative Date: March 31, 2017 Governor (Printed Name) Dannel P. Malloy Governor, State of Connecticut Date SEA provided plan to the Govemor under ESEA section 8540: March 2? 2017 Signature of Governor Date: 5/ wn Programs Included in the Consolidated State Plan Instructions: Indicate below by checking the appropriate box(es) which programs the SEA included in its consolidated State plan. If an SEA elected not to include one or more of the programs below in its consolidated State plan, but is eligible and still wishes to receive funds under that program or programs, it must submit individual program plans that meet all statutory requirements with its consolidated State plan in a single submission. ☐ Check this box if the SEA has included all of the following programs in its consolidated State plan. or If all programs are not included, check each program listed below for which the SEA is submitting an individual program State plan: X Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies ☐ Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children X Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk X Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction X Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students X Title IV, Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants X Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers ☐ Title V, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program X Title VII, Subpart B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act): Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program 2 ☒ Check this box if the State has developed an alternative template, consistent with the March 13 letter from Secretary DeVos to chief state school officers. ☒ Check this box if the SEA has included a Cover Sheet with its Consolidated State Plan. ☒ Check this box if the SEA has included a table of contents or guide that indicates where the SEA addressed each requirement within the U.S. Department of Education’s Revised State Template for the Consolidated Plan, issued March 2017. ☒ Check this box if the SEA has worked through the Council of Chief State School Officers in developing its own template. ☒ Check this box if the SEA has included the required information regarding equitable access to, and participation in, the programs included in its consolidated State plan as required by section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act. See page See Appendix D. 3 Section 1: Long-term Goals Instructions: Each SEA must provide baseline data (i.e., starting point data), measurements of interim progress, and long-term goals for academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language proficiency. For each goal, the SEA must describe how it established its long-term goals, including its State-determined timeline for attaining such goals, consistent with the requirements in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA.. Each SEA must provide goals and measurements of interim progress for the all students group and separately for each subgroup of students, consistent with the State's minimum number of students. In the tables below, identify the baseline (data and year) and long-term goal (data and year). If the tables do not accommodate this information, an SEA may create a new table or text box(es) within this template. Each SEA must include measurements of interim progress for academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language proficiency in Appendix A. A. Academic Achievement. i. Description. Describe how the SEA established its ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for improved academic achievement, including how the SEA established its State-determined timeline for attaining such goals. The CSDE strongly believes that an excellent public education can enable every child – regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, family wealth, zip code, or disability status – to master challenging academic curriculum and achieve at the highest levels. Students will increase their proficiency on the annual state assessment if they evidence growth on those assessments toward higher levels of achievement from one year to the next. Therefore, in response to strong stakeholder input favoring academic student growth over status achievement for accountability, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) will utilize both achievement and the results from its Smarter Balanced matched student cohort growth model as the measures for this long-term goal. Academic Achievement Webster’s dictionary defines proficiency not only as a state of being proficient but also as an advancement in knowledge or skill. In large scale tests, the scale scores are the most accurate measure of a student’s proficiency. The scale score is just another way to express a student’s grade-level proficiency; it is based directly on how well the student did on the test questions. Students with low scale scores are referred to as having low proficiency while those with high scale scores are said to have high proficiency. All students have potential to work and advance their knowledge or skill or proficiency in the subject area. Moreover, the levels of performance that are established based on the scale scores after a standard-setting process are referred to as “proficiency levels,” implying that there are varying levels of proficiency. The CSDE measures “proficiency on the annual assessment” as required by ESSA using its performance/proficiency index. This index is derived from the underlying scale scores of the assessments. The scale score is the fundamental and most accurate estimate of a 4 student’s grade-level proficiency. The plain language of the statute does not require that grade-level proficiency be viewed solely as a binary determination of proficient or not proficient. The scale score represents the degree of grade-level proficiency on the annual assessment that is achieved by the student in a subject area. Therefore, CSDE’s performance/proficiency index that is based on the underlying scale scores is in conformance with the statute. The ultimate target for this performance/proficiency index is 75. This represents that students, on average, are performing solidly in the desired achievement level. This expectation is greater than the minimal score required to be classified into the desired level. At a student-level, this index value of 75 is achieved only when the student is performing solidly in the desired level of performance. Let’s look at an example. A student in grade 3 takes the ELA Smarter Balanced assessment. The scale score range for Level 3 (i.e., the desired level) is 2432-2489. The minimum proficiency score of 2432 will yield an index value of 68.7 which is below the ultimate target of 75; only at a score of 2461 (which is approximately halfway in Level 3) will the index value equal 75. Therefore, an index of 75 implies that the group is, on average, performing solidly in the desired performance level. The tables below illustrate the scale score at which the student achieves the state target of 75 on the performance/proficiency index on the ELA and mathematics assessments. As is evident, in all cases, that scale score is much greater than the cut score for the desired achievement level (i.e., Level 3). Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Scale Score that corresponds to an index of 75* Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 3 2114-2366 2367-2431 2432-2489 2490-2623 2461 Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 4 2131-2415 2416-2472 2473-2532 2533-2663 2494 Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 5 2201-2441 2442-2501 2502-2581 2582-2701 2542 Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 6 2210-2456 2457-2530 2531-2617 2618-2724 2560 Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 7 2258-2478 2479-2551 2552-2648 2649-2745 2590 Smarter Balanced ELA Grade 8 2288-2486 2487-2566 2567-2667 2668-2769 2616 SAT Evidenced-Based Reading and Writing Grade 11 200-410 420-470 480-620 630-800 610 ELA Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Scale Score that corresponds to an index of 75* Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 3 2189-2380 2381-2435 2436-2500 2501-2621 2484 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 4 2204-2410 2411-2484 2485-2548 2549-2659 2514 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 5 2219-2454 2455-2527 2528-2578 2579-2700 2547 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 6 2235-2472 2473-2551 2552-2609 2610-2748 2585 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 7 2250-2483 2484-2566 2567-2634 2635-2778 2610 Smarter Balanced Mathematics Grade 8 2265-2503 2504-2585 2586-2652 2653-2802 2631 SAT Mathematics Grade 11 200-410 420-520 530-640 650-800 610 Mathematics *This is the scale score at which the student achieves the state target on the performance/proficiency index. 5 As a frame of reference, schools with index scores of 75 or better have around 70 percent or greater of their students at or above the threshold score for the desired achievement level. Connecticut’s long-term goals for academic achievement based on its performance/proficiency index for both ELA and Mathematics are presented below. English Language Arts (ELA) State Performance/Proficiency Index Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities English learners Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or more races White High needs Baseline (2016-17)* Interim 1 (2020-21) Interim 2 (2023-24) Interim 3 (2026-27) Long-term Goal (2029-30) 67.7 57.0 47.0 51.0 70.2 65.3 63.8 78.2 55.7 57.3 69.9 62.5 55.6 58.4 71.7 68.3 67.2 75.0 61.6 62.7 71.6 66.7 62.1 63.9 72.8 70.5 69.8 75.0 66.1 66.8 73.3 70.8 68.5 69.5 73.9 72.8 72.4 75.0 70.5 70.9 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 68.1 70.2 71.8 73.4 75.0 69.8 73.3 56.7 71.4 73.8 62.3 72.6 74.2 66.6 73.8 74.6 70.8 75.0 75.0 75.0 Mathematics State Performance/Proficiency Index Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities English learners Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or more races White High needs Baseline (2016-17)* Interim 1 (2020-21) Interim 2 (2023-24) Interim 3 (2026-27) Long-term Goal (2029-30) 61.4 49.8 40.6 46.0 61.6 61.2 56.8 76.2 47.7 50.2 65.6 57.6 51.2 54.9 65.7 65.4 62.4 75.0 56.1 57.8 68.7 63.4 59.1 61.6 68.8 68.6 66.6 75.0 62.4 63.6 71.9 69.2 67.1 68.3 71.9 71.8 70.8 75.0 68.7 69.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 62.3 66.2 69.1 72.1 75.0 63.1 61.4 49.9 66.8 65.6 57.6 69.5 68.7 63.4 72.3 71.9 69.2 75.0 75.0 75.0 6 *Performance/Proficiency index from 2015-16 are used for illustrative purposes. The final baseline and interim targets will be calculated when the 2016-17 index results are available in late fall 2017. The CSDE also publicly reports the percentage of students who meet/exceed the desired standard for all students/subgroups at the state, district, and school levels (sample below). Formatted: Font: Times New Roman However, Connecticut uses its performance/proficiency index for accountability calculations for the following reasons: Characterizing a student’s achievement solely as falling into an achievement level is an extreme oversimplification. The position paper released by Smarter Balanced after completion of the standard-setting process asserts that “…they [achievement levels] will be less precise than scale scores for describing student gains over time or changes in achievement gaps among groups, since they do not reveal changes of student scores within the bands defined by the achievement levels. Furthermore, there is not a critical shift in student knowledge or understanding that occurs at a single cut score point.” Solely relying on a binary proficient/not proficient approach encourages unsound educational practices. This position was vigorously advocated by Dr. Morgan Polikoff, associate professor at the University of Souther California, in his letter to the USED in July 2016 wherein he urged that the USED not mandate the use of proficiency rates as a metric of school performance under ESSA. This letter was signed by dozens of experts in educational measurement notably including Andrew Ho, Ph.D., from Harvard University, Linda DarlingHammond, Ed.D., from Stanford University, and Sean P. “Jack” Buckley, Ph.D., then from the College Board. Many other advocates and local district educators also signed it. Dr. Polikoff references several articles that have 7 documented the harmful, unintended consequences resulting from an overreliance on the “percent proficient” metric that: o incentivizes schools to focus only on students around the proficiency cutoff rather than all students in a school; o encourages teachers to focus on bringing students to a minimum level of proficiency rather than continuing to advance student learning to higher levels of performance beyond proficiency; o is not a reliable measure of district, school, or subgroup performance; o is a very poor measure of performance gaps between subgroups; and o penalizes schools that serve larger proportions of low-achieving students as schools are not given credit for improvements in performance other than the move to proficiency from not-proficient. Each of the above side-effects have been evidenced in Connecticut and in many schools around the country. Having implemented the scale score based index for the past two years, the CSDE can confidently say that this approach is encouraging districts and school leaders to focus on all students across the performance spectrum instead of limiting their energies to “kids on the bubble.” Connecticut’s performance/proficiency index is highly correlated (0.9 or greater) with the percent proficient metric when looking at all students. However, when looking at the performance of individual subgroups, especially low performing subgroups, the correlations drop dramatically to around 0.55. The CSDE is extremely concerned that the practice of focusing solely on “bubble kids” will be applied most with historically low-performing subgroups, thus negatively affecting our most vulnerable students. The CSDE decided to move to a scale score based index based on stakeholder feedback and after consultation with members of our Technical Advisory Committee. USED approved this index in 2015 as part of Connecticut’s ESEA Flexibility renewal. Academic Growth New students enter the public education system in all grades every year. Therefore, it is most appropriate for an academic goal of an education system to expect that all students, regardless of their starting point, will make adequate academic growth during the school year. Prominently focusing on growth ensures that we do not overemphasize proficiency as happened during the NCLB-era. Connecticut’s academic growth model in English Language Arts and Mathematics is explained in great detail in this technical report. The model establishes individual student growth targets for students in grades 4 through 8. The metric that will be used is the average percentage of growth target that is achieved by all students in grades 4 through 8 combined. This plan establishes a 13-year timeframe because that aligns with the time required for one full cohort of students to progress 8 through the public education system from kindergarten in 2017-18 to grade 12 in 202930. The ultimate target for this indicator for all students and all subgroups is an average percentage of target achieved of 100. Linear interim targets will be established for every third year after the first year. The baseline year will be the growth results achieved in the 2016-17 school year. Since those results will not be available until October 2017, the tables on the following page use the 2015-16 growth results for illustrative purposes. The final baseline and interim targets will be calculated after October 2017. The chart that follows the tables takes the targets for a few student groups (for Reading/Language Arts) to illustrate how this approach: establishes the same ultimate target for all student groups; establishes the same long-term timeframe for all student groups; and expects steeper improvements from groups with lower growth rates. Reading/Language Arts Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities English learners Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races White High Needs Average Percentage of Growth Target Achieved Long-term Baseline Interim 1 Interim 2 Interim 3 Goal (2016-17)* (2020-21) (2023-24) (2026-27) (2029-30) 63.80% 74.9% 83.3% 91.6% 100% 58.20% 71.1% 80.7% 90.4% 100% 54.90% 68.8% 79.2% 89.6% 100% 58.60% 71.3% 80.9% 90.4% 100% 65.70% 76.3% 84.2% 92.1% 100% 61.90% 73.6% 82.4% 91.2% 100% 63.90% 75.0% 83.3% 91.7% 100% 73.50% 81.7% 87.8% 93.9% 100% 56.60% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100% 58.80% 71.5% 81.0% 90.5% 100% 68.10% 77.9% 85.3% 92.6% 100% 64.20% 66.40% 58.30% 75.2% 76.7% 71.1% 83.5% 84.5% 80.8% 91.7% 92.2% 90.4% 100% 100% 100% 9 Mathematics Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities English learners Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races White High Needs Average Percentage of Growth Target Achieved Long-term Baseline Interim 1 Interim 2 Interim 3 Goal (2016-17)* (2020-21) (2023-24) (2026-27) (2029-30) 65.00% 75.8% 83.8% 91.9% 100% 57.20% 70.4% 80.2% 90.1% 100% 54.40% 68.4% 79.0% 89.5% 100% 59.50% 72.0% 81.3% 90.7% 100% 65.70% 76.3% 84.2% 92.1% 100% 64.30% 75.3% 83.5% 91.8% 100% 63.60% 74.8% 83.2% 91.6% 100% 79.40% 85.7% 90.5% 95.2% 100% 55.30% 69.1% 79.4% 89.7% 100% 58.20% 71.1% 80.7% 90.4% 100% 72.20% 80.8% 87.2% 93.6% 100% 65.30% 68.40% 57.40% 76.0% 78.1% 70.5% 84.0% 85.4% 80.3% 92.0% 92.7% 90.2% 100% 100% 100% * Since growth results for 2016-17 will not be available until October 2017, these are 2015-16 growth results and used for illustrative purposes. The final baseline and interim targets will be calculated after October 2017. 10 B. Graduation Rate. i. Description. Describe how the SEA established its ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for improved four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates, including how the SEA established its State-determined timeline for attaining such goals. As with academic growth, the four-year graduation rate goal: establishes the same ultimate target for all student groups; establishes the same long-term timeframe (13 years) for all student groups; and expects steeper improvements from groups with lower graduation rates. The ultimate target for this indicator for all students and all subgroups is 94 percent. Linear interim targets will be established for every third year after the first year. The baseline year will be the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for the 2015-16 school year. Since those final results will not be available until April 2017, the following table uses the 2014-15 results for illustrative purposes. The final baseline and interim targets will be calculated after May 2017. ii. Provide the baseline and long-term goals for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate in the table below. Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged Students with disabilities English learners Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races White High Needs Four Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Long-term Baseline Interim 1 Interim 2 Interim 3 Goal (2015-16)* (2019-20) (2022-23) (2025-26) (2028-29) 87.2% 89.3% 90.9% 92.4% 94.0% 76.0% 81.5% 85.7% 89.8% 94.0% 65.6% 74.3% 80.9% 87.4% 94.0% 66.7% 75.1% 81.4% 87.7% 94.0% 90.1% 91.3% 92.2% 93.1% 94.0% 84.4% 87.4% 89.6% 91.8% 94.0% 87.1% 89.2% 90.8% 92.4% 94.0% 94.8% 94.0% 94.0% 94.0% 94.0% 78.1% 83.0% 86.7% 90.3% 94.0% 74.8% 80.7% 85.1% 89.6% 94.0% 72.0% 78.8% 83.8% 88.9% 94.0% 86.7% 92.7% 76.1% 88.9% 93.1% 81.6% 90.6% 93.4% 85.7% 92.3% 93.7% 89.9% 94.0% 94.0% 94.0% 11 *Since final results for the 2014-15 cohort will not be available until April 2017, the following table uses the 2014-15 results for illustrative purposes. The final baseline and interim targets will be calculated after May 2017. C. English Language Proficiency. i. Description. Describe the State’s uniform procedure, applied consistently to all English learners in the State, to establish research-based student-level targets on which the goals and measurements of interim progress are based. The description must include: 1. How the State considers a student’s English language proficiency level at the time of identification and, if applicable, any other student characteristics that the State takes into account (i.e., time in language instruction programs, grade level, age, Native language proficiency level, or limited or interrupted formal education, if any). 2. The applicable timelines over which English learners sharing particular characteristics would be expected to attain ELP within a State-determined maximum number of years and a rationale for that State-determined maximum. 3. How the student-level targets expect all English learners to make annual progress toward attaining English language proficiency within the applicable timelines. The CSDE is in the process of creating has created a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment. It will uses an approach that is similar to one that was used successfully to create a growth model for the Smarter Balanced ELA and Mathematics assessments. This growth model is explained in great detail in a technical report. The model establishes criterion referenced growth targets for students at different points on the achievement spectrum within each grade. In addition to conditioning the ELP assessment growth targets on starting achievement level within each grade, other considerations will be applied. These include empirical data (i.e., the actual amount of growth achieved by the same students from one year to the next), the combined average standard error of measurement for tests from both years, and the number of years it takes with the established targets to achieve English language mastery. Connecticut’s mastery standard on its current English Language Proficiency assessment (i.e., LAS Links Forms C and D) in order for a student to be exited from English learner status is the attainment of levels 4 or 5 in three areas: overall score, Reading and Writing. Research on English language acquisition identifies two interrelated sets of language skills that compose language proficiency: basic interpersonal communication skills, which refers to contextualized conversational language skills, and cognitive academic language proficiency, which includes more abstract decontextualized language skills. These studies suggest that while native-like proficiency in basic communication skills takes about three to five years, academic language proficiency requires four to seven years. 12 The state-determined timeline (i.e., maximum years to achieve English language proficiency) is five.Preliminary analyses indicate that the maximum number of years to English language mastery may be set at five. The ultimate target for this indicator is an average percentage of target achieved of 100 for all English learners. Linear interim targets will be established for every third year after the first year. Growth on the LAS Links vertical scale will be measured on two dimensions: Oral and Literacy. The Oral score is a composite of the listening and speaking components while the Literacy score is a composite of the reading and writing components. Growth on both dimensions will be included separately in the accountability system. This sends a clear message to educators that English learners need to grow on both dimensions. They cannot compensate for one dimension by higher growth on the other. The composite score (e.g., Oral) is more reliable than the score derived from an individual skill area (e.g., Listening) because the composite score is derived from more test items. Each student’s actual scale score growth achieved in a dimension (i.e., Oral or Literacy) is compared against his/her growth target for that dimension. The extent of growth achieved relative to the target is the percentage of target that is achieved by that student. This is capped at 110%. When this percentage of target achieved is averaged for all students, it yields the average percentage of target achieved for the district/school. The expectation is that this average will be 100% for both dimensions. The percentage of students meeting/exceeding their individual growth targets, which is referred to as the growth rate, is also reported. Fifty points will be awarded for growth on each dimension within the accountability system. A district/school will earn points based on the average percentage of target achieved. The ultimate target for this indicator will be 100% for both dimensions. For example, if a school has an average percentage of target achieved in Oral of 80%, then the school will earn 40 out of 50 points for the indicator that pertains to the Oral dimension. If that same school has an average percentage of target achieved in Literacy of 60%, then that school will earn 30 out of 50 points for the indicator that pertains to the Literacy dimension. The ELP Oral growth table is presented below. Note that students who achieve the expected growth targets will reach the desired level of proficiency (Levels 4 or 5) in five years or less. The growth trajectory for a hypothetical kindergarten student with an oral score of 335, who subsequently achieves the expected targets, is presented below. As is evident, this student reaches Level 4 in four years. 13 Grade in Yr. 1 Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Level 1 300-429 61 300-431 68 330-442 59 330-443 79 355-449 82 355-451 76 362-454 78 362-459 73 362-464 60 370-464 60 370-467 63 370-470 53 370-471 ELP Growth Table (ORAL) Level 2 Level 3 430-460 461-486 36 28 432-462 463-489 33 25 443-469 470-494 32 26 444-470 471-504 32 28 450-477 478-513 44 32 452-484 485-515 38 25 455-480 481-517 46 31 460-484 485-520 43 32 465-491 492-524 30 14 465-489 490-524 28 22 468-494 495-526 33 25 471-496 497-529 31 24 472-499 500-530 Level 4 487-525 Maintain 490-529 Maintain 495-539 Maintain 505-547 Maintain 514-574 Maintain 516-579 Maintain 518-574 Maintain 521-579 Maintain 525-581 Maintain 525-560 Maintain 527-565 Maintain 530-566 Maintain 531-568 Level 5 526-555 Maintain 530-555 Maintain 540-580 Maintain 548-580 Maintain 575-637 Maintain 580-637 Maintain 575-662 Maintain 580-662 Maintain 582-662 Maintain 561-690 Maintain 566-690 Maintain 567-690 Maintain 569-690 Level 4 454-494 Level 5 495-590 The ELP Growth Table for Literacy is presented below. Grade in Yr. 1 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ELP Growth Table (LITERACY) Level 2 Level 3 351-398 399-453 Range Level 1 220-350 Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range 111 230-356 96 285-429 75 285-431 80 325-450 87 325-451 82 340-473 75 357-409 68 430-472 49 432-478 51 451-500 53 452-501 46 474-512 68 410-455 61 473-500 40 479-515 44 501-533 40 502-536 31 513-552 Maintain 456-506 Maintain 501-544 Maintain 516-553 Maintain 534-585 Maintain 537-586 Maintain 553-598 Maintain 507-590 Maintain 545-625 Maintain 554-625 Maintain 586-680 Maintain 587-680 Maintain 599-700 Target Range Target Range 80 340-473 75 340-474 47 474-513 48 475-514 37 514-553 39 515-553 Maintain 554-599 Maintain 554-599 Maintain 600-700 Maintain 600-700 14 Grade in Yr. 1 9 10 11 12 Target Range Target Range Target Range Target Range Level 1 59 350-477 63 350-477 60 350-478 60 350-479 ELP Growth Table (LITERACY) Level 2 Level 3 38 26 478-521 522-564 38 26 478-522 523-564 36 25 479-523 524-565 33 23 480-524 525-566 Level 4 Maintain 565-612 Maintain 565-612 Maintain 566-613 Maintain 567-614 Level 5 Maintain 613-717 Maintain 613-717 Maintain 614-717 Maintain 615-717 As with the other indicators, this plan establishes a 13-year timeframe. The baseline year will be the growth results achieved in the 2016-17 school year. Since those results will not be available until October 2017, 2015-16 growth results will be used for illustrative purposes. ii. Describe how the SEA established ambitious State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for increases in the percentage of all English learners in the State making annual progress toward attaining English language proficiency based on 1.C.i. and provide the State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for English language proficiency. Student Group OralEnglish Learners Literacy Baseline* (2016-17) Interim 1 (2020-21) Interim 2 (2023-24) Interim 3 (2026-27) Long-term Goal (2029-30) 70.9%40.00 % 79.9%58.5 % 86.6%72.3 % 93.3%86.2 % 100%100% 64.9% 75.7% 83.8% 91.9% 100% *Best estimate of average Percentage of Growth Target Achieved on the ELP Assessment The state’s expectation is that the subgroup of English learners statewide, as well as in all districts and schools, will reach an average percentage of target achieved of 100% in both Oral and Literacy dimensions by 2029-30. The interim targets presented above use the baseline average percentage of target achieved to establish a linear trajectory to 100% at the end of 13 years. 15 Section 2: Consultation and Performance Management 2.1 Consultation An Introduction to Connecticut’s ESSA Consolidated State Plan In summer 2015, the Connecticut State Board of Education (Board) and the Commissioner of Education recommitted to making academic excellence and educational equity a reality for every Connecticut public school student. Pursuant to this goal, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) assembled a team of professionals representing all six of Connecticut’s regional educational service centers to design a plan for Connecticut’s practice over the next five years. The Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan, Ensuring Equity and Excellence for All Connecticut Students adopted in July 2016, represents the CSDE’s commitment to Connecticut citizens and communities and to supporting local school districts’ efforts to provide every student in our state an exceptional education in an outstanding school. The plan compels all of us to work together to ensure that every student—regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, family wealth, zip code, or disability status—is prepared to succeed in lifelong learning and work beyond school. The Board’s five-year plan was developed following a lengthy and comprehensive stakeholder engagement process in 2015-16, which heavily informed our methods for consultation for the Connecticut State Plan. We collected responses through two primary mechanisms: focus groups, in which small gatherings of 15 or fewer participants discussed their responses to the inquiry questions under the guidance of a facilitator, and a publicly accessible survey open to all Connecticut residents. Instructions: Each SEA must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with stakeholders in developing its consolidated State plan.. The stakeholders must include the following individuals and entities and reflect the geographic diversity of the State: The Governor or appropriate officials from the Governor’s office; Members of the State legislature; Members of the State board of education, if applicable; LEAs, including LEAs in rural areas; Representatives of Indian tribes located in the State; Teachers, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals, specialized instructional support personnel, and organizations representing such individuals; Charter school leaders, if applicable; Parents and families; Community-based organizations; Civil rights organizations, including those representing students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically underserved students; Institutions of higher education (IHEs); 16 Employers; Representatives of private school students; Early childhood educators and leaders; and The public. Each SEA must meet the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 200.21(b)(1)-(3) to provide information that is: 1. Be in an understandable and uniform format; 2. Be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally translated for such parent; and 3. Be, upon request by a parent who is an individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format accessible to that parent. A. Public Notice. Provide evidence that the SEA met the public notice requirements, under 34 C.F.R. § 299.13(b), relating to the SEA’s processes and procedures for developing and adopting its consolidated State plan. In August 2016, the CSDE set up a webpage for communicating with the public regarding ESSA. This webpage serves as the primary communication point to provide stakeholder information and resources regarding ESSA and the development of Connecticut’s Consolidated State Plan. All communication resources and webinars that have been created are posted to this site. Additionally, the site allows stakeholders to submit their feedback electronically via a brief survey that is available in English and Spanish. The CSDE also communicated broadly about the consolidated plan process via its Facebook and Twitter social media channels, e-mail listservs, news releases, and announcements at professional group meetings and a variety of other events where stakeholders were present. In August 2016, the CSDE began sharing stakeholder engagement and plan development information publicly with education stakeholders, including district superintendents and the State Board of Education. The CSDE first publicly announced opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback to inform the State plan through Commissioner’s Roundtables and the online survey on September 30, 2016. Read the press release. The first draft of the state plan was posted on the CSDE ESSA webpage for public comment on February 3, 2017, and simultaneously delivered to Governor Dannel Malloy’s office for the required public comment period. A press release on February 3, 2017, announced the availability of the draft to the public along with information on how to submit comments. B. Outreach and Input. For the components of the consolidated State plan including Challenging Academic Assessments; Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools; Supporting Excellent Educators; and Supporting All Students, describe how the SEA: Conducted outreach to and solicited input from the individuals and entities listed above, during the design and 17 development of the SEA’s plans to implement the programs that the SEA has indicated it will include in its consolidated State plan; and following the completion of its initial consolidated State plan by making the plan available for public comment for a period of not less than 30 days prior to submitting the consolidated State plan to the Department for review and approval. Overview The CSDE’s philosophy of continuous engagement drives the agency’s work, setting a foundation of authentic, ongoing engagement with a broad set of stakeholders across a range of key education topics. That philosophy is the driving force behind the stakeholder engagement process that the CSDE built to inform the design and development of Connecticut’s ESSA implementation plan. The CSDE stakeholder engagement process is divided into three parts: Part 1 – Setting the Vision and Goals The CSDE launched an extensive stakeholder engagement effort to inform the development of the Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan, Ensuring Equity and Excellence for All Connecticut Students, which includes a new accountability system that is closely aligned to the requirements under ESSA. The CSDE returned to stakeholders with the Commissioner’s Equity and Excellence Tour to inform them about how their feedback helped shape the state’s vision and Continuing goals, as identified in the Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year the comprehensive plan, and talk to them about next steps, setting the stage for more Conversation targeted engagement on priorities identified for the consolidated state ESSA plan. Part 2 – Part 3 – Targeted ESSA Engagement The CSDE implemented a multipronged stakeholder engagement process focused on specific priorities identified for the consolidated state ESSA plan, including the launch of an informational ESSA webpage with links to resources, webinars, and ways to get involved in the process; implementation of a series of focus groups; creation and wide distribution of an online ESSA survey; and coordination of an extensive media and social network outreach and engagement effort. Setting the Vision and Goals (Part 1) In August 2015, the CSDE embarked on a year-long effort to develop a Five-year Comprehensive Plan for Ensuring Equity and Excellence in Education in our state. As part of the process, the board collected feedback from thousands of stakeholders throughout the state through focus group discussions, online surveys, and outreach through the media. The board formally adopted the plan on July 2, 2016. The feedback and ideas gathered through the extensive stakeholder engagement process helped shape and inform the development of a long-term vision and goals to drive policy and administrative decisions in the coming years. A clear, common theme emerged through this 18 process around the message that all students can succeed, and if we set high expectations for students and for ourselves, together, we can rise to that challenge. The process for developing the plan involved engagement of a wide range of stakeholders, including members of the public and 46 focus groups. The Board received feedback and more than 15,000 comments from over 6,700 respondents who took an online survey that sought to gain insight and perspective about the aspirations, challenges, and concerns pertaining to education in Connecticut. The feedback received during this process helped inform and provide direction in the development of this five-year comprehensive plan. In the plan, the State Board of Education highlights three priority areas in which to strategically focus resources in order to deliver on its promise of providing an excellent education for every child. These three areas are high expectations, great teachers and leaders, and great schools. High Expectations for Every Student means that every student is expected to meet high standards and is supported by a system that believes in his or her ability to master challenging academic curriculum. Great Teachers and Leaders are supported throughout their careers with quality professional learning that continues to grow and refine educator practice. Great Schools are safe, diverse, welcoming environments where students thrive and receive exceptional teaching and learning. As the Board works with the CSDE to develop the structures and conditions to bring this vision to fruition, students will improve academically, achievement gaps will close, and students will be well-rounded, engaged, and college and career ready. Access the plan: Ensuring Equity and Excellence for All Connecticut Students. Continuing the Conversation (Part 2) With a five-year comprehensive plan for education in place, the CSDE set about preparing to extend the stakeholder engagement process to shape and inform the development of an ESSA implementation plan. In the fall of 2016, Education Commissioner Dianna R. Wentzell launched the Commissioner’s Equity and Excellence Tour, a set of roundtable discussions at schools across Connecticut that engaged educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders in community conversations about how everyone can play a role in the mission of creating equity and excellence in education. These conversations also included discussions about ESSA and ways that Connecticut can build on its comprehensive plan as the state develops an implementation plan for the new federal education law. 19 Commissioner’s Equity and Excellence Tour DATE TOPIC Friday, September 30, 2016 Thursday, October 6, 2016 Thursday, October 20, 2016 Monday, October 24, 2016 Thursday, December 8, 2016 Monday, December 19, 2016 Wednesday, December 21, 2016 Roundtable on Chronic Absenteeism Commissioner’s Math Council Minority Teacher Recruitment bill signing and roundtable Roundtable on Family and Community Engagement Student Growth & School Interventions School-Based Diversion Initiative & Restorative Practices Youth Homelessness LOCATION Vance Elementary School (New Britain, CT) Connecticut Science Center (Hartford, CT) Carmen Arace School (Bloomfield, CT) SERC Center (Middletown, CT) Lincoln-Bassett School (New Haven, CT) Wilbur Cross High School (New Haven, CT) Maloney High School (Meriden, CT) Targeted ESSA Engagement (Part 3) In October 2016, the CSDE launched the third part of the engagement process focused on outreach and consultation strategies specific to priorities identified for inclusion in the Connecticut consolidated plan. The third part of the process built off the extensive engagement efforts implemented around the development of the five-year comprehensive plan and drilled into specific policy shifts the state will address in its ESSA plan. ESSA Webinars Beginning in June 2016, the CSDE hosted a six-part webinar series for superintendents, school leaders, and other interested stakeholders in order to further understanding of ESSA. The links to the webinars are posted on the ESSA webpage on the CSDE website. Date June 15, 2016 September 15, 2016 October 20, 2016 November 15, 2016 February 14, 2017 Topic ESSA Overview and 2016 Regulations Accountability, Assessment, and Data Collection and Reporting Title I Under ESSA: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Education Agencies Title II & III Under ESSA: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders; Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students Connecticut State Plan, Long Term Goals & Progress Monitoring 20 CSDE Targeted Outreach with Partners CSDE leaders engaged with key district and community partners by making presentations and leading conversations about ESSA at regularly scheduled meetings and school and district convenings. The complete list of dates and partners engaged by CSDE staff is located in Appendix A. Focus Groups From November 1, 2016, through December 15, 2016, the CSDE held 52 focus groups attended by 452 individuals representing a range of stakeholder groups from across the state. A total of 61 hours of data was collected through this process. The focus groups involved small gatherings of 15 or fewer participants discussing their responses to the inquiry questions under the guidance of a facilitator. Each focus group session was facilitated, recorded, transcribed and analyzed. A comprehensive list of focus groups and invitees may be found in the Appendix A. The CSDE focus group questions were developed by the Department of Education to reflect the State Board’s priorities. Following the approval of questions, an established protocol for conducting the groups was created by the RESC Alliance. A training session was held for the focus group facilitators to ensure the protocols were understood and consistently applied. In addition to the organizations identified in subsection (c) of Section 10-4 of the Connecticut General Statutes for inclusion in a long-range planning process, the State Board of Education identified additional groups to be invited to participate in the process. In all, nearly 100 organizations were invited either electronically or personally to send a representative to an inperson focus group. In addition to these representational focus groups, role alike groups of students, parents, teachers, administrators, and superintendents were scheduled regionally in each of the six RESC offices (Litchfield, Trumbull, Hamden, Hartford, Old Lyme and Hampton). Student and parent sessions were scheduled at the same time but were held separately. Each RESC scheduled five focus groups within their catchment area. Online ESSA Survey In October 2016, the CSDE launched the Connecticut Every Student Succeeds Act survey, a set of multiple choice questions accessible online in English and Spanish. The survey was designed to provide critical feedback from members of the public and key stakeholders about specific priorities identified for inclusion in the Connecticut consolidated ESSA plan. Announcements regarding the availability of the survey were distributed through the RESC Alliance, through the department's various state and professional networks, as well as through contacts in a variety of community organizations and local school districts. A clear majority of the respondents learned of the survey and connected to it via a link they received in an email. 21 The survey was hosted by SurveyMonkey, available in both English and Spanish versions, and open to the public between November 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017. A total of 6,926 individuals opened the English version of the survey while 31 individuals responded to the Spanish version. Of the survey respondents, 55 percent were educators and 36 percent were parents. A majority of the respondents were white (80 percent), women (79 percent), and hold a graduate degree (63 percent). Six percent of respondents were Hispanic or Latino, and five percent were black. To maximize participation in the survey, the CSDE developed a month-long social media plan in which the Department publicized the survey and encouraged the public to participate. The social media plan may be found in Appendix A. In addition, CSDE staff leveraged their individual networks and conducted personal outreach to various members of the community to encourage various stakeholders, namely parents and students, to take the survey. The outreach effort included a letter to families, in English and Spanish, which may be found in Appendix A. i. Took into account the input obtained through consultation and public comment. The response must include both how the SEA addressed the concerns and issues raised through consultation and public comment and any changes the SEA made as a result of consultation and public comment for all components of the consolidated State plan. Use of Public Feedback in Plan When the CSDE launched a broad stakeholder engagement effort in 2015 to inform the vision and goals set forth in the Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan, the conversation and resulting feedback became the foundation upon which to begin building the state’s consolidated ESSA plan. With feedback from 46 focus groups and over 6,700 survey respondents, the CSDE identified priorities and strategies that would become the framework for our ESSA plan. The CSDE’s targeted ESSA engagement effort began in the fall of 2016 and continued into the winter after the USED released the final set of regulations on November 29, 2016. In-depth analysis of feedback from 52 focus groups and over 6,900 survey respondents reached during the targeted ESSA engagement period identified a range of priorities, ideas, and concerns, many of which reflect similar kinds of feedback from the engagement effort around our comprehensive plan. Common themes that emerged across the range of stakeholders (any sentiment endorsed by at least 30 percent of respondents) include: desire for social-emotional learning guidance, mental health supports, and socialemotional indicators; increased focus on student growth, not just achievement status, for accountability purposes; accountability that considers the education and support of the “whole child”; 22 need for increased/improved supports for English learners, including cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings; emphasis on personalized, real-world, relevant learning; resources for mentoring programs and after-school activities for youth; an early warning system that would identify students at risk for school failure or dropping out; supports for parent and family engagement; supports for positive school climate; and supports for highly effective teachers and leaders. Common themes that emerged in the open comment section of the survey were similar to those identified in the multiple choice section, and included: need to strengthen behavioral/mental health support systems throughout the preK-12 spectrum; desire to reduce the number state mandated assessments; desire to shift emphasis to more time spent on real world curriculum; desire for a higher level of parent/community outreach/engagement in underperforming district; ability for funding needs to be determined at the district level; recognition of bilingualism as an asset; desire for more bilingual teachers and paraprofessionals; need for more educator support on social/emotional/behavioral issues; and desire to streamline educator certification process. These themes appear as priorities in three areas of work within the CSDE: the Connecticut State Board of Education five-year comprehensive plan, Connecticut’s Next Generation Accountability System, and the Connecticut Consolidated ESSA Plan. Additionally, the engagement feedback supports foundational ideas embedded within the CSDE’s vision and goals, including the importance of college/career readiness and student growth on state assessments as key accountability measures, an emphasis on personalized learning, a desire for improved school climate and family engagement, and a need for innovative ways to ensure equitable access to excellent educators. The full ESSA feedback analysis report can be accessed in Appendix A. During the 30-day public comment period, stakeholders raised a variety of concerns through the survey, which was posted on the CSDE ESSA resource page, and through longer written comments emailed directly to CSDE staff. Longer written comments are also included in Appendix A. We received over 50 individual comments from nearly 20 respondents. The comments received during this feedback period included a number of suggestions centered around the following themes: 23 a desire to focus on the growth and development of the whole child, including social-emotional, psychomotor, and physical health; a desire to focus on trauma-informed and restorative practices; a desire to improve supports for the districts that require it, with a greater emphasis on programmatic approaches; a desire to strengthen family engagement through partnerships and resources; suggestions to strengthen educator evaluation and development; a suggestion to use school integration (racial and socio-economic) as an accountability measure; and a desire to align K-12 work more closely with Early Childhood Education. This feedback reflects similar themes collected during the Stakeholder Engagement phase of the ESSA Consolidated State Plan process and many are aligned with priorities identified in the ESSA plan and the State Board of Education’s Five-year Consolidated State Plan. Additionally, feedback collected during the Public Comment phase will be considered and revisited through the continuous conversation and engagement the CSDE commits to as a core operating philosophy. C. Governor’s consultation. Describe how the SEA consulted in a timely and meaningful manner with the Governor consistent with section 8540 of the ESEA, including whether officials from the SEA and the Governor’s office met during the development of this plan and prior to the submission of this plan. The Commissioner of Education and CSDE staff have periodically met with and briefed the Governor and his staff on ESSA starting in the fall of 2015 and continuing after the bill was signed into law on December 10, 2015. In the summer of 2016, CSDE leadership met with the Governor to lay out plans for stakeholder engagement and development of the Connecticut plan for implementation of ESSA. Updates about the ESSA stakeholder engagement process and plan development have been communicated to Governor’s office staff throughout September, October, November, and December of 2016. A draft of the Connecticut consolidated plan was provided to the Governor on January 24, 2017. Date SEA provided the plan to the Governor: 3/2/2017 Check one: X The Governor signed this consolidated State plan. ☐ The Governor did not sign this consolidated State plan. To ensure ESSA is implemented efficiently and efficaciously, the CSDE has consulted with staff at the Office of Early Childhood, the Department of Labor, as well as other relevant agencies, to ensure that the State Plan is coordinated with existing educational programs. An overview of the CSDE’s plan for interagency coordination is included in the appendix. 24 2.2 System of Performance Management. Instructions: In the text boxes below, each SEA must describe its system of performance management of SEA and LEA plans across all programs included in this consolidated State plan. The description of an SEA’s system of performance management must include information on the SEA’s review and approval of LEA plans, monitoring, continuous improvement, and technical assistance across the components of the consolidated State plan. A. Review and Approval of LEA Plans. Describe the SEA’s process for supporting the development, review, and approval of LEA plans in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The description should include a discussion of how the SEA will determine if LEA activities align with: 1) the specific needs of the LEA, and 2) the SEA’s consolidated State plan. Introduction Because of the diversity of resources, performance levels, and needs of students in schools and school districts across Connecticut, the CSDE has approached the implementation of a reauthorized ESEA, which has coincided with our State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan, as an important opportunity to recommit to the improvement of our state’s schools. As will become clear in this document, Connecticut’s ESSA State Plan is informed by comprehensive stakeholder input and the lessons learned from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era. Our plan is built on research that demonstrates that a tiered system of increasing support, guidance, and oversight better meets the diverse needs of students, as well as organizations such as schools. This approach is intended to maximize the effective use of both federal and state school improvement funds and to concentrate SEA resources, expertise, and effort where they are needed most — in districts with the greatest number of students from poverty and in districts with the lowest performance levels, both whole school and subgroup performance. Tier I - Basic Level Support for Connecticut Districts: Title I districts that are performing adequately will receive a general level of support and guidance from the CSDE that is consistent with our current approach under the ESEA Renewal Request, namely grant administration, training, technical assistance, as well as grant monitoring and oversight. These districts will have the greatest autonomy allowed by federal and state statutes and regulations but will be accountable for continuous improvement toward our ESSA-required long-term goals. 25 Tier II - Moderate Level Support for 20 of Connecticut’s Alliance Districts: Connecticut’s 30 lowest performing school districts are supported through a state system recently called the Alliance District Program. C.G.S. § 262u, passed in 2012, allocated additional Educational Cost Sharing (ECS) grants to Alliance Districts, conditional upon a number of requirements that are consistent with the ESSA – an improvement plan, expected district progress relative to the plan, subsequent annual amendments made in the context of the district’s needs and strategies to improve student outcomes. Under ESSA, 20 districts in Connecticut will receive this moderate level of support and will be accountable for continuous improvement toward our ESSA-required long-term goals. Tier III - Intensive Level Support for Connecticut’s 10 Education Reform Districts: Opportunity Districts (previously called Educational Reform Districts) are a subset of Connecticut’s Alliance Districts. Opportunity Districts are the 10 lowest performing districts in the state. Approximately 70 percent of Title I schools are found in these 10 districts. Under ESSA, these 10 districts will receive an intensive level of support and will be accountable for continuous improvement toward our ESSA-required long-term goals. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR LEA PLANS Time Frame Fall 2016 Strategy Create a crossdivisional team for Tier III support 2016-17 Establish Tier I and Tier II supports 2016-17 Design and train LEAs in use of electronic platform for Consolidated Title Grants SEA activities that align to 1) Needs of LEA 2) SEA State Plan Establish and co-locate cross-divisional team and leaders to implement Tier III Intensive Supports for 10 Opportunity Districts Train staff/leaders from Academic, Assessment, Performance, Turnaround, and ESEA Units who are members of the cross-divisional team Building on existing resources and programs, establish protocols for Tier II Moderate Supports for Alliance Districts and Tier I Basic Supports for all other districts Create State Plan FAQ introducing Differentiated Supports for Tiers I-III Streamline process (stakeholder input priority) Reduce paperwork (stakeholder input priority) Improve turnaround time, availability of funds, communication (stakeholder input priority) Training in multiple formats available to LEAs Phone, platform, and vendor technical assistance ongoing 26 Indicators of SEA Progress January 2017 - Cross divisional teams established July 2017 -Written protocols developed -FAQ complete -Publish upon state plan acceptance June 2017 -Beta test platform October 2017 -Vendor delivers multiple statewide trainings REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR LEA PLANS Time Frame Spring 2017 2016 – 2017 Fall 2017 Strategy SEA activities that align to 1) Needs of LEA 2) SEA State Plan Draft guidance Building on the current CSDE CT Accountability based in System guidance document, Using Accountability evidencedResults to Guide Improvement (March 2016), and based with the assistance of stakeholder experts (LEA, interventions university, professional organization, and research partners), and incorporating the evidence levels in non-regulatory guidance, CSDE will create Evidence-based Guidance in the following areas: 1. Early Learning, including how to conduct a landscape study of programs within LEA area 2. School Climate 3. Student/Family/Community Engagement 4. Academics 5. English Language Proficiency 6. On Track/Graduation Resources Additionally, the CSDE will: Collect feedback on documents and revise as needed Create a rubric for the SEA to evaluate LEA proposed spending for evidenced-based practices funded by Title grants and not included in the CSDE guidance Develop SEA The CSDE, with support from partners listed and LEA above, will develop “Program Planning and capacity in Evaluation Supports” for all Title I LEAs with ESSA identified key elements including logic model, Program needs assessment, historical data analysis, SMART Planning and Goals, measures/indicators of success, timelines, Evaluation responsible parties Supports; Plan review and approval rubric developed EvidencedImplementation/ monitoring templates developed based Working in multiple formats (workshop, webinar, Practices; and documents), create and contract for training LEA Plans modules in (1) Program Planning, LEA Plans, Monitoring and Evaluation Supports; (2) Evidencebased Practices Pilot Title I-III consolidated application Train LEAs in application process/budget ESSA Title Grant applications due October 15, 2017 27 Indicators of SEA Progress March 2017 -Workgroups formed August 2017 -Collect stakeholder and expert feedback on drafts September 2017 -Publish draft documents October 2017 -Publish Evidenced Based Practices Evaluation Rubric July 2017 - LEA planning and evaluation materials to LEAs - Key SEA staff trained July 2017 -Training planned and materials created 2018 -Training complete August 15, 2017 – January 15, 2017 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR LEA PLANS Time Frame Strategy SEA activities that align to 1) Needs of LEA 2) SEA State Plan Goal: All Consolidated Title I-III grant applications in Year 1 are processed for 195 grant recipients in twelve weeks In future years, add more grant applications (e.g., Title IV, School Improvement Competitive Grants) Indicators of SEA Progress B. Monitoring. Describe the SEA’s plan to monitor SEA and LEA implementation of the included programs to ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. This description must include how the SEA will collect and use data and information which may include input from stakeholders and data collected and reported on State and LEA report cards (under section 1111(h) of the ESEA and applicable regulations), to assess the quality of SEA and LEA implementation of strategies and progress toward meeting the desired program outcomes. C. Continuous Improvement. Describe the SEA’s plan to continuously improve SEA and LEA plans and implementation. This description must include how the SEA will collect and use data and information which may include input from stakeholders and data collected and reported on State and LEA report cards (under section 1111(h) of the ESEA and applicable regulations), to assess the quality of SEA and LEA implementation of strategies and progress toward meeting the desired program outcomes. D. Differentiated Technical Assistance. Describe the SEA’s plan to provide differentiated technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support effective implementation of SEA, LEA, and other subgrantee strategies. Introduction to Section 2.2 Parts B, C, and D The CSDE’s goals for continuous improvement are outlined in the Long Term Goal Section of this plan. Based on frequent stakeholder input that student growth over time is the most important factor and that schools should track long-term improvement, not short-term test results, we propose a 13-year timeframe for our model of continuous improvement that establishes individual student, school, and district growth targets and trajectories on ESSArequired goals of academic achievement; increased rates of graduation; and progress toward English language proficiency. To meet the tangible need for, and our civic obligation to public accountability, the CSDE reports academic achievement status, graduation rates, and English language proficiency in aggregate and for specific student groups. This data is reported at the schools and district level on an annual basis. Having learned difficult lessons from the NCLB era, we believe continuous improvement requires research- and data-informed decision-making in creating improvement plans with a laser-like focus on a small number of critical goals/targets. That said, a plan alone does not guarantee success, but unwavering attention to “fidelity of implementation” will yield more 28 accurate evaluation of a plan’s effectiveness. Also, sustained effort and focus over time, rather than chasing annual “silver bullets,” will increase the probability of success. The Connecticut Monitoring, Continuous Improvement, and Differentiated Support Plan outlined below provides details of a tiered, systematic approach to SEA support and guidance provided to, and based on, LEA needs and challenges in meeting targets in the three ESSA required long- term goals. As required, CSDE has also developed a plan to support, monitor, and provide increasing structure and more rigorous intervention if local efforts are not effective across time. The plan is outlined below. 29 CONNECTICUT’S MONITORING, CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, AND DIFFERENTIATED SUPPORT PLAN Applicable Districts Years 1 and 2 (2016-17) & (2017-18) Baseline Planning / Implementation Strategies (by Tiered Supports) 1. Districts Receiving Tier III Intensive Supports 2. 3. 4. 5. CT’s Ten Opportunity Districts 6. 7. Intensive cross-divisional team support Electronic grant system Mandatory initial training held at CT Alliance District Symposiums LEADCT Leadership Academy available for Turnaround Principals School/District Improvement training available for Boards of Education Entitlement Comprehensive School Improvement Grants (CSIG) to a school in district for up to $500,000 annually RFP for competitive Targeted Assistance School Improvement Grants (TASIG) of no less than $50,000 annually Interim Progress Check #1 (2020-21) If Goal Target(s) Not Met, More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CSDE/District in-depth Program Review Mandatory training modules in targets not met focused on evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Mandatory training module in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, culturally responsive pedagogy SEA recommended evidenced-based interventions funded by Title and SIG grants LEA Plan revision with SEA recommendations Continue CSIG and TASIG grant opportunities Quarterly “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met Interim Progress Check #2 (2023-24) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Annual Monitoring and Evaluation from Check Points 1 & 2: Three annual site visits by cross-divisional CSDE team using data from School /District Profile & Performance Reports and district formative data 30 State-directed needs assessment with stakeholder input from whole school and subgroup populations on target(s) not met CSDE/District in-depth Program Review Mandatory updated training modules in targets not met focused on evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Mandatory updated training module in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, culturally responsive pedagogy SEA-directed evidenced-based interventions on targets not met SEA-directed LEA Plan revision Quarterly “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met Consider elimination of CSIG/ TASIG grants Interim Progress Check #3 (2026-27) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions As outlined in our 2015 ESEA Flexibility Request Renewal, and consistent with C.G.S.§ 10-223j, chronically underperforming schools (Category 4 and 5) that do not meet target(s) at Interim Progress Check #3 will enter into a “State Structured DecisionMaking Pathway” including, but not limited to: 1. Reconstitution, such as (a) LEA retains management but reorganizes/re-staffs the school; (b) LEA retains authority but enters into a management partnership with an external entity; or, (c) LEA transfers the entire management and oversight of a school to an external entity. 2. Consolidation/Closure 3. Restructuring School Governance Council 4. Restructuring School Board Governance Annual Monitoring and Evaluation from Check Points 3 & 4: Increase site visit monitoring frequency to quarterly and include Central Office/ SEA walkthroughs of selected Title I schools Applicable Districts Years 1 and 2 (2016-17) & (2017-18) Baseline Planning / Implementation Strategies (by Tiered Supports) Districts Receiving Tier II Moderate Supports 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CT’s Twenty Alliance Districts 6. SEA Point of Contact Electronic grant system Mandatory initial training via CT Opportunity District Symposiums and a variety of other formats LEADCT Leadership Academy available for Turnaround Principals School/District Improvement training available for Boards of Education RFP for competitive Comprehensive School Improvement Grants (CSIG) or Targeted Assistance School Improvement Grants (TASIG) Interim Progress Check #1 (2020-21) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Optional needs assessment with significant stakeholder input from whole school and subgroup populations on target(s) not met District in-depth Program Review Mandatory training modules in targets not met including evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Mandatory training module in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, and culturally responsive pedagogy LEA Plan revision Continue competitive CSIG and TASIG grant opportunities Semi-annual submission of “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met Interim Progress Check #2 (2023-24) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Optional needs assessment with significant stakeholder input from whole school and subgroup populations on target(s) not met District in-depth Program Review Mandatory updated training modules in targets not met including evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Mandatory updated training module in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, and culturally responsive pedagogy LEA Plan revision with SEA recommendations Continues competitive CSIG and TASIG grant opportunities Quarterly submission of “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met Interim Progress Check #3 (2026-27) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. State-directed needs assessment with significant stakeholder input from whole school/subgroup populations on target(s) not met 2. District in-depth Program Review 3. Customized training based on needs assessment 4. SEA-directed evidenced-based interventions and LEA Plan revision 5. Quarterly submission of “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met 6. SEA considers elimination of competitive CSIG and TASAIG grant opportunities ** If needed, the SEA reserves the right to employ “State Structured Decision-Making Pathways” outlined under Education Reform Districts Annual Monitoring and Evaluation: One annual site visit and two CSDE Data Review Process using data from School/ District Profile & Performance Reports and district formative data Additional site visits, if warranted Increasing frequency of monitoring, if warranted 31 Applicable Districts (by Tiered Supports) Districts Receiving Tier I Basic Supports Years 1 and 2 (2016-17) & (2017-18) Baseline Planning / Implementation Strategies 1. 2. 3. 4. All Other CT LEAs 5. 6. 7. SEA Point of Contact Electronic grant system Training in multiple formats focused on Data Analysis using School and District Profile & Performance Reports Training in multiple formats available and focused on Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement (March 2016, access the guide), LEADCT Leadership Academy available for Turnaround Principals School/District Improvement training available for Boards of Education RFP for competitive Comprehensive School Improvement Grants (CSIG) and Targeted Assistance School Improvement Grants (TASIG) Interim Progress Check #1 (2020-21) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Needs assessment available with significant stakeholder input from whole school and subgroup populations on target(s) not met District in-depth Program Review recommended Training modules available in targets not met focused on evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Training modules available in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, and culturally responsive pedagogy LEA Plan revision Continue CSIG and TASIG grant opportunities Interim Progress Check #2 (2023-24) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Needs assessment with significant stakeholder input from subgroup populations on target(s) not met Mandatory District in-depth Program Review Updated training modules available in targets not met including evidence-based interventions to meet subgroup needs Updated training module in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, and culturally responsive pedagogy SEA recommended evidenced-based interventions based on local needs and data LEA Plan revision Continues CSIG and TASIG grant opportunities Interim Progress Check #3 (2026-27) If Goal Target(s) Not Met More Rigorous Interventions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Annual Monitoring and Evaluation: Annual Title Self-Assessment for all districts Annual desk audits of a minimum of six districts across CT’s geographic regions and socio-economic levels Additional site visits, if warranted Increasing frequency of monitoring, if warranted 32 Needs assessment with significant stakeholder input from subgroup populations on target(s) not met Mandatory District in-depth Program Review Customized training in targets not met including evidencebased interventions to meet subgroup needs Customized training in fidelity of implementation, progress monitoring, and culturally responsive pedagogy SEA recommended evidenced-based interventions based on local needs and data LEA Plan revision Quarterly submission of “Evidence for Fidelity of Implementation” for target(s) not met SEA Performance Management System As mentioned previously, in June 2016, the State Board of Education adopted Ensuring Equity and Excellence for All Connecticut Students, the Board’s five-year comprehensive plan for 2016-21. Beginning in fall 2016, the CSDE has worked with technical assistance providers from the Council for Chief State Officers (CCSSO) and is developing a concrete, time-bound, and actionable implementation plan for delivering results on the four goals of the Board’s plan, known as Our Promise to our Students: Goal 1: Ensuring their nonacademic needs are met so they are healthy, happy, and ready to learn (mental health, nutrition, after-school programs). Goal 2: Supporting their school and district in staying on target with learning goals (Education Cost Sharing - ECS, Alliance Districts, Commissioner’s Network, School Choice). Goal 3: Giving them access to great teachers and school leaders. Goal 4: Making sure they learn what they need to know to succeed in college, career, and life. The State Board plan is perfectly aligned and contains many elements of our ESSA State Plan. Not coincidental, this alignment provides coherence and leverage in implementing major education reforms in Connecticut. Using elements of a performance management system known as “Deliverology,” the CSDE’s implementation plan and timeline is in development and is outlined below. 33 EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE CONNECTICUT’S COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION PLAN (2016-2021) IMPLEMENTATION AND TIMELINE Timeframe CSDE Activity June 2016 State Board of Education (SBE) adopts five-year comprehensive plan June – December Outreach to stakeholders 2016 Stakeholder input into ESSA State Plan Feedback loop to stakeholders on adoption of SBE plan September – Initial planning for developing a performance management system October 2016 November 2016 Senior Leadership Training Identified four measurable outcomes tied to board goals Identified Goal Owners (CSDE chiefs) Identified up to three strategies per goal Identified Strategy Leaders (CSDE managers or consultants) December 2016 – Strategy Leader Training January 2017 Developed Strategy Profiles Developed Delivery Chains (implementation routes) See appendix B January 2017 CSDE leaders established timelines for “Stock Takes,” which are progressmonitoring points with clearly established protocols on reporting and problem solving any challenges, fidelity of implementation threats or “choke points” where delivery becomes problematic. CSDE Annual Stock Take Schedule SBE Stock Takes 2x per year per goal - public SBE Meetings Presented by Goal Owner 2x per year per goal prior to SBE Meetings Presented by Goal Owner 3x per year for all three strategies Follows standard protocol which devotes the most time to problem areas Follows standard protocol that devotes the most time in stock takes to problem areas Commissioner Stock Takes Chiefs Stock Takes Strategy Leaders Prepare for Stock Takes February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 June 2017 Senior Leadership and Strategy Leaders Training in Stock Takes and Goal Setting, and Outcome Measure Trajectories for 2017-21 Finalize Performance Management Plan Present Performance Management Plan to State Board of Education First State Board of Education Stock Take – Goal 1 34 Section 3: Academic Assessments Instructions: As applicable, provide the information regarding a State’s academic assessments in the text boxes below. A. Advanced Mathematics Coursework. Does the State: 1) administer end-of-course mathematics assessments to high school students in order to meet the requirements under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the ESEA; and 2) use the exception for students in eighth grade to take such assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA? ☐ Yes. If yes, describe the SEA’s strategies to provide all students in the State the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics coursework in middle school consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C). X No. Connecticut does not administer end-of-course mathematics assessments to high school students. Therefore, Connecticut does not seek to use the exception for students in eighth grade to take such assessments as allowable under section 1111(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA. B. Languages other than English. Describe how the SEA is complying with the requirements in section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the ESEA in languages other than English. i. Provide the SEA’s definition for “languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population,” and identify the specific languages that meet that definition. ii. Identify any existing assessments in languages other than English, and specify for which grades and content areas those assessments are available. iii. Indicate the languages other than English identified in B.i. above for which yearly student academic assessments are not available and are needed. iv. Describe how the SEA will make every effort to develop assessments, at a minimum, in languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population by providing: 1. The State’s plan and timeline for developing such assessments; 2. A description of the process the State used to gather meaningful input on the need for assessments in languages other than English, collect and respond to public comment, and consult with educators; parents and families of English learners; students, as appropriate; and other stakeholders; and 3. As applicable, an explanation of the reasons the State has not been able to complete the development of such assessments despite making every effort. 35 The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) defines a dominant language as one that meets at least two of the following criteria: (1) the language that the student learned first; (2) the primary language spoken by the student’s parents, guardians, or other people with whom the student lives; and (3) the primary language the student speaks at home. The top 10 dominant languages of Connecticut’s K-12 students are presented below. Dominant Language English Spanish Portuguese Mandarin Polish Arabic Creole-Haitian Albanian Vietnamese Urdu All Others Total Percentage of Students 84.80% 9.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 2.60% 100.00% The CSDE considers any language among more than 1 percent of its students to be present to a significant extent. Though all assessments required pursuant to Section 1111(b) of ESEA are available only in English and current resources do not support new assessment development in additional languages, the CSDE is committed to making its current assessments accessible to all students and offering a broad array of multilingual supports for English learners (ELs). Should resources increase, the CSDE will definitely consider, plan for, and develop assessments in other language that are present to a significant extent: 1. Embedded Designated Supports for English Learners a. Translations – Math (Glossary) The translated glossaries are provided in some languages for selected constructirrelevant terms for math. Translations for these terms appear on the computer screen when students click on them. Students may also select the audio icon next to the glossary term and listen to the audio recording of the glossary. This Designated Support is intended as a language support for students who have limited English language skills whether or not they are designated as ELs or ELs with disabilities. These students may use the translation glossary for specific math items. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment. 36 The languages currently supported for Translation Glossary (includes audio) are Arabic, Cantonese, Filipino (Tagalog and Ilokano), Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese. b. Translations – Math (Stacked), Spanish Only Stacked translations are a language support available for some Spanish-speaking students. In a stacked translation, the full translation of each math test item appears above the original item in English. Students can see test directions in Spanish as well. For students whose primary language is not English and who use dual language supports in the classroom, use of the stacked (dual language) translation may be appropriate. Students participate in the assessment regardless of the language. This support will increase reading load and cognitive load. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment. c. Translation Test Directions – Math, Spanish Only Translation Test Directions is a language support available prior to beginning the actual math test items. Students who have limited English language skills may use the translated directions support. This support should only be used for students who are proficient readers in the non-English language and not proficient in English. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment. 2. Non-Embedded Designated Supports for English Learners a. Bilingual Dictionary – Science A bilingual/dual language word-to-word dictionary is a language support. For students whose primary language is not English and who use dual language supports in the classroom, use of a bilingual/dual language word-to-word dictionary may be appropriate. Students participate in the assessment regardless of the language. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment. b. Native Language Reader Directions Only – Science All test directions may be read and clarified in English or the student’s native language for EL students who have been identified as needing this support. A noncertified or certified staff person may administer this accommodation. c. Read Aloud in Spanish – Math Spanish text for math items is read aloud to the student by a trained and qualified human reader who follows the test administration manual, security procedures, and the Read Aloud Guidelines. Students who receive the Translations (stacked) Designated Support and are struggling readers may need assistance accessing the assessment by having all or portions of the assessment read aloud. Students with reading-related disabilities also may need this support. If not used regularly during 37 instruction, this support is likely to be confusing and may impede the performance on assessments. A student should have the option of asking a reader to slow down or repeat text. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment and the student will need to be tested in a separate setting. d. Translations – Math (Glossary), Only Large Print Paper/Pencil Assessment Translated glossaries are a language support. Translated glossaries are provided for selected construct-irrelevant terms for math. Glossary terms are listed by item and consist of the English term and its translated equivalent. Students who have limited English language skills can use the translation glossary for specific items. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment. The languages currently supported for Non-Embedded Translations – Math (Glossary) are Arabic, Cantonese, Dakota, Filipino (Tagalog and Ilokano), French, Korean, Mandarin, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. e. Translations Test Directions – English Language Arts Items and Math Items A PDF of directions translated in each of the languages currently supported for English language arts and math will be provided. A bilingual adult reads the directions to the student. Students literate in the selected language may read the test directions independently. Students who have limited English language skills (whether or not designated as ELs or ELs with disabilities) can use the translated test directions. The use of this support may result in the student needing additional overall time to complete the assessment, as well as a separate setting. The languages currently supported for the Non-Embedded Translation Test Directions are Arabic, Cantonese, Dakota, Filipino (Tagalog and Ilokano), French, Haitian-Creole, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Lakota, Mandarin, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, and Yupik. 38 Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools Instructions: Each SEA must describe its accountability, support, and improvement system section 1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA. Each SEA may include documentation (e.g., technical reports or supporting evidence) that demonstrates compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 4.1 Accountability System. Introduction Connecticut’s Next Generation Accountability System creates a more comprehensive, holistic picture of how students and schools are performing. Focusing on a broader set of indicators, rather than annual assessments alone, guards against the narrowing of the curriculum to tested subjects, expands ownership of accountability to more staff, and allows schools to demonstrate progress on “precursors to outcomes,” as well as outcomes. A. Indicators. Describe the measure(s) included in each of the Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rate, Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, and School Quality or Student Success indicators and how those measures meet the requirements described in section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA. The description for each indicator should include how it is valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the State. For the measures included within the indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success measures, the description must also address how each measure within the indicators is supported by research that high performance or improvement on such measure is likely to increase student learning (e.g., grade point average, credit accumulation, performance in advanced coursework). For measures within indicators of School Quality or Student Success that are unique to high school, the description must address how research shows that high performance or improvement on the indicator is likely to increase graduation rates, postsecondary enrollment, persistence, completion, or career readiness. The descriptions for the Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success indicators must include a demonstration of how each measure aids in the meaningful differentiation of schools by demonstrating varied results across schools in the State. Indicator i. Academic Achievement ii. Academic Progress iii. Graduation Rate iv. Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency v. School Quality or Student Success Measure(s) 39 Description Indicator Measure(s) Description Please see the list of indicators, measures, and descriptions in 4.1.A. i.-iv. below. Indicators Connecticut’s accountability system incorporates 12 indicators. They are valid for their purposes, reliable in their measurement, and are comparable statewide. All indicators use data from statewide, uniform data collection systems. These systems incorporate rigorous checks and validations and require district certification. External data sources are integrated from official and reliable data sources. The indicators were selected after extensive consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders over a two-three year period. The rationale for each indicator along with practitioner feedback was captured in Connecticut’s ESEA Flexibility request (pages 67-91) that the U.S. Department of Education approved on August 6, 2015. The research supporting each indicator as well as resources to improve outcomes are included in the document entitled Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement. The system aligns with the requirements in ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(B) and Connecticut General Statutes section 10-223e. Indicator 1 – Academic Achievement: This is the current status of student achievement. Performance indices ranging from 0 to 100 for English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science are produced by transforming scale scores from the state summative assessments into an index. The ultimate target for a subject performance index for any student group is 75. (See page 54 of the Using Accountability Results Guide for a description of the index methodology.) For federal accountability purposes, science achievement will be included as a “student success” indicator. Indicator 2 – Academic Growth: This indicator evaluates the change in achievement of the same student from one grade in year 1 to the next higher grade in year 2 on the Smarter Balanced ELA and mathematics summative assessments for students in grades 4 through 8 (see technical paper). The average percentage of the growth target achieved is the accountability indicator. The ultimate target for this average is 100 percent. Effective 201982019 (i.e., 20187-198 data) progress toward English language proficiency is expected to be added to this indicator. Indicator 3 – Participation Rate: This indicator is the participation rate of students on state summative assessments. Not meeting the 95 percent participation rate threshold has implications for district and school categorization as discussed later in this section. Indicator 4 – Chronic Absenteeism: This indicator is the percentage of students missing 10 percent or greater of the total number of days enrolled. The chronic absenteeism rate should not exceed 5 percent; therefore, full points will be awarded if the rate is 5 percent or lower. Conversely, no points will be awarded if the rate is 30 percent or higher. Rates between 30 percent and 5 percent receive proportional points. Indicator 5 – Preparation for Postsecondary and Career Readiness Coursework: This indicator is the percentage of students in grades 11 and 12 who participate in at least one of 40 the following during high school: two courses in advanced placement (AP)/ international baccalaureate (IB)/dual enrollment; two courses in one of 17 career and technical education (CTE) categories; or two workplace experience “courses.” The ultimate target is 75 percent. Indicator 6 – Preparation for Postsecondary and Career Readiness Exams: This indicator is the percentage of students in grades 11 and 12 who attained benchmark scores on at least one college/career readiness exam (e.g., SAT, ACT, AP, IB). The ultimate target is 75 percent. Indicator 7 – Graduation, On Track in Ninth Grade: This indicator is based on the work of the University of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research. It is the percentage of ninthgraders earning at least five full-year credits in the year. It applies to middle schools (with eighth grade) and high schools. The ultimate target is 94 percent. Indicator 8 – Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: This indicator is the percentage of first time ninth-graders who graduate with a regular high school diploma in four years or less. The ultimate target is 94 percent. Indicator 9 – Six Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: This indicator is the percentage of first time ninth-graders who graduate with a regular high school diploma in six years or less. It is based on the consistent method. The ultimate target is 94 percent. Indicator 10 – Postsecondary Entrance: This indicator is the percentage of the graduating class that enrolled in a two- or four-year postsecondary institution any time during the first year after high school graduation. The ultimate target is 75 percent. Indicator 11 – Physical Fitness: This indicator is the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the “Health Fitness Zone Standard” in all four areas of the Connecticut Physical Fitness Assessment. This assessment (like FitnessGram) includes tests that assess muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness. It is administered to all students in grades 4, 6, 8, and once in high school. Criterion-referenced standards are used. Multipliers are applied if participation rates are between 70 percent and 90 percent (0.5) or 50 percent and 70 percent (0.25). The ultimate target is 75 percent. Indicator 12 – Arts Access: This indicator is an “access” metric that evaluates the extent to which students in high school participate in at least one arts course. It is the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 participating in at least one dance, theater, music, or visual arts course in the school year. The ultimate target is 60 percent. More recent feedback from stakeholders affirms that a multiple-measures approach that moves beyond test scores and graduation rates to recognize the whole child, as implemented in the Next Generation Accountability System, is definitely a change in the right direction. Academic growth as an indicator received strong support, further affirming Connecticut’s decision to include and substantially weight growth in its model. Most frequently cited additional indicators for consideration include school climate, social-emotional supports, and life-career readiness. Additional indicators may be considered over time, particularly those within existing statewide data collections. Feedback received also included a desire for indicators of socio-economic and racial integration; community involvement in education; and business-industry partnerships and support for education. 41 In Section 1: Long-term Goals, subsection C addresses English Language Proficiency. The definition states that a student is said to have achieved English Language Proficiency if that student scores in achievement levels 4 or 5 in the following three areas on the LAS Links Assessment (Forms C or D): Overall Score, Reading, and Writing. Weights and Summative Rating Weights: Connecticut’s model awards substantial weight to achievement, growth (including progress toward English language proficiency), and high school graduation (both four and six year) and in the aggregate, much greater weight, than the other indicators. See below with weights for a sample K-12 district. Depending on the grade configuration in a district/school (e.g., K-5, K-8, 7-12, 9-12), only those indicators that are applicable to that particular district/school are included; for example a K-8 school would not be held accountable for indicators 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12. Note: Indicator 3 is participation rate and does not carry points. Weights by Indicator 42 Weights for different school configurations are below. If an indicator cannot be computed due to minimum N, then that indicator is excluded from the total possible points for that district/school. Elem. Middle High Mid / High equally in elementary, middle, and middle/high schools and at a ratio of 3:3:2 for high schools) 300 300 800 300 Indicator 2a: Academic Growth 400 400 Indicator 2b:Progress Toward English Language Proficiency 100 100 100 100 Indicator 4: Chronic Absenteeism 100 100 100 100 Indicator 5: Preparation for CCR – Coursework 50 50 Indicator 6: Preparation for CCR – Exams 50 50 Indicator Indicator 1: Academic Achievement (ELA/Math/Science weighted Indicator 7: On-track to High School Graduation 50 400 50 50 Indicator 8: 4-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation 100 100 Indicator 9: 6-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation 100 100 Indicator 10: Postsecondary Entrance 100 100 50 50 Indicator 11: Physical Fitness 50 50 Indicator 12: Arts Access Total Possible Points 950 1000 50 50 1550 1450 In all grade configurations, the majority of the points are assigned to the required indicators per ESSA. Note that for federal accountability purposes, science achievement will be included as a “school quality/student success” indicator. Summative Rating: Based on the outcome achieved for each indicator, the district or school earns points on a sliding scale proportional to the ultimate target for that indicator. The total percentage of available points earned by a school or district is the “accountability index” (C.G.S. Section 10-223e). The accountability index is the summative rating. It ranges from 0 to 100 and allows for meaningful differentiation. B. Subgroups. i. List the subgroups of students from each major and racial ethnic group in the State, and, as applicable, describe any additional subgroups of students used in the accountability system. ii. If applicable, describe the statewide uniform procedure for including former children with disabilities in the children with disabilities subgroup for purposes of calculating any indicator that uses data based on State assessment results under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA, including the number of years the State includes the results of former children with disabilities. 43 iii. If applicable, describe the statewide uniform procedure for including former English learners in the English learner subgroup for purposes of calculating any indicator that uses data based on State assessment results under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA, including the number of years the State includes the results of former English learners. iv. If applicable, choose one of the following options for recently arrived English learners in the State: ☐ Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i); or X Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii); or ☐ Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i) or under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii). If this option is selected, describe how the State will choose which exception applies to a recently arrived English learner. Please see below for information on 4.1.B i.-iv. reporting, weights, and decision rules for student group data. Student Groups Receiving Extra Weight in the System The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) reports the outcomes of all ESSA student groups. These include all racial/ethnic groups,1 gender, socioeconomic status, English learner (EL) status, and disability status. In addition to annual reporting of all subgroups, the CSDE demonstrates its commitment to include several thousand ELs and students with disabilities in accountability calculations through the use of an additional group called the “high needs group” — an unduplicated count of students who are from a low socioeconomic background, an English learner, or a student with a disability. Separate points are awarded for subgroup performance such that students in subgroups contribute to more than 40 percent of the summative rating. Weights Toward Summative Rating for Students in ESSA Subgroups is shown in the figure at right. 1 . American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and White. 44 Former ELs and former students with disabilities will be included in the academic achievement calculations (Indicator 1) for up to four and two years, respectively, after they exit the group. “Recently arrived” ELs are those ELs whose initial entry date in a U.S. school is less than two years (i.e., 24 months) 12 months prior to test administration. A recently arrived EL is tested in all subject areas starting with the first year. However, the test scores for that recently arrived EL are not included in the achievement accountability calculations (Indicator 1) for the first two years. In the second year, the recently arrived ELs are evaluated for growth on the state tests (Indicator 2) but not for achievement (Indicator 1). In the third year, the recently arrived ELs are included in both the achievement (Indicator 1) and growth (Indicator 2) measures. C. Minimum Number of Students. i. Provide the minimum number of students for purposes of accountability that the State determines are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students. ii. If the State’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting is lower than the minimum number of students for purposes of accountability, provide that number. iii. Describe how other components of the statewide accountability system, such as the State’s uniform procedure for averaging data, interact with the minimum number of students to affect the statistical reliability and soundness of accountability data and to ensure the maximum inclusion of all students and each subgroup of students; iv. Describe the strategies the State uses to protect the privacy of individual students for each purpose for which disaggregated data is required, including reporting under section 1111(h) of the ESEA and the statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of the ESEA; v. Provide information regarding the number and percentage of all students and students in each subgroup described in 4.B.i above for whose results schools would not be held accountable under the State’s system for annual meaningful differentiation of schools; vi. If an SEA proposes a minimum number of students that exceeds 30, provide a justification that explains how a minimum number of students provided in 4.C above promotes sound, reliable accountability determinations, including data on the number and percentage of schools in the State that would not be held accountable in the system of annual meaningful differentiation for the results of students in each subgroup in 4.B.i above using the minimum number proposed by the State compared to the data on the number and percentage of schools in the State that would not be held accountable for the results of students in each subgroup if the minimum number of students is 30. Please see below for information on 4.C.i. – vi. above. 45 Minimum Number of Students The minimum number of students in a group for an indicator to be reported is 20. The CSDE lowered the minimum N size from 40 to 20 in 2012-13. This decision was made initially as part of Connecticut’s approved ESEA flexibility request in 2012. Lowering the N size has made visible many more student groups across the entire state. Since 201213, the CSDE has discussed this minimum N size at dozens of stakeholder meetings composed of superintendents, district leaders, principals, educators, legislators, community groups, and measurement experts. This minimum N size has also been extended and applied to all statistics reported on Connecticut’s data portal, EdSight. To protect the privacy of student data, the CSDE applies a complex disclosure avoidance algorithm. In light of the consistent application of this standard across all CSDE student data, there is a growing understanding that the N size needed to be lowered from 40 to 20 in the spirit of transparency and accountability, and an appreciation for the disclosure avoidance protocols employed by the CSDE. D. Annual Meaningful Differentiation. Describe the State’s system for annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools in the State, including public charter schools, consistent with the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA. Describe the following information with respect to the State’s system of annual meaningful differentiation: i. The distinct and discrete levels of school performance, and how they are calculated, on each indicator in the statewide accountability system; ii. The weighting of each indicator, including how certain indicators receive substantial weight individually and much greater weight in the aggregate. iii. The summative determinations, including how they are calculated, that are provided to schools. iv. How the system for meaningful differentiation and the methodology for identifying schools will ensure that schools with low performance on substantially weighted indicators are more likely to be identified for comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and improvement,. E. Participation Rate. Describe how the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into its system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools. F. Data Procedures. Describe the State’s uniform procedure for averaging data, including combining data across school years, combining data across grades, or both, in a school, if 46 applicable. G. Including All Public Schools in a State’s Accountability System. If the States uses a different methodology for annual meaningful differentiation than the one described in D above for any of the following specific types of schools, describe how they are included: i. Schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's academic assessment system (e.g., P-2 schools), although the State is not required to administer a standardized assessment to meet this requirement; ii. Schools with variant grade configurations (e.g., P-12 schools); iii. Small schools in which the total number of students who can be included in any indicator is less than the minimum number of students established by the State, consistent with a State’s uniform procedures for averaging data, if applicable; iv. Schools that are designed to serve special populations (e.g., students receiving alternative programming in alternative educational settings; students living in local institutions for neglected or delinquent children, including juvenile justice facilities; students enrolled in State public schools for the deaf or blind; and recently arrived English learners enrolled in public schools for newcomer students); and v. Newly opened schools that do not have multiple years of data, consistent with a State’s uniform procedure for averaging data, if applicable, for at least one indicator (e.g., a newly opened high school that has not yet graduated its first cohort for students). Please see below for information on D-G above. Annual Meaningful Differentiation Five Categories: Five Categories: All schools are placed into one of five categories. Elementary and middle schools (where the highest grade is less than or equal to 8) and high schools will be classified separately. Categories 4 and 5 represent those identified for comprehensive or targeted support. The remaining schools are categorized into either 1, 2, or 3. In 2015-16, Category 1 schools were those in the top quartile, Category 2 schools were those in the two middle quartiles and Category 3 schools were in the bottom quartile. The cut values from 2015-16 and 2016-17 will inform the establishment of criterion-referenced cut points to be used in future years. Participation Rate: Schools that would otherwise be categorized as 1 or 2 will be lowered a category if the participation rate in the state summative assessment in any subject for either the all students group or the high needs group is less than 95 percent. 47 Gaps: Schools that would otherwise be categorized as 1 or 2 will be lowered a category if the achievement gap (Indicator 1) in any subject or the graduation rate gap (Indicator 9) between the non-high needs group (or the ultimate target – whichever is lower) and the high needs group is a significant outlier, i.e., at least one standard deviation greater than the statewide gap. Districts: The lowest performing districts are the Opportunity Districts (formerly known as “Alliance Districts”). All remaining districts are categorized as 1, 2, or 3 in a manner similar to schools. 4.2 Identification of Schools. A. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe: i. The methodologies, including the timeline, by which the State identifies schools for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA, including: 1) lowest-performing schools; 2) schools with low high school graduation rates; and 3) schools with chronically low-performing subgroups. ii. The uniform statewide exit criteria for schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement established by the State, including the number of years over which schools are expected to meet such criteria, under section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the ESEA. B. Targeted Support and Improvement Schools. Describe: i. The State’s methodology for identifying any school with a “consistently underperforming” subgroup of students, including the definition and time period used by the State to determine consistent underperformance. ii. The State’s methodology, including the timeline, for identifying schools with lowperforming subgroups of students that must receive additional targeted support in accordance with section 1111(d)(2)(C) of the ESEA. iii. The uniform exit criteria, established by the SEA, for schools participating under Title I, Part A with low-performing subgroups of students, including the number of years over which schools are expected to meet such criteria. Please see below for information on 4.2 A.-B. outlined above. School Identification Comprehensive Support Schools (Turnaround): In 2018-19, these will be schools whose three-year average of the accountability index is in the bottom 5 percent of all schools statewide. In addition, schools with six-year adjusted cohort graduation rates for all students that are less than 70 percent in each of the three most recent cohorts will also be identified for comprehensive support. New turnaround schools will be identified every three years. 48 Targeted Support and Improvement Schools — “Consistently Underperforming” Subgroups (Focus): Definition: CSDE defines a consistently underperforming subgroup as any subgroup, pursuant to Section 1111(c)(3) of ESSA, in any school that is in the bottom 1 percent of all schools statewide on all indicators in the accountability system in each of the three prior years. School Identification: Effective 2018-19 and annually thereafter, the CSDE will identify schools with one or more subgroups that meet the above definition of consistently underperforming for Targeted Support and Improvement. Additional State-Specific Methodology: In addition to the above approach for ESSA, the CSDE will apply the following state-specific methodology to identify additional schools for support that are exhibiting low achievement or growth among our most vulnerable students. The CSDE will refer to these schools as Focus schools. For this state-specific approach, CSDE will utilize a “high needs” group. A student will be included in this group if he/she is an English learner, a student with a disability, or a student from a low income family. Using a high needs group includes thousands of vulnerable students in accountability calculations — especially English learners and students with disabilities — who would otherwise have been excluded because of the minimum N size of 20. For example, in the achievement indicator alone in 2015-16, over 4,000 English learners and nearly 3,000 students with disabilities would have been excluded from accountability calculations had Connecticut not used the high needs group. Applying the high needs group creates subgroups in schools that may not have any subgroup and compels district and school leaders to focus on all vulnerable students, not just those where the individual subgroup’s N size is 20 or greater. New research from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford University on the effects of school reform in Kentucky under the ESEA Flexibility program reveals that the use of an umbrella group that includes more students may have actually “catalyzed larger school-wide reforms and [avoided] incentives for narrowly targeted reform efforts.” Ultimately, no group of students has homogenous needs. The students with disabilities group is a good example. Though we may treat them as one group, the needs of a child with emotional disturbance may be very different from those of a child with a learning disability. The statistic for the group (e.g., average, rate) in and of itself does not inform the specific action for a child. The same is true with the high needs group that Connecticut has used for the past five years. When educators in a school need to know how to improve the outcomes of the students in a group, they need to know who those students are and then determine how best to assist them. Therefore, effective 2018-19 and annually thereafter, the CSDE will identify schools for the statespecific Focus category as follows: Schools with growth results on the Smarter Balanced growth model: o Bottom 10 percent of schools statewide based on the average percentage of target achieved (Indicator 2) by high needs students in ELA or mathematics in each of the prior three years. High schools only 49 o o Bottom 10 percent of all schools statewide based on the performance index for high needs students in ELA, mathematics, or science (Indicator 1) in each of the prior three years; or Six-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for the high needs group that is less than 70 percent in each of the three most recent cohorts. 50 Additional Targeted Support Schools Among those schools that are identified for Targeted Support and Improvement based on the CSDE’s definition for consistently underperforming subgroups, the CSDE will identify schools for additional targeted support if an individual subgroup, pursuant to Section 1111(c)(3) of ESSA, in any school on its own (i.e., based on that subgroup’s accountability index) would have led to its identification as a comprehensive support school. These schools will be first identified in 2018-19 and then once every three years. Title I schools identified for Additional Targeted Support that do not meet the exit criteria specified in section A.4.viii.b below within four years will be identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement. Effective 2018-19 and annually thereafter, these will be schools that are in the bottom 10 percent of all schools statewide based on the average percentage of target achieved by high needs students in ELA or mathematics (i.e., matched student cohort growth – Indicator 2) in each of the prior three years; in addition schools with six-year adjusted cohort graduation rates for the high needs group that are less than 70 percent in each of the three most recent cohorts will also be identified for targeted support. Consistently underperforming targeted support schools that do not meet the exit criteria for five consecutive years will be placed into comprehensive support. Exit Criteria for : Comprehensive Support and targeted support schools Improvement Schools: These schools are expected to exit in four years or less. They will exit if: they no longer meet the reason for their identification in the two consecutive years after identification; and they demonstrate substantial improvement and continued progress toward improved student academic achievement and school success on the data that were the basis for the identification. Using both criteria will ensure that the school demonstrates improvement and will not be reidentified in a future cycle. . All identified schools are expected to meet or exceed their growth targets at Interim Progress Checkpoints outlined in section 2.2B Performance Management of this document. Exit Criteria for Schools Receiving Additional Targeted Support Schools identified for additional targeted support are expected to exit within four years. They will exit if: o they no longer meet the reason for their identification in two consecutive years; and o they demonstrate substantial improvement and continued progress toward improved student academic achievement and school success on the accountability index for the subgroup(s) that were the basis for the identification. Recognition – Schools of Distinction: These are schools in categories 1, 2 or 3 that are in the top 10 percent in any of the following four categories and are not flagged as having an achievement gap, a graduation rate gap, or participation rate below 95 percent on the state summative assessments. 51 1. Overall Performance (top 10 percent of accountability index) 2. Growth – All Students (top 10 percent on points earned for All Students for indicator 2) 3. Growth – High Needs (top 10 percent on points earned for High Needs Students for Indicator 2) 4. Overall Improvement – Schools without Indicator 2 growth only (top 10 percent of rate of improvement on the Accountability Index from one year to the next) 4.3 State Support and Improvement for Low-performing Schools. A. School Improvement Resources. Describe how the SEA will meet its responsibilities, under section 1003 of the ESEA, including the process to award school improvement funds to LEAs and monitoring and evaluating the use of funds by LEAs. B. Technical Assistance Regarding Evidence-Based Interventions. Describe the technical assistance the SEA will provide to each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, including how it will provide technical assistance to LEAs to ensure the effective implementation of evidence-based interventions, and, if applicable, the list of State-approved, evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans. The CSDE believes that if you provide resources, evidence-based “best” practices as models, and differentiated technical assistance and supports to comprehensive or targeted support schools or LEAs with significant number or percentage of schools identified as for comprehensive or targeted support, then LEAs and schools will create the necessary systems that will improve student outcomes. The CSDE monitors comprehensive support and targeted support schools on 12 indicators of progress, including the long-term goals outlined in Connecticut’s State Plan in Section 1: Long-term Goals. 52 Operating from a theory of action targeting the LEA as the “change unit,” the CSDE will require each LEA with schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement to submit an annual application for each such school identifying prioritized interventions in the domains of (1) talent management; (2) academic growth and performance / English language proficiency; (3) climate and culture; and (4) organizational and operational effectiveness. As stated previously in Section 2.2B, Performance Management, the CSDE has developed a robust plan for differentiated supports to districts dependent based on the percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. The Department will use a triage model of differentiated supports, and other critical, over-arching strategies to drive school and district improvement using both state and federal funds. These critical strategies include: 53 1. Differentiated supports, guidance and monitoring: The CSDE has developed a triage support model for Connecticut LEAs (depicted in the graphic at right). In addition, Section 2.2B, Performance Management, outlines the state’s plan for approval, as well as differentiated monitoring and evaluation of the use of federal funds as well as progress toward goals over a 13-year period. For more information on monitoring site visit frequency and processes, please see section 2.2B Performance Management of this document. 2. CSDE cross-divisional teams: The CSDE is committed to breaking down bureaucratic silos to deploy resources and conduct monitoring in a coordinated and coherent manner that benefits LEAs. To that end, the Department has begun to create cross-divisional teams of experts from the CSDE Offices of Performance, Academics, Talent, Turnaround, and Student Supports to work closely with CT’s lowest performing districts, known as Opportunity Districts, where 70% of identified schools are located. 3. Building expertise: The CSDE will develop capacity both internally (across all offices of the CSDE) and in LEAs on the most effective school improvement strategies. These will be structured using our existing state Turnaround Framework: (1) talent management, (2) academic outcomes, (3) climate/culture, and (4) organizational / operational effectiveness. In addition, the CT ESSA Consolidated Plan and CT SBE Five Year Comprehensive Plan performance management systems will provide valuable direction, guidance, and feedback on the state’s progress over for the next decade. 4. State Supports in identifying evidence-based interventions/practices: Building on the current Connecticut Accountability System guidance document, Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement (March 2016), and with the assistance of stakeholder expertise (LEA, university, professional organization, and research partners), and incorporating the evidence levels outlined in nonregulatory guidance, the CSDE will create Evidence-based Practices Guidance for the following areas: Early Learning (staffing, programming, instruction, social-emotional supports, etc.) School Climate (staffing, teaming, social-emotional supports, restorative/non-exclusionary discipline, chronic absenteeism, etc.) Student/Family/Community Engagement (staffing; absenteeism strategies; supports for engaging racially, ethnically, linguistically diverse families, etc.). 54 Academics: English language arts, mathematics, reading and math intervention, science (staffing; scheduling; curriculum; instruction; extended day, week, school year programs; tiered intervention, etc.). English Language Proficiency (staffing, programs, instruction, SIOP—Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, family engagement, etc.). On Track/Graduation Resources (staffing, using data/matching data to supports, transition grade strategies, over-age/under-credit programs, credit recovery, etc.) As an ongoing support for LEAs, the CSDE will expand and update the Evidence-based Practices Guidance until 2030. C. More Rigorous Interventions. Describe the more rigorous interventions required for schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet the State’s exit criteria within a State-determined number of years consistent with section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the ESEA. Any school identified for comprehensive support failing to meet the CSDE’s exit criteria within three years will be required to implement more rigorous, evidence-based interventions with high statistical probability of success in the following three areas: increased academic performance and growth, increased graduation rates, and increased English language proficiency. These steps are outlined explicitly in Section 2.2B, Performance Management of this document. A needs assessments can play a critical role at the progress check points and will be reported on the LEA’s consolidated application. This will help focus LEAs on their current state of implementation of school improvement plans. Opportunity Districts will received increased CSDE support in conducting these activities. Other districts will receive tools and training to accomplish the activities. The needs-assessment process can help identify unknown factors that may affect student outcomes. The LEA will promptly notify the parents of each student enrolled in the school identified for comprehensive support and improvement, including the reasons for the school’s identification and an explanation of how parents can become involved in the needs assessment. Following a needs assessment process, LEAs should engage in an in-depth program review to evaluate what strategies are working or are ineffective. Opportunity Districts will received increased CSDE support in conducting these activities. Other districts will receive tools and training to accomplish the activities. Abandoning ineffective strategies, especially those that use instructional time, can be as useful as adopting new strategies. LEA plans will be written with direct assistance from the CSDE for LEAs identified for Tier III Intensive Level Supports who have schools that have not met three-year progress benchmarks. LEAs identified for Tier I Basic Level Supports and Tier II Moderate Supports may request assistance from the CSDE in revising either LEA plans or school plans. Proposed use of 1003 school improvement grants within Title I: As discussed in Section 2.2B, Performance Management, 70 percent of Title I schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support are within Connecticut’s 10 Tier III Intensive Level Support districts, the lowest performing LEAs. The CSDE will annually set aside that percentage of 1003 school improvement 55 funding for a formulaic distribution to LEAs identified as Tier III Intensive Level Support districts (or 10 lowest performing LEAs) for support of comprehensive and targeted support schools. a. If the state has sufficient 1003 school improvement funds: i. The 10 lowest performing LEAs will receive formulaic grants annually of up to $500,000 per school identified for comprehensive support and up to $50,000 per school identified for targeted support, totaling approximately 70 percent of the set aside. ii. The CSDE will provide an annual statewide competitive RFP for the remaining 30 percent of the set aside for 1003 school improvement grants of up to $500,000 for comprehensive support and up to $50,000 per school for targeted support for all remaining LEAs where approximately 30 percent of all Title I schools identified for comprehensive support are located. iii. Competitive grants depend on LEAs submitting an application that identifies evidencebased interventions with the strongest levels of evidence available, and provides rationale for selection of evidence-based interventions that most closely align to the challenges identified in school needs assessments. iv. Once awarded, the LEA will be required to distribute 1003 funding based on: (1) enrollment; (2) identified needs of each school; and (3) a strong rationale to support how an amount less than the required $500,000 per year per comprehensive support school or $50,000 per year per targeted support school will effectively produce results in student achievement and student outcomes. b. If the state has insufficient 1003 school improvement funds to provide formulaic grants to the 10 lowest performing LEAs: i. The CSDE will provide a competitive RFP for comprehensive school improvement grants to the 10 lowest performing LEAs only, awarding 70 percent of the state’s 1003 set aside to one district to be used to award up to $500,000 annually for comprehensive support schools and $50,000 annually to targeted support schools. To ensure diverse distribution of 1003 funds, LEAs receiving the award will not be eligible for competition for at least three years. ii. For the remaining 30 percent of the state’s 1003 set aside, the CSDE will provide a competitive RFP for comprehensive school improvement grants and/or targeted assistance school improvement grants to all other LEAs. iii. Competitive grants depend on LEAs submitting an application that identifies evidencebased interventions with the strongest levels of evidence available, and provides rationale for selection of evidence-based interventions that most closely align to the challenges identified in school needs assessments. iv. Once awarded, the LEA will be required to distribute 1003 funding based on: (1) enrollment; (2) identified needs of each school; and (3) a strong rationale to support how an amount less than the required $500,000 per year per comprehensive support school or $50,000 per year per targeted support school will effectively produce results in student achievement and student outcomes. The Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments issued September16, 2016, has been a source of guidance to the CSDE. The Department has identified 56 the critical efforts needed by the SEA to ensure effective implementation of evidenced-based strategies in LEAs, including, but not limited to: the creation of state evidence-based interventions/practices guidance outlined Section 4.3B, Technical Assistance; evidence-based practices training modules; fidelity of implementation resources and training; technical assistance in the initial selection of strategies and guidance, including state evidence-based practices guidance; evidence-based practices training modules; and fidelity of implementation resources and training; CSDE cross-divisional school improvement team site visits in Connecticut’s Tier III Intensive Support Opportunity Districts and/or the 10 lowest performing districts in the state, as outlined in Section 2.2B, Performance Management. Using the triage model of autonomy, guidance, and technical assistance, we have identified appropriate degrees of supports based on district needs, resources, and access to additional resources. LEAs identified for Tier I Basic Level Supports and Tier II Moderate Supports must submit a school improvement plan for each school identified for comprehensive or targeted support. Plans must include evidence-based interventions, either from the state guidance or through a description identifying an alternate evidenced-based practice not found on the state list and providing references to the research/evidence base. LEAs identified as Tier III Intensive Level Support Opportunity Districts must submit an LEA plan using evidenced-based practices from the state guidance. The CSDE will prepare guidance for use by comprehensive and targeted support schools located in LEAs identified for Tier III Intensive Level Supports and by schools that do not meet established exit criteria. Spending guidance will be provided for the use of federal and state funds to support comprehensive and targeted support schools. The CSDE recognizes that the What Works Clearinghouse at this time may not provide the CSDE and LEAs with the breadth of strong or moderate evidence-based intervention options needed to support school improvement, but the Department will use all available research and evidence-based resources at its disposal to address the needs exhibited by Title I schools. The CSDE will revise guidance to LEAs annually to include additional evidence-based interventions. The CSDE will seek assistance from the State Support Network in the development of its evidence-based interventions/practices guidance. D. Periodic Resource Review. Describe how the SEA will periodically review, identify, and, to the extent practicable, address any identified inequities in resources to ensure sufficient support for school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement consistent with the requirements in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. 57 The state’s consolidated plan application will require LEAs to identify resource inequities in comprehensive and targeted support schools and to identify how the LEA will address the inequities. The state will annually review LEA resource allocations. To address inequities in resources and to ensure sufficient support for school improvement, LEAs serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement will receive support and technical support in the allocation and management of resources available through local, state, and federal funds. LEAs receiving Tier I Basic Level Supports and Tier II Moderate Supports will also receive assistance in identifying resource inequity through inventories and training modules. Lastly, Tier III Intensive Level Support Opportunity Districts will work with the CSDE’s Talent Office to address the equitable distribution of teachers and leaders through the state’s Equity Plan discussed in Section 5.3, Educator Equity, of this document. 58 Section 5: Supporting Excellent Educators 5.1 Educator Development, Retention, and Advancement. Instructions: Consistent with sections 2101 and 2102 of the ESEA, if an SEA intends to use funds under one or more of the included programs for any of the following purposes, provide a description with the necessary information. A. Certification and Licensure Systems. Does the SEA intend to use Title II, Part A funds or funds from other included programs for certifying and licensing teachers and principals or other school leaders? ☐ Yes. If yes, provide a description of the systems for certification and licensure below. ☒ No. B. Educator Preparation Program Strategies. Does the SEA intend to use Title II, Part A funds or funds from other included programs to support the State’s strategies to improve educator preparation programs consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(M) of the ESEA, particularly for educators of low-income and minority students? ☐ Yes. If yes, provide a description of the strategies to improve educator preparation programs below. ☒ No. C. Educator Growth and Development Systems. Does the SEA intend to use Title II, Part A funds or funds from other included programs to support the State's systems of professional growth and improvement for educators that addresses: 1) induction; 2) development, consistent with the definition of professional development in section 8002(42) of the ESEA; 3) compensation; and 4) advancement for teachers, principals, and other school leaders. This may also include how the SEA will work with LEAs in the State to develop or implement systems of professional growth and improvement, consistent with section 2102(b)(2)(B) of the ESEA; or State or local educator evaluation and support systems consistent with section 2101(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the ESEA? ☐ Yes. If yes, provide a description of the educator growth and development systems below. ☒ No. 5.2 Support for Educators. Instructions: Consistent with sections 2101 and 2102 of the ESEA, if the SEA intends to use funds under one or more of the included programs for any of the following purposes, provide a description with the necessary information. A. Resources to Support State-level Strategies. Describe how the SEA will use Title II, Part A funds and funds from other included programs, consistent with allowable uses of funds provided under those programs, to support State-level strategies designed to: 59 i. Increase student achievement consistent with the challenging State academic standards; ii. Improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school leaders; iii. Increase the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective in improving student academic achievement in schools; and iv. Provide low-income and minority students greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders consistent with the educator equity provisions. The CSDE will use Title II, Part A funds for state level strategies to ensure that students are supported by great teachers and leaders. If we are to increase student achievement consistent with challenging state academic standards, schools and districts must recruit, prepare, induct, evaluate and support, and advance a strong workforce composed of effective educators who represent the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the state’s student population. The mission of the CSDE’s Talent Office is to develop and deploy talent management and human capital development strategies to districts and schools statewide so that each and every student is ensured equitable access to effective teachers and school/district leaders in order to be prepared for success in college, career, and life. A. Connecticut’s System of Certification and Licensure Connecticut has a three-tiered continuum of certification: initial, provisional, and professional. At the entry level, candidates are awarded an initial educator certificate, valid for three years, if they have successfully met preparation and eligibility requirements. Candidates must complete the Teacher Education and Mentoring (TEAM) induction program, if applicable to their endorsement area, prior to moving to provisional certification. A provisional certificate, valid for eight years, is issued to a candidate who has successfully completed the TEAM Program and has a least one school year of successful teaching in a public school or at least two years of successful teaching in a public or nonpublic school approved by the SBE or appropriate governing body in another state within 10 years prior to the application. To advance from the provisional to the professional educator certificate, candidates must have successfully completed a minimum of three school years of teaching in a public school or nonpublic school approved by the SBE under a provisional teaching certificate and prior to July 1, 2016, have successfully completed at least 30 semester hours of credit beyond a bachelor’s degree. On and after July 1, 2016, candidates must hold a master’s degree in an appropriate subject matter area, as determined by the SBE, related to such person’s certification endorsement area. The professional certificate is valid for five years. 60 THREE-TIERED CONTINUUM OF CERTIFICATION Professional Educator Certificate Valid for 5 years Provisional Educator Certificate Valid for 8 years Connecticut requires completion various candidate pre-service licensure assessments, as (Public school educators must enroll in and complete TEAM) appropriate to the endorsement area (e.g., Praxis II, ACTFL, Foundations of Reading, and the Connecticut Administrator Test). Connecticut certification regulations allow for permits and special authorizations for candidates who do not yet meet certification requirements for the initial, provisional or professional certificate. This includes issuance of Durational Shortage Area Permits (DSAPs) to LEAs so they may staff positions for which there is a shortage of available, qualified candidates. Teachers working under a DSAP must hold a bachelor’s degree, have 12 semester hours in the subject area being taught, and meet the state’s basic skills testing requirement. DSAPs are issued for a year and may be conditionally reissued for an additional two years. of Initial Educator Certificate Valid for 3 years B. Educator Preparation Programs 1. Educator Preparation Program (EPP) Approval Process: The CSDE educator preparation program approval is the process through which Connecticut public and private institutions of higher education, or other educator preparation providers, seek new and continuing program approval to offer planned programs leading to licensure. The Bureau of Educator Effectiveness has responsibility for reviewing, reporting, and enhancing the quality of educator preparation programs in Connecticut. The CSDE is implementing multiple strategies to improve and strengthen preparation programs to ensure that teachers and administrators are learner and school ready on day one of their careers. 2. Teacher Preparation Transformation: In 2012, Special Act 12-3 required the CSDE to convene a broadly representative stakeholder group to make recommendations for transforming educator preparation systems to the Connecticut State Board of Education (SBE) and the Education Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. As a result, the Educator Preparation Advisory Council (EPAC) was convened. In April 2013, EPAC recommended six broad principles to guide Connecticut’s efforts to transform educator preparation programs (EPPs) in the state. EPAC continued its work through September 2016. In December 2016, the SBE adopted EPAC’s recommendation to adopt the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards for continuing approval of Connecticut EPPs. In December 2016, the SBE also adopted edTPA, a pre-service portfolio performance assessment aligned to the Common Core of Teaching domains of effective teaching. All pre-service candidates will 61 complete edTPA during student teaching, with consequences, beginning in the 2019-20 academic year. 3. EPP Data Collection and Reporting: The CSDE will also provide a new public-facing data dashboard that will publish data on numerous measures of the effectiveness of Connecticut EPPs. This system will provide increased accountability and transparency, as well as provide annual feedback to the EPPs to guide their continuous improvement. 4a. Ongoing Related Work (funded through other grants): In 2013, the CSDE competed for and was awarded two national grants that also focused on transforming educator preparation: The Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (NTEP) is a grant awarded by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to support the work of reforming educator preparation programs, including the approval process, data collection and analysis, public reporting, and certification. These three reform areas are outlined in CCSSO’s task force report, Our Responsibility, Our Promise, which served as a call to action for CCSSO chiefs, members of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), and the National Governors Association (NGA). Connecticut is one of seven states awarded this grant. In addition, Connecticut receives the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR) Center grant, funded by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to provide technical assistance to help states and institutions of higher education reform their teacher and leader preparation programs to ensure candidates are engaged in practice-based clinical experiences (e.g., tutoring, lesson study, video analysis, etc.) and evidence-based strategies prior to student teaching. 4b. Ongoing Consultation with Required Stakeholders: Ongoing consultation is a value and a longstanding practice of both the Connecticut State Board of Education and the CSDE. Consistent with the robust stakeholder engagement used in both the development of the Connecticut State Board of Education’s Five-Year Comprehensive Plan and the development of our ESSA Consolidated State Plan (see Appendix A), the Department has developed structures to regularly update, collect information and feedback, and problem-solve issues with stakeholders. The CSDE has devised a communication protocol to be implemented three times a year. The protocol is outlined in the table below. 62 CONTINUING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROTOCOL Month September - December CSDE Actions - Engage stakeholders at regularly scheduled meetings - Share triannual period 1 “Two Pager” Update on ESSA Activities & Progress on SBE Goals December January - April May -August - Engage stakeholders at regularly scheduled meetings Progress on State Board of Education Goals 1,2,3, and 4 - Engage stakeholders at regularly scheduled meetings CSDE drafts triannual period 1 “Two Pager” Update for start of the next school year Survey Period Triannual Period 1 Survey Open and Feedback Collected - Triannual #1 Survey closes – Feedback Report generated Title I, II, III, and IV activities Progress on State Board of Education Goals 1,2,3, and 4 CSDE drafts triannual period 3 “Two Pager” Update on ESSA Activities and Progress on SBE Goals - Share triannual period 1 “Two Pager” Update on ESSA Activities & Progress on SBE Goals August Title I, II, III, and IV activities CSDE drafts triannual period 2 “Two Pager” Update on ESSA Activities and Progress on SBE Goals - Share triannual period 2 “Two Pager” Update on ESSA Activities & Progress on SBE Goals April Focus Triannual Period 2 Survey Open and Feedback Collected - Triannual period 2 Survey closes – Feedback Report generated Title I, II, III, and IV activities Progress on State Board of Education Goals 1,2,3, and 4 Triannual Period 1 Survey Open and Feedback Collected - Triannual period 3 Survey closes – Feedback Report generated The next table, found below, contains a stakeholder list that is comprehensive, but does not represent all stakeholder group meetings held by CSDE leaders and staff. It is also important to note that new stakeholder groups emerge across time and are continually added to our 63 engagement efforts. The table below illustrates the meeting frequency where Title II state activities are discussed with required stakeholders. STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND MEETING FREQUENCY Stakeholder Group Type of Meeting Frequency National Association of State Boards of Education Annual Meeting Minimum annually Updates to NASBE and Technical Assistance for Connecticut As needed Connecticut State Board of Education (SBE) State Board of Education Meetings Monthly Minimum Quarterly Committee Meetings Council of Chief State School Officers Organization (CCSSO) Conferences for SDE Leaders and Education Consultants Updates to CCSSO and Technical assistance for CT 3 times per year As needed, typically by telephone Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) Meetings with Superintendents Monthly Deans of Post-Secondary Educator Preparation Programs (EPP) Meetings with Deans of public and private EPPs Quarterly Certification Officers of PostSecondary EPPs Meetings with Certification Officers of public and private EPPs 2 times per year Connecticut Education Association (CEA) Educator Clubs Meetings with students in Educator Preparation Programs across the state Multiple annual visits to meetings Regional Curriculum and Human Resources Councils (through Connecticut's six regional educational service centers [RESCs]) Meetings with Assistant Superintendents/ Directors of Curriculum or Human Resources from school districts within the region Minimum 2 times per year for each region (12 meetings) Teacher of the Year Council Meetings with past and present School District Teachers of the Year Quarterly 64 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND MEETING FREQUENCY Stakeholder Group Type of Meeting Frequency Paraprofessional Advisory Council Meetings with Paraprofessionals Quarterly Connecticut Association of Schools Community of Practice Series Half day community of practice sessions for K-12 school principals and other school leaders Annual series (4-6 sessions) Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special Education (ConnCASE) Meetings with district directors and supervisors of Special Education Quarterly Connecticut State Advisory Council on Special Education Meetings with parent/ community advisory council to the CSDE Minimum quarterly Connecticut Family Support Council Meetings with parents/family members Minimum quarterly Commissioner’s Parent Advisory Meetings with parents and community members who advise the Commissioner Quarterly Commissioner’s Council on Mathematics Meetings with practitioners and experts in mathematics curriculum and instruction 2-4 times per year Connecticut K-3 Reading Initiative PD series and planning sessions to address Connecticut literacy gap, including monthly PD initiative, monthly planning meetings and intensive support at 65 school sites. Minimum monthly Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL) Meetings with supervisors of EL programming in school districts Minimum quarterly Connecticut Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (ConnTESOL) Meetings with teachers, board of directors and other members 1-2 times per year Connecticut Association of Administrators and Superintendents (CALAS) Meetings with board members Quarterly 65 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND MEETING FREQUENCY Stakeholder Group Type of Meeting Frequency Connecticut Association for the Gifted (CAG) Meetings with members 1-2 times per year Connecticut Netstat Meetings Meetings with Charter School leaders and public Turnaround School leaders 3 times per year Northeast Charter Schools Network Meetings with Charter Network leadership and Charter School leaders 1-2 times per year Alliance District Convenings Meetings with District Turnaround leaders and experts in turnaround 3 times per year Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) Meetings with education advocates 2-3 times per year Community Partners Meetings with community members with expertise and interest in a variety of educational topics, including but not limited to associations dedicated to: computer science, the arts, manufacturing, banking, history and social studies, and agri-science. In addition, meetings are held with the CT Business and Industry Association, religious leaders, a variety of civics groups, the NAACP, and numerous charitable organizations. Minimum 1-2 times per year 66 C. Statewide Activities to Build an Effective Talent Pipeline Talent Pipeline Goals Build a robust pipeline of qualified and certified educators to fill persistent shortage areas (e.g., math, science, special education, bilingual) Talent Strategies 1. Through a variety of statewide activities, collect feedback from external stakeholders regarding needed changes to the existing certification system, particularly in the areas of: Removing bureaucratic barriers to certification Creating flexible pathways to obtaining a teaching certificate in Connecticut; Updating existing science certificates to better align with the instruction required to enact the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and increasing flexibility in the course assignments of science teachers in LEAs; Developing tiered Computer Science certification to better meet the needs of PK-12 students living and working in a digital world 2. Implement innovative statewide marketing strategies to attract potential teachers from other careers (in areas such as math, science, etc.). 3. Collaborate with institutions of higher education (IHEs), the six regional educational service centers (RESCs), and other education preparation providers (EPPs) to develop new programs, with a specific focus on creating new, accelerated/alternate routes to certification (ARCs). 4. Examine initial and cross-endorsement certification pathways to increase the number of English as a Second Language (ESL) and Bilingual Education teachers. Increase the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of Connecticut’s educator workforce 1. Through a variety of statewide activities, implement: Innovative strategies to attract Grade 6-12 students to the teaching profession. Innovative strategies to attract college students to the teaching profession. Innovative marketing strategies to attract potential teachers from other careers. 2. As a part of statewide activities, collaborate with IHEs, the RESCs, and other EPPs to develop new programs, with a specific focus on creating district-embedded ARCs designed for school staff such as paraprofessionals, technicians, and clerical staff who are interested in pursuing a career in teaching. 67 Talent Pipeline Goals Talent Strategies Increase the number of preservice teachers and administrators who are learnerand school-ready on day one of their careers Through a variety of statewide activities: Implement the Educator Preparation Advisory Council’s (EPAC) recommendation to adopt the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards for continuing approval of Connecticut EPPs. Beginning in fall 2017, build, launch, and maintain a new public-facing data dashboard that publishes data on numerous measures of the effectiveness of Connecticut’s EPPs, increasing accountability and transparency, and providing annual feedback to guide the continuous improvement of EPPs. Plan for, and implement in academic year 2019-20, a preservice portfolio performance assessment, edTPA, which is aligned to the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching (CCT) domains of effective teaching. Improve the quality and effectiveness of in-service teachers, principals, and other school leaders Through statewide activities, provide ongoing professional development in the value of observational tools to help educators grow and develop by providing a continuum of practice and exemplars. Tools include, but are not limited to: CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching 2014 CCT Rubric for Effective Service Delivery 2015 CT Leader Evaluation and Support Rubric 2015 Connecticut Core Standards Classroom "Look Fors" Support ongoing growth and improvement in educator practice Provide technical assistance, resources, and training to LEAs as they develop collaborative district professional learning systems using tools developed by the CSDE, with a focus on collaborative learning among educator in formats that are conducive to adult learning, thereby increasing the probability that new learning will be applied and practiced in the classroom. B. Skills to Address Specific Learning Needs. Describe how the SEA will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders in identifying students with specific learning needs and providing instruction based on the needs of such students, consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(J) of the ESEA. The CSDE is committed to its efforts to ensure that every student is taught by highly-effective teachers and that schools are led by highly-effective school leaders. Efforts will focus on improving our certification system, reforming statewide pre-service preparation, and assisting 68 districts in developing high-quality professional learning to improve practice across the educator career continuum. Likewise, the CSDE will continue to invest in and enhance early career support through its statewide teacher induction program, the Teacher Education and Mentoring (TEAM) program. The TEAM program provides state and district support to new teachers. Each new teacher is paired with a mentor who coaches and guides the teacher through the first two years of teaching as they complete modules on classroom environment, planning, instruction, assessment, and professional responsibility. Beginning teachers collaborate with their mentors to develop their practice and learn how to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. The monitoring and evaluation systems designed to measure the effectiveness of TEAM will inform decisions about needed adjustments to better assist teachers in meeting the specific learning needs of their students. Educator Effectiveness Goal Improve skills of educators in identifying students with diverse and specific learning needs and providing appropriate instruction Specific Strategies to Improve Teacher Skills Working with the CSDE Academic Office, the Bureau of Special Education, and other partners, implement statewide activities that promote: On-going Content Area Professional Development Evidence-based explicit reading instruction for PK-12 struggling learners (five year PD series titled ReadConn, See the ReadConn series) “Scientific Research-Based Intervention- Connecticut’s Framework for Response to Intervention,” outlines general education practices to prevent and/or intervene early in specific learning problems. Universal Design for Learning, (click here to access training) a teacher-friendly and viable method of differentiating instruction, is embedded in all CT Core Standards Online Professional Development Modules. Training in identification procedures and special education guidelines for new leaders, new teachers, and new related service staff. Evidence-based mathematics instructional practices aligned with the Report of the Commissioner's Math Council (October 2016) and the Connecticut Core Standards for Mathematics. Evidence-based instructional practices/pedagogy for English learners and special education students; including effective accommodations used in general education classes, as well as supports used by TESOL and special education teachers. Click here to view online courses Resources and training in CT’s K-3 Social, Emotional and Intellectual Habits , expanding to grades 5-12 in the future 69 Educator Effectiveness Goal Specific Strategies to Improve Teacher Skills Extensive resources for teaching students with disabilities, included in trainings, webinars, and posted to the CSDE Special Education webpage Extensive resources for teaching English Learners, including CT English Language Proficiency Standards Linguistic Supports Document Extensive resources for teaching students who are gifted and talented, including a repository of Gifted and Talented web resources on the CSDE website and a dedicated SEA consultant, who communicates out to districts on statutory requirements, training opportunities, and supports related to gifted and talented students; the CSDE also works closely with the Connecticut Association for the Gifted and the University of Connecticut Neag School of Education’s Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development, which is a premier research program and provides resources and services in support of gifted and talented students. 5.3 Educator Equity. A. Definitions. Provide the SEA’s different definitions, using distinct criteria, for the following key terms: Key Term Statewide Definition (or Statewide Guidelines) Ineffective teacher* A teacher who demonstrates a pattern of ratings as defined in Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Support (SEED) or as defined by a local or regional boards of education in their CSDE-approved educator evaluation and support plan. Out-of-field teacher*+ A person who does not hold an initial, provisional, or professional certificate or the appropriate authorization for that content area. Inexperienced teacher*+ A teacher with four years or less of experience. Low-income student A student who is reported as eligible for free or reduced price meals. Minority student A student whose race/ethnicity is reported as not white. 70 Other Key Terms (optional) Statewide Definition Ineffective Principal A principal who demonstrates a pattern of ratings as defined in Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Support (SEED) or as defined by a local or regional boards of education in their CSDE-approved educator evaluation and support plan. Inexperienced Principal A principal with four years or less of experience. Shortage Area Vacancies The percentage of available positions that remains vacant as reported by districts on October 1 annually. This metric will be used as an indicator of equity gaps in high-poverty, high-minority schools. B. Rates and Differences in Rates. In Appendix B, calculate and provide the statewide rates at which low-income and minority students enrolled in schools receiving funds under Title I, Part A are taught by ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers compared to non-low-income and nonminority students enrolled in schools not receiving funds under Title I, Part A using the definitions provided in section 5.3.A. The SEA must calculate the statewide rates using student-level data. The CSDE has included both the rates, and the differences in rates in Appendix C with the exception of “ineffectiveness” rates for both all schools, as well as for those receiving funds under Title I, Part A. There is little to no difference between the rates for low income, high minority schools assisted under Title I, Part A, and students enrolled in schools not receiving funds under Title I, Part A.. Data on “ineffectiveness” is not currently collected at the state level. C. Public Reporting. Provide the Web address or URL of, or a direct link to, where the SEA will publish and annually update: i. The rates and differences in rates calculated in 5.3.B; ii. The percentage of teachers categorized in each LEA at each effectiveness level established as part of the definition of “ineffective teacher,” consistent with applicable State privacy policies; iii. The percentage of teachers categorized as out-of-field teachers; and iv. The percentage of teachers categorized as inexperienced teachers. The Connecticut State Department of Education data is publicly available on EdSight: http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do. As noted above, the CSDE is unable to provide the percentage of teachers and principals categorized in each LEA at each effectiveness level established as part of the definition of “ineffective teacher,” because LEAs are required to report only the annual summative ratings in the aggregate. LEAs are required to determine educator effectiveness based on a pattern of ratings as defined in Connecticut’s System for Educator Evaluation and Support (SEED) or as defined by local or regional boards of 71 education in their CSDE-approved educator evaluation and support plan. The CSDE does not collect data on the effectiveness of teachers or principals. D. Likely Causes of Most Significant Differences. If there is one or more difference in rates in 5.3.B, describe the likely causes (e.g., teacher shortages, working conditions, school leadership, compensation, or other causes), which may vary across districts or schools, of the most significant statewide differences in rates in 5.3.B. The description must include whether those differences in rates reflect gaps between districts, within districts, and within schools. Possible root causes for the differences in rates (5.3.B) between high-poverty, high-minority schools and low-poverty, low-minority schools were identified by stakeholders during the development of Connecticut’s Equitable Access to Excellent Educators 2015 plan. These include, but are not limited to: inadequate teacher and leader preparation; teacher and leader inexperience; persistent shortages in specific certification endorsement areas; difficulty filling vacancies in hard-to-staff schools; and limited racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in the educator workforce. Some Connecticut districts experience greater challenges in filling vacancies with certified educators in several shortage areas, including grades 7-12 math and science. These districts are often forced to fill vacancies with substitute teachers and noncertified educators who receive a Durational Shortage Area Permit (DSAP). In addition, high-poverty, high-minority schools appear to experience higher rates of attrition and turnover, which contributes to higher rates of inexperienced teachers and schools leaders in these schools compared with low-poverty, low-minority schools. When comparing districts across the state, students attending high-poverty, high-minority schools in Connecticut are somewhat more likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers and led by inexperienced principals than students in low-poverty and low-minority schools. Teachers and principals at high-poverty, high-minority schools often lack specific pre-service experience designed to prepare them to meet the additional challenges they experience teaching in these settings, which may include higher incidences of students with disabilities, English learners, and struggling learners, as well as higher rates of homelessness, chronic health issues, student trauma, and chronic absenteeism. The disparities between the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity represented in the educator workforce compared with the student population can result in a steep learning curve for new teachers and possibly, create a disconnection between teachers and their students in specific areas (learning styles, cultural norms, expectations about behavior or experiences outside the classroom, etc.). These differences may affect the school and the classroom learning environments (e.g., office discipline referrals, suspensions, academic engagement). These differences in culture, race, and language may create a climate that is less conducive to teaching and learning, less inviting to students and families, and more stressful, both for educators and their students. The CSDE identified eight Equity Districts in its 2015 Equity Plan. Given the opportunity provided by ESSA for states to submit a consolidated state plan, the CSDE will focus its most intensive resources and supports in the 10 educational reform districts—the 10 lowest performing districts identified as receiving Tier 3 supports in the Performance Management and State Supports for Low 72 Performing Schools sections of this document. An agency-wide focus will promote intentional, proactive coordination relative to these 10 districts. When working with educational reform districts, the Talent Office will prioritize the strategies outlined below and customize approaches for each of the ten districts. This will help ensure students attending high-poverty, high-minority schools have equitable access to effective teachers and school leaders. E. Identification of Strategies. If there is one or more difference in rates in 5.3.B, provide the SEA’s strategies, including timelines and Federal or non-Federal funding sources, that are: i. Designed to address the likely causes of the most significant differences identified in 5.3.D and ii. Prioritized to address the most significant differences in the rates provided in 5.3.B, including by prioritizing strategies to support any schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement that are contributing to those differences in rates. Likely Causes of Differences in Rates of Educator Experience & Skills Early-career teachers/principals at high-poverty and highminority schools often lack relevant, robust preservice experience Teacher Equity Strategies (Including Timeline and Funding Sources) During the 2017-18 academic year, collaborate with the Office of Higher Education and the Board of Regents, as well as other educational entities, to develop more robust collaborative, coordinated partnerships among IHEs, PK-12 systems, and other educational entities to develop innovative solutions that increase collective responsibility and accountability for developing leanerready teachers and school-ready principals. No funding required beyond staff time. By spring 2018, develop cultural competence resources for use by EPPs and LEAs, funded through state CSDE Talent Office budget. Work with the Performance Office to develop and launch an EPP dashboard (fall 2017) and an educator profile (fall 2018) at the district level. Funded through awarded grants. Continue the Academic Office’s Community of Practice Series for School Principals funded through the state’s CT Core Standards budget line. Continue to offer LEADCT Turnaround Principal Academy to Opportunity Districts and Education Reform Districts that can fund enrollment through their state Opportunity District grants. Provide additional resources and levels of support to early career teachers teaching in high-poverty, high-minority schools including extended time with a mentor and improving matches between mentors and mentees to better align grade level, content area, and school to support their induction into the profession and increase 73 Likely Causes of Differences in Rates of Educator Experience & Skills High-poverty, highminority schools experience greater challenges in filling vacancies with certified educators in several shortage areas, including diversity of the workforce There are currently constraints, both real (e.g., regulatory) and perceived, on meeting 21st-century workforce needs Teacher Equity Strategies (Including Timeline and Funding Sources) retention rates. This would supplement existing supports provided through the Connecticut TEAM Program, funded with state dollars. Develop new EPPs and strategic partnerships to actively address persistent shortage areas and increase the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the educator candidate pipeline. Funding from EPPs for any new programs. Increase the current statewide percentage of educators of color from 8.3 percent to 10 percent (approximately 1000 educators) by 2021. Funded through state CSDE Talent Office budget. Decrease the number of vacancies that remain or are filled with noncertified educators as of the annual October 1 count by 5 percent for each of the next five years (specifically in math, science, special education, and bilingual certification areas). Funded through state CSDE Talent Office budget. Develop a repository of best practices, resources, and guidance documents for advancing long-term and short-term recruitment and retention of educators. Funded through state CSDE Talent Office budget. Identify, disseminate, and highlight promising practices - nationally and statewide- for increasing the pool of qualified PK-12 educators with a focus on increasing the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the workforce and decreasing vacancies in designated shortage areas. Funded through state CSDE Talent Office budget. Hold a summit to activate new EPPs and partnerships with a focus on increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity and increasing the number of teachers certified in priority shortage areas. Funded through EPP sponsors. In partnership with the CT Department of Labor, develop a plan for targeted recruitment of career changers. No cost. Revise Connecticut’s certification system and processes to increase flexibility, remove barriers, and expand career pathways to increase the current pool of certified and qualified educators. Funded through Title II, Part A. Increase the number of well-established partnerships among EPPs, historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions, and PK-12 districts. Funded through Title II, Part A. Increase enrollment/completion rates for educators of color and candidates in designated/priority shortage areas over the next five years. Funded through Title II, Part A. 74 F. Timelines and Interim Targets. If there is one or more difference in rates in 5.3.B, describe the SEA’s timelines and interim targets for eliminating all differences in rates. The Talent Office is working with the CSDE Performance Office to calculate student-level data. The plan to gather student-level data is described in Appendix C. Once student-level data has been calculated, the CSDE will establish targets and timelines for eliminating all differences in rates. Difference in Rates Date by which differences in rates will be eliminated 75 Interim targets, including date by which target will be reached Section 6: Supporting All Students 6.1 Well-Rounded and Supportive Education for Students. Instructions: When addressing the State’s strategies below, each SEA must describe how it will use Title IV, Part A funds and funds from other included programs, consistent with allowable uses of fund provided under those programs, to support State-level strategies and LEA use of funds. The strategies and uses of funds must be designed to ensure that all children have a significant opportunity to meet challenging State academic standards and career and technical standards, as applicable, and attain, at a minimum, a regular high school diploma. The descriptions that an SEA provides must include how, when developing its State strategies, the SEA considered the academic and non-academic needs of the following specific subgroups of students: Low-income students; Lowest-achieving students; English learners; Children with disabilities; Children and youth in foster care; Migratory children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school; Homeless children and youths; Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students identified under Title I, Part D of the ESEA, including students in juvenile justice facilities; Immigrant children and youth; Students in LEAs eligible for grants under the Rural and Low-Income School program under section 5221 of the ESEA; and American Indian and Alaska Native students. A. The State’s strategies and how it will support LEAs to support the continuum of a student’s education from preschool through grade 12, including transitions from early childhood education to elementary school, elementary school to middle school, middle school to high school, and high school to post-secondary education and careers, in order to support appropriate promotion practices and decrease the risk of students dropping out; and The Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan for 2016-21 outlines the Board’s commitment “to ensure that every student—regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, family wealth, zip code, or disability status—is prepared to succeed in lifelong learning and work beyond school.” The comprehensive plan makes four promises to students: “ensuring their nonacademic needs are met so they are healthy, happy, and ready to learn; supporting their school and district in staying on target with learning goals; giving them access to great teachers and school leaders; and making sure they learn what they need to know to succeed in college, career, and life.” To fulfill these promises the CSDE will implement the following strategies: 76 CSDE Strategy Develop an Early Indication Tool (EIT) from the state’s EdSight data warehouse for use by schools and districts in identifying critical student needs. Develop the Next Generation Student Support System Aligned CSDE Activity Using the state’s EdSight data warehouse, the CSDE will design a dashboard that LEAs and individual educators can use to identify students’ needs (for the student groups listed on page 61 above). Using indicator data, educators can determine which students most need immediate intervention. For example, which students are getting off track on the academic continuum, including, but not limited to: student attendance, bullying incidents, suspensions, course failure, academic test results, and student mobility. Utilize data for Indicator 7 of the state’s Accountability System (ninth-graders on track for high school graduation) to provide LEAs and schools with student performance data at the start of high school. Develop a brief, educator-friendly protocol for reviewing data. Curate and disseminate evidenced-based interventions and practices that address the needs of specific students including but not limited to: dropout prevention strategies; re-engagement strategies; support system resources; dropout prevention strategies; access to advanced coursework; access to internships; the arts, etc. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in the evidence-based practices outlined above. Identify and elevate discussions around key transitions points in the PreK-12 continuum focusing on: Transition Point 1: Early Childhood Care/ Education to Kindergarten Increase awareness of prevention/early intervention by including local early childhood care and education providers in stakeholder engagement prior to development of the LEA plan for elementary schools. Increase awareness of prevention/early intervention by including a required “landscape analysis” of local early childhood care/ education serving the LEA’s students prior to enrollment in PreK or Kindergarten. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices about transition planning, such as shared curriculum/pedagogy and data sharing. Transition Point 2: Elementary to Middle School Increase awareness of critical transitions by including elementary educators from feeder schools in the stakeholder engagement process prior to development of the LEA plan for middle schools. Develop guidance documents for school promotion practices and success at Transition Point 2, following the model described above. 77 CSDE Strategy Aligned CSDE Activity Train LEA leadership and staff in the use of the Early Indication Tool (EIT) at Transition Point 2. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices about transition planning, such as shared curriculum/pedagogy and data sharing. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices to reduce chronic absenteeism; reduce incidents of bullying; improve skills in trauma-informed practices; implement restorative justice discipline practices; and address students’ social and emotional learning needs. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance and/or professional learning for LEAs to employ strategies such as summer transition academies; increased career and technical education options; student-to-student mentoring; and orientation events for students and families. Transition Point 3: Elementary/Middle School to High School Increase awareness of critical transitions by including middle school educators from feeder schools in the stakeholder engagement process prior to development of the LEA plan for high schools. Develop guidance documents for school promotion practices and success at Transition Point 3, following the model described above. Train LEA leadership and staff in the use of the Early Indication Tool (EIT) at Transition Point 3. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices about transition planning, such as shared curriculum/pedagogy and data sharing. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices to reduce chronic absenteeism; reduce incidents of bullying; improve skills in trauma-informed practices; implement restorative justice discipline practices; and address students’ social and emotional learning needs. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance and/or professional learning for LEAs to employ strategies such as summer transition academies; increased career and technical education options; student-to-student mentoring; and orientation events for students and families. Transition Point 4: High School to Post-Secondary Education/Training or Workforce Increase awareness of critical transitions by including postsecondary educators and employers in the stakeholder engagement process prior to development of the LEA plan for high schools. 78 CSDE Strategy Aligned CSDE Activity Develop guidance documents for successful transition from high school to post-secondary education/training or workforce following the model described above. Train LEA leadership and staff in the use of the Early Indication Tool (EIT) at Transition Point 4. Provide tiered supports to LEAs in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices that support student success in planning for and transitioning to school, work, and life after high school. The interventions will be funded through a combination of state and federal funds, including state Opportunity District grants (formerly known as Alliance District grants), state Commissioner’s Network school grants, and district Title IV, Part A funds. Title IV, Part A state level activity funds will NOT be used to support the activities listed in section 6.1.A. State level activity funds will be used to support activities related to Safe and Healthy Schools and Family Engagement as described in sections 6.1.C and 6.1.E. B. The State’s strategies and how it will support LEAs to provide equitable access to a wellrounded education and rigorous coursework in subjects in which female students, minority students, English learners, children with disabilities, or low-income students are underrepresented. Such subjects could include English, reading/language arts, writing, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography computer science, music, career and technical education, health, or physical education. Connecticut has made a public commitment to provide equitable access and a well-rounded education to each and every student. The CSDE recognizes that all students deserve access to an education that is broad and rich in content curriculum. Research shows that students, particularly historically underserved students, engage more deeply in learning when they are exposed to a variety of topics and can better connect what they are learning in the classroom with the real world. ESSA’s focus on well-rounded education opportunities improves the access to high quality educational opportunities by addressing the academic and nonacademic needs of students and students within subgroups. These opportunities may include; preschool programming, advanced coursework, science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEM/STEAM) programming, physical education, career and technology education, 21st century skills, competency-based learning, as well as personalized learning. Rigorous coursework opportunities can be provided to students in curricular areas, including, but not limited to: English language arts, literacy, writing Mathematics, computer science Science, technology, engineering 79 History, geography, social studies Civics, government, economics World languages Career and technical education programs Visual arts, drama, dance, media arts, music Health, physical education CSDE Strategy Utilize data from Connecticut’s holistic accountability system that includes school and district indicators that capture wellroundedness and rigorous course taking Aligned CSDE Activity Continue to train LEA leadership and staff in the use of the state’s accountability system, particularly data from Indicator 12 - access to the arts, and Indicator 5 - enrollment in Advanced Placement, international baccalaureate, and college dual enrollment courses. Train LEA leadership and staff in the use of the new Early Intervention Tool (EIT) referenced in section 6.1A. Train LEA leadership and staff in the use of available statewide course-taking data to develop plans that ensure underrepresented students have equitable access to a well-rounded education and rigorous coursework. Provide tiered intervention to LEAs in the form of technical assistance and guidance in increasing access to a well-rounded education for underrepresented students Support LEAs in: Building new CTE courses/pathways, including exploration of K12 education career pathway. Developing Mastery-based learning systems that embrace earning credits based on mastery of standards. Increasing student participation in work-based learning opportunities. LEA strategies for providing a well-rounded education and rigorous coursework to underrepresented students will be funded through a combination of state and federal funds, including state Opportunity District grants (formerly known as Alliance District grants), state Commissioner’s Network school grants, and district Title IV, Part A funds. Districts receiving Title IV, Part A funds will be required to use a portion of the funds to address these issues. Title IV, Part A state level activity funds will NOT be used to support the activities listed in section 6.2.B. State level activity funds will be used to support activities related to Safe and Healthy Schools and Family Engagement as described in sections 6.1.C and 6.1.E. C. Does the SEA intend to use funds from Title IV, Part A or other included programs to support strategies to support LEAs to improve school conditions for student learning, including activities that create safe, healthy, and affirming school environments inclusive of all students to reduce: i. Incidents of bullying and harassment; ii. The overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom; and 80 iii. The use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety? X Yes. If yes, provide a description below. ☐ No. The CSDE proposes using Title IVA funds to administer the grant and provide statewide activities to support strategies for LEAs to improve school conditions for student learning, including activities that create safe, healthy, and affirming school environments. The CSDE is designing the Next Generation Student Support System (described above). The system will provide tiered supports to Title I LEAs to promote safe and healthy schools, including evidenced based practices in: Developing positive school climate; Eradicating bullying and harassment; Skill development in trauma-informed practice; Reducing chronic absenteeism; Building social-emotional learning systems; and Reducing exclusionary discipline through restorative justice practices. Guidance documents are in the development process and will be completed prior to June 2018. D. Does the SEA intend to use funds from Title IV, Part A or other included programs to support strategies to support LEAs to effectively use technology to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy of all students? ☐ Yes. If yes, provide a description below. X No. No, the CSDE will not be using Title IV, Part A funds for statewide programs related to the effective use of technology. The CSDE has provided LEAs with significant funding to purchase computer hardware, software, and high-speed Internet connectivity. We propose to use technology-related funding to support district initiatives related to the enhanced use of technology to improve academic achievement and digital literacy. E. Does the SEA intend to use funds from Title IV, Part A or other included programs to support strategies to support LEAs to engage parents, families, and communities? X Yes. If yes, provide a description below. ☐ No. Yes. The CSDE has a robust program that supports school, family, and community partnerships. The CSDE proposes using between 1 percent and 2 percent of Title IV, Part A funds, depending on the size of the allocation, to expand statewide initiatives in this area. The CSDE plans to braid federal, state, and local funds, including Opportunity District grants, Commissioner’s Network school grants, school improvement grants, and district Title IV, Part A funds to build the capacity of families, schools, and districts to cultivate and sustain active, respectful, and effective 81 partnerships that foster school improvement, link to educational objectives, and support children’s learning and development. To this end, the CSDE will provide guidance and training to schools to implement best practices related to creating welcoming and inviting schools, linking Title I school-parent compacts to student learning goals, and building relationships through parent-teacher home visits. CSDE staff, in partnership with other state and regional organizations, will provide tiered support and training to school staff in districts to lead school-based efforts to increase family and community engagement utilizing these strategies. In addition, the CSDE will work to build the professional capacity of those staff members working as “family liaisons.” The CSDE will continue monthly meetings with family and community engagement professionals and will work to develop a family engagement certificate program. In addition, the CSDE will partner with organizations to train families and community members in school-family engagement. F. Awarding Subgrants (ESEA section 4102(c)(2)(B)): Describe how the SEA will ensure that awards made to LEA’s under Title IV, Part A are in amounts that are consistent with ESEA section 4105(a)(2). The CSDE will distribute subgrants to LEAS by formula and will not award grants less than $10,000 to LEAs in accordance with ESEA section 4105(a)(2). The RFP to LEAs will state that grants will not be made in amounts less than $10,000 and the grant program manager will ensure compliance. 82 6.2 Program-Specific Requirements. A. Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies i. Describe the process and criteria that the SEA will use to waive the 40 percent schoolwide poverty threshold under section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA that an LEA submits on behalf of a school, including how the SEA will ensure that the school-wide program will best serve the needs of the lowest-achieving students in the school. In Connecticut, LEAs that are interested in filing a waiver on behalf of a school to operate a Title I school-wide program without meeting the 40 percent poverty threshold must complete an addendum to the annual application for Title I funds. Within the addendum, LEAs will be required to certify that the school has conducted a comprehensive needs assessment to determine the needs of students in the school, especially the school’s lowest-achieving students. Schools must describe how the Title I school-wide program will best serve the needs of the students identified. In addition, both the superintendent and principal will be required to certify and ensure that: (1) a school improvement plan is in place that meets the Title I school-wide program plan requirements; (2) the school improvement plan is maintained at the local level and available for state monitoring; (3) the LEA evaluates and revises the school improvement plan as necessary to ensure that it is effective in increasing student achievement, particularly for the school’s lowestachieving students. The CSDE grant contact for the LEA and the Title I state director will review the waiver request, taking into account how the school-wide program will better meet the needs of the lowest-achieving students in the school, including those who would otherwise be eligible for targeted assistance under Title I. Waiver approval will coincide with approval of the LEA application for Title I funds. LEAs with schools receiving waivers will be informed that they may be subject to further review by the CSDE. B. Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children. i. Describe how the SEA and its local operating agencies, which may include LEAs, will establish and implement a system for the proper identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children on a statewide basis, including the identification and recruitment of preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school, and how the SEA will verify and document the number of eligible migratory children aged 3 through 21 residing in the State on an annual basis. Connecticut does not receive funding for Title I, Part C. C. Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk i. Describe the SEA’s plan for assisting in the transition of children and youth between correctional facilities and locally operated programs. 83 The CSDE assists correctional facilities and locally operated programs in the transition of children by (1) providing ongoing technical assistance on Federal transition requirements; (2) conducting an annual thorough application review to ensure required transition components are included, such as coordination responsibilities; (3) conducting a yearly three-tier monitoring process that includes self-assessments, desk audits, and on-site monitoring visits conducted by the Title 1, Part D Neglected and Delinquent Youth program manager, Title I state director, and the Title I evaluator with support from the Department’s Office of Internal Audit; and (4) requiring State agencies and local agencies to submit end-of-the-year evaluation reports on their Title I, Part D programs. The CSDE is a member of the legislatively created Connecticut Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee, established to evaluate policies related to the Juvenile Justice System (JJS). Members also include senior legislative leaders; state Departments of Education, Children and Families, Social Services and Corrections; Judicial Court Support Services; youth serving organizations; and child welfare and juvenile justice advocacy organizations. The committee is (1) developing a system of supports to divert students from the JJS; (2) eliminating barriers and identifying best practices to ensure the seamless and immediate reentry of students from the JJS to their school district or alternative education program as appropriate; (3) assessing ways to ensure that students are being provided with appropriate levels of instruction and coursework while in the JJS including contextualized learning and entrepreneurial skills; and (4) ensuring mechanisms are in place to capture and transfer course credit earned while in the JJS back to the school district upon the students return. i.i. Describe the program objectives and outcomes established by the State that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the program in improving the academic, career, and technical skills of children in the program, including the knowledge and skills needed to earn a regular high school diploma and make a successful transition to postsecondary education, career and technical education, or employment. The goals for Connecticut schoolchildren participating in Title I, Part D are consistent with the goals for all students. Students will (1) improve their educational achievement; (2) accrue course credits that meet state requirements for grade promotion and secondary school graduation; (3) make a successful transition to a regular program or other educational program operated by the LEA; (4) complete secondary school or equivalency requirements; and (5) participate in postsecondary education, career and technical education, or employment. The CSDE will assess the effectiveness of programs funded under Title I, Part D in improving educational outcomes based on the pre- and post-test assessment results such as locally designed formative and summative assessment results, as well as individual student outcomes on other indicators that include: (1) the number of students accruing credits for grade promotion; (2) the number of students transitioning back into an LEA program; (3) the number of students graduating from high school or obtaining the GED; and 84 (4) the number of students employed or entering postsecondary education after receiving their GED or diploma. In addition, state agencies and LEAs receiving funds under Title I, Part D submit an end-of-the-year annual evaluation addressing the above indicators. The CSDE will use the information provided in the evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the programs in improving students’ achievement in academic, vocational and technical skills, and will provide technical assistance in areas of program improvement. D. Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students. 1. Describe the SEA’s standardized entrance and exit procedures for English learners consistent with section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA. A stakeholder group composed of educators from institutes of higher education, English learner (EL) providers, and bilingual educators vetted standardized procedures. Additionally, Connecticut EL educators were surveyed to gather information regarding the types of assessments used as part of the entrance and exit identification process to assist in informing the CSDE in defining this process. (See the attached survey.) All English learners must be identified within 30 days after the beginning of the school year or within the first two weeks following their enrollment if it occurs during the school year. The Standardized Entrance Procedure for the Identification of English learners consists of the following steps: Step 1: Determination if the student is a potential EL student through adherence to the Home Language Survey Guidance and completion of the Home Language Survey. Step 2: Review of the home language survey (HLS) results to determine if it indicates the student may have a Primary or Home Language Other Than English and may be an English learner. Step 3: If the HLS indicates the student may have a Primary or Home Language Other Than English, the approved English language proficiency (ELP) assessment is administered. Step 4: If the student’s results on the ELP assessment indicate the student is an English learner, the student is identified. The student’s parents are informed of the service options for their child and select the service that the student will receive or waive services. They are also informed that they may modify their selection at any time. The Standardized Exit Procedure consists of the following: To exit status as an English learner and be reclassified as a former English learner, a student must take the annual English language proficiency assessment (LAS Links, Form D; approved April 6, 2015, Connecticut ESEA flexibility waiver). The student must reach the state mandated requirements of a LAS Links overall of 4 or higher as well as a score of 4 or higher on the LAS Links reading and writing subtests. The exit procedure requires consideration of the performance on the reading 85 and writing subtests so students are not prematurely exited from EL services based on a composite score that could potentially mask lower levels of proficiency in the areas of reading and writing. Exit requirements for English learners are listed on the English learners page of the CSDE website under exit procedures. 2. SEA Support for English Learner Progress (ESEA section 3113(b)(6)): Describe how the SEA will assist eligible entities in meeting: i. The State-designed long-term goals established under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A)(ii), including measurements of interim progress towards meeting such goals, based on the State’s English language proficiency assessments under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(G); and, ii. Challenging State academic standards. Establishing Long Term Goals and Interim Progress Targets for English Language Proficiency As discussed in the Long Term Goal section of this document, the CSDE is in the process of creating a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment that will inform the long term goal and the interim progress targets outlined in the Performance Management section. It will use an approach that is similar to one that was used successfully to create a growth model for the Smarter Balanced ELA and Mathematics assessments. This growth model is explained in great detail in a technical report. The model establishes criterion referenced growth targets for students at different points on the achievement spectrum within each grade. In addition to conditioning the ELP assessment growth targets on starting achievement level within each grade, other considerations will be applied. These include empirical data (i.e., the actual amount of growth achieved by the same students from one year to the next), the combined average standard error of measurement for tests from both years, and the number of years it takes with the established targets to achieve English language mastery. Connecticut’s mastery standard on its current English Language Proficiency assessment (i.e., LAS Links Forms C and D) in order for a student to be exited from English learner status is the attainment of levels 4 or 5 in three areas: overall score, Reading and Writing. Research on English language acquisition identifies two interrelated sets of language skills that compose language proficiency: basic interpersonal communication skills, which refers to contextualized conversational language skills, and cognitive academic language proficiency, which includes more abstract decontextualized language skills. These studies suggest that while native-like proficiency in basic communication skills takes about three to five years, academic language proficiency requires four to seven years. Preliminary analyses indicate that the maximum number of years to English language mastery may be set at five. The ultimate target for this indicator is an average percentage of target achieved of 100 for all English learners. Linear interim targets will be established for every third year after the first year. 86 As with the other indicators, this plan establishes a 13-year timeframe. The baseline year will be the growth results achieved in the 2016-17 school year. Those results will not be available until October 2017 and immediately following the development of the growth model, the interim progress targets (set for every three years) will be established. Supporting English Learners to Meet Challenging State Academic Standards The Connecticut English Language Proficiency (CELP) Standards were adopted by the Connecticut State Board of Education on October 7, 2015. The CELP Standards are 10 clear standards that involve the language necessary to engage in the linguistic features of the content-specific academic standards in Connecticut, including English language arts (ELA). Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. The four domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing are integrated into the CELP standards. To clarify how a student can demonstrate proficiency at various grade levels and English proficiency levels, sets of grade bands and proficiency levels are delineated. These grade bands and proficiency levels are based on developmental appropriateness and widely accepted levels of language proficiency. In addition, five language proficiency levels are used, with Level One representing a beginner level English learner and Level Five representing an English learner who has English proficiency consistent with native English speakers. For each grade level band a set of descriptors provides a description of EL performance/outcomes at each of the five proficiency levels. Revisions to this document were made collaboratively by the statewide CELP standards committee to ensure that descriptors are linguistically and developmentally appropriate as students progress through the grade level bands. Content area correspondences are a hallmark of the CELP standards document. For each grade level, content area correspondences have been determined for each CELP standard, in the areas of English language arts (based on the anchor standards); mathematics; science; and with the inquiry practices in social studies, with correspondences between the ELPA21 standards and social studies standards. In grades 6-12, correspondences have also been identified with literacy in the content areas. 3. Specific Monitoring and Technical Assistance Information related to Title III (ESEA 3113(b)(8)) Describe how the SEA will monitor the progress of each eligible entity receiving a Title III, Part A subgrant in helping English learners achieve English proficiency; and i. The steps the SEA will take to further assist eligible entities if the strategies funded under Title III, Part A are not effective, such as providing technical assistance and modifying such strategies. ii. The SEA ensures LEA compliance of Title III regulations through ongoing monitoring and support via the submittal of LEA annual evaluation reports that describe how districts have implemented supplemental activities to assist English learners (ELs) in achieving English proficiency. 87 Outlined in the Performance management section of this document is a twelve-year long term goal trajectory broken into three year intervals at which Connecticut schools and districts are expected to meet their growth targets in the three goal areas, including English language proficiency for English Learners. A tiered system of support has been designed to provide supports are provided as baseline interventions and then increase in intensity at each interim checkpoint if targets are not met. The Monitoring, Continuous Improvement, and Differentiated Support Plan outlines a tiered, systematic approach to SEA support and guidance provided to, and based on, LEA needs and challenges in meeting targets English language proficiency. As required, CSDE has developed a plan to support, monitor, and provide increasing structure and direction if local efforts are not effective across time. Supports include self-assessment, site visits, school needs assessment with significant stakeholder involvement, in-depth program review, training modules of evidencebased practices in improving English language proficiency. In addition, training modules in fidelity of implementation will be required, as will periodic fidelity checklist and resource equity reviews. See pages 25-27 for more detailed information. Additional technical assistance and support are provided through the following activities: 1. Provide guidance and disseminating resources to LEAs. For example, EL content is shared through newsletters and distribution lists as well as the English Learner page on the CSDE website, which is frequently updated with relevant information and resources. 2. Collaborate, present, and disseminate information at Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL), regional educational service center (RESC) Title III roundtables, and other statewide and/or national professional organizations, such as the following: Members of the RESC Alliance and the CSDE staff meet regularly as the Connecticut EL Strategic Partnership to collaborate on projects and professional development specific to English learners. For example, they recently released the Coaching and Self-Reflection Tool for Competency in Teaching English Learners and are developing a training session for it. Last year, the partnership created training for tutors, led book studies, and produced easily accessible EL-strategy flipbooks. CAPELL operates as an advisory group to the state and collaborates with CSDE on EL initiatives, including educator manuals, such as (1) English Learners and Special Education: A Resource Handbook; (2) Scientific Research-Based Interventions for English Language Learners: A Handbook to Accompany Connecticut’s Framework for RTI. ConnTESOL, a professional organization that, in collaboration with CSDE, provides support to teachers of ELs; holds an annual conference; and provides additional resources, newsletters, and workshops throughout the year. 3. Design and post EL resource materials, professional development, and technical assistance supports for LEA and parents 4. Oversee the administration of the annual English language proficiency assessment and analyze the performance data. 88 E. Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers. i. Describe how the SEA will use its Title IV, Part B, and other Federal funds to support State-level strategies that are consistent with the strategies identified in 6.1.A above. The CSDE 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) funding provides programs focused on supporting students in high-need schools in preschool through grade 12 to succeed academically and to decrease the risk of students dropping out. The 21CCLC funding supports a variety of evidence-based strategies to provide well-rounded educational opportunities and enrichment, promote safe and healthy students and schools, and foster digital learning in schools where at least 40 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced-price meal subsidies. Specifically, 21CCLCs provide opportunities for academic enrichment to students to meet student performance standards in core academic subjects, such as reading, mathematics, and science. Programs also offer extended learning time, project-based learning as well as art and music opportunities. In the area of safe and healthy schools, students are provided with youth development activities including drug, violence, and pregnancy prevention programs; counseling; service learning opportunities; and character education and recreation programs that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students. The program also offers families of students served by community learning centers opportunities for literacy and related educational development, such as adult development activities, family activities, opportunities for governance and leadership involvement, and participation in school and program events. The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) will use the funds reserved for “State activities” to conduct the following activities in partnership with stakeholders including regional educational service centers (RESCs) and a university research center, which will conduct program evaluations: 1. Monitoring and evaluating programs and activities. 2. Providing capacity building, training, and technical assistance. 3. Conducting comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and implementation of risk assessments. 4. Providing technical assistance and training to eligible applicants. 5. Ensuring program activities are aligned with State academic standards. Title IV, Part B funding targets students at-risk of educational failure in the communities with high poverty rates and students who are members of the subgroups outlined in section 6.1. Additionally, through an approved waiver, the CSDE has used the 21CCLC funding to support Expanded Learning Time (ELT) programs in select schools. The Connecticut model has historically required the minimum of 300 additional program hours to be eligible to receive funding. The CSDE will continue to work with schools and 89 districts continuing this model to assess the utilization of 21CCLC for ELT. ii. Describe the SEA’s processes, procedures, and priorities used to award sub-grants consistent with the strategies identified above in 6.1.A. above and to the extent permitted under applicable law and regulations. The objective of the competitive process is to select schools and community-based agencies that are equipped to provide well-rounded educational opportunities with rigorous coursework to the highest need populations, which includes mandatory family engagement responsibilities. These programs must also provide a safe, healthy, and affirming environment and are encouraged to use technology to improve the academic achievement of the participants. The primary goal of the 21CCLC program is to enable community learning centers to plan, implement, or expand before- or after-school learning enrichment opportunities to help students meet State and local academic standards in core content areas. To be eligible to receive an award, an applicant must serve schools where at least 40 percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced price meals. All eligible applicants must submit an application to the CSDE that includes a description of the before, after school or summer recess activities to be funded, including an assurance that the program will take place in a safe and easily accessible facility; a description of how students participating in the program carried out by the community learning center will travel safely to and from the center and home; and a description of how the eligible entity will disseminate information about the community learning center (including its location) to the community in a manner that is understandable and accessible. Additional requirements include a description of how the activity is expected to improve student academic achievement as well as a chart to outline days and hours of operation, including start date, end date, days per week, and hours per day; total expected weeks of programming; and before school, Saturday, vacation, and summer offerings. Applications that receive an 80 percent or higher are considered for funding. The CSDE will implement the following procedure to ensure that community learning centers will target their activities to student’s academic needs so they can be successful: Competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) Process/Requirement: CSDE will host a competitive process for applicants eligible for 21CCLC funds. Eligible applicants must serve schools where at least 40 percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals. The purpose of the competitive process is to fund community-learning centers that will help students meet challenging state and local performance and academic standards and provide enrichment opportunities outside of regular school hours. Centers, which can be located in elementary or secondary schools or other similarly accessible facilities, provide a range of high-quality services to support student learning and social-emotional development. Consistent with CSDE’s commitment to direct funds to where they are most needed (using a three-tiered system described earlier) scoring rubrics for review and approval of grants will be weighted to provide access to applicants in Opportunity Districts first, Alliance districts next, and 90 then to other eligible applicants, provided the applications are of high quality and meet all application requirements. This methodology is being used in several CSDE offices. Applicants must do the following: 1. Provide a description of the applicant community and the needs of the target population. 2. Conduct an assessment to identify the needs of the community and the gaps in services available. 3. Identify factors that place students at-risk of educational failure in the communities to be served (e.g., poverty rates, percentage of English learners (EL) students and adults, chronic absenteeism and dropout rates, teen pregnancy rates, education levels and employment rates of adults in the community). 4. Describe how the proposed project will successfully address the needs of the target population so that students’ academic needs are met. Technical Assistance for Applicants: The CSDE will also conduct a bidders conference following the release of the RFP where all applicants are invited to attend to receive information, ask questions, clarify the requirements of the proposal, and understand the responsibilities of funded programs. RFP Peer Review and Scoring Process: All proposals will be scored under a rigorous peer review process. The CSDE has a diverse group of peer reviewers, including reviewers from community-based organizations (CBOs), faith based organizations (FBOs), regional educational service centers (RESCs), foundations, universities, parent organizations, and business and industry. Each proposal is reviewed by three peer reviewers who utilize the CSDE Reviewer Rating Form. The mean score from the three reviewers is used to determine the quality of the plan, how well a proposal meets the criteria, and the likelihood for success. A proposal must receive an overall score of 80 percent or higher to be considered for funding. Subgrants are awarded to the highest scoring proposals in rank order based on availability of funding. Continued Funding: Continuation of funding within the five-year grant cycle is contingent upon compliance with grant requirements, state and federal guidelines, student attendance and data requirements, use of funds, and adequate progress toward program goals. Programs will be required to submit an end-of-year report and budget prior to receipt of funding each subsequent year. As indicated in section 6.E.i, the CSDE will engage in the following activities to provide support to ensure that positive students’ academic outcomes are achieved: 1. Monitoring and evaluation of programs and activities. 91 2. Providing capacity building, training, and technical assistance. 3. Conducting comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and implementation of risk assessments. 4. Providing technical assistance and training to eligible applicants. 5. Ensuring program activities are aligned with State academic standards. F. Title V, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program. i. Provide the SEA’s specific measurable program objectives and outcomes related to activities under the Rural and Low-Income School Program, if applicable. Connecticut does not receive a Title V, Part B, Subpart 2 grant. G. McKinney-Vento Act. i. Consistent with section 722(g)(1)(B) of the McKinney-Vento Act, describe the procedures the SEA will use to identify homeless children and youths in the State and assess their needs. The CSDE provides a framework of policies, activities, and a variety of actions targeted to increase the ability of LEAs to identify homeless children and youths and apply the student’s legal protections. These activities include: Professional development – delivering workshop and training opportunities on McKinney-Vento requirements and other Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) related issues to LEAs including traditional schools and districts as well as magnet schools and charter schools. Technical assistance – providing guidance and assistance to questions and issues raised. The CSDE maintains an ongoing two-way exchange of relevant EHCY information. Evaluation – instituting a system of self-assessment and monitoring with LEAs to determine the adequacy of current services to students in homeless situations. Communication – In addition to regular communication with Superintendents and district ECYH Coordinators across the state, the CSDE maintains an EHCY webpage EHCY webpage with relevant policies and procedures for eligibility criteria, students’ rights related to program and services access, as well as policies, procedures, and best practices. Networking – engaging with relevant key stakeholders to promote cross-sector involvement and dialogue on current policies, issues, barriers, and solutions to serve homeless families, children, and youths. ii. Describe the SEA’s programs for school personnel (including liaisons designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Act, principals and other school leaders, attendance officers, teachers, enrollment personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel) to heighten the awareness of such school personnel of the specific needs of homeless children and youths, including such children and youths who are runaway and homeless youths. 92 LEA homeless liaisons required under Section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Act remain the primary change agents in heightening the awareness of school personnel in meeting the specific needs of homeless children and youths. Liaisons, with the support of the EHCY coordinator, integrate training and outreach strategies to a variety of school personnel. Liaisons provide assistance and training to a cross-sector of professionals about homelessness and the McKinney-Vento Act to ensure that Connecticut’s homeless students are identified and served appropriately throughout each community, enrolled in school, attending school regularly, and succeeding at their studies. iii. Describe the SEA’s procedures to ensure that disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless children and youths are promptly resolved. The EHCY coordinator gathers needed information from statements of the parties involved for review or opinion to resolve issues and complaints in the shortest possible time and without the use of a formal dispute process. The EHCY coordinator also engages CSDE staff with expertise in the areas of school counseling and social work to resolve issues with schools. If an issue or a complaint cannot be resolved, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 10-186, a parent, guardian, surrogate parent, emancipated minor, or student of eligible age is entitled to request a hearing before the local or regional board of education when a school accommodation is denied. The two basic hearing categories for school accommodation cases tend to cluster around (1) transportation and (2) residency. Requests for a hearing begin before the local or regional board of education and appeals are to the Connecticut State Board of Education, and then to the Superior Court of Connecticut. Whenever a complaint or dispute arises, the student involved must be provided education immediately and admitted to the school of choice pending resolution of the dispute. iv. Describe the SEA’s procedures to ensure that that youths described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Act and youths separated from the public schools are identified and accorded equal access to appropriate secondary education and support services, including by identifying and removing barriers that prevent youths described in this paragraph from receiving appropriate credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior school, in accordance with State, local, and school policies. While avoiding disruption in the student’s education is central, the CSDE has implemented a cross-systems proactive approach to address the fundamental needs of all youths to improve educational opportunities and outcomes including: (1) opportunities to meet the same state academic achievement standards and requirements through course articulation, rigor, and, planning (Public Act No. 10-111, Public Act No. 12-40); (2) assistance to advise, prepare, and improve readiness outcomes through Advanced Placement, SAT, and counseling services (Public Act No. 10-111, Public Act No. 15-225, Public Act No. 15-232); and (3) alternative educational opportunities that are flexible 93 through online learning, credit recovery, remedial, independent study, employment internship, and supplemental instruction (Public Act No. 10-111, Public Act 09-6). v. Describe the SEA’s procedures to ensure that homeless children and youths: 1. Have access to public preschool programs, administered by the SEA or LEA, as provided to other children in the State; 2. Who meet the relevant eligibility criteria, do not face barriers to accessing academic and extracurricular activities; and 3. Who meet the relevant eligibility criteria, are able to participate in Federal, State, and local nutrition programs. 1. Combined Leadership and Collaboration: The CSDE works closely and collaboratively with the Connecticut Office of Early Childhood (OEC), established in 2013, and all state agencies that serve children and families in early childhood to ensure access and equity for Connecticut’s youngest students, especially those experiencing homelessness. In 2015, legislation added the EHCY coordinator role to Connecticut’s Early Childhood State Advisory Council. The EHCY coordinator role is also a permanent appointment to the Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) and works closely with the Head Start Collaboration Office. These combined leadership and advisory roles provide input into system access to public preschool programs administered by the SEA and LEAs. 2. Compliance attestation and assurances tied to funding: Through the investments to the state’s neediest schools and districts with both federal and state (e.g., Title I, IDEA, priority school district, extended school hours), assurances and certifications LEAs make that attest to their compliance with both federal and state laws governing access, enrollment, and success of homeless children and youths are secured. In addition, technical assistance and professional development assist in promoting equal access to programs and services available in LEAs. Acting through a variety of partnerships, the CSDE ensures that learning programs and activities can be identified and coordinated to meet the needs of homeless students. The CSDE works with district liaisons and partners to reduce barriers and enrollment delays caused by requirements of immunization and other required health records; residency requirements; lack of birth certificates, school records, or other documents; guardianship issues; or uniform or dress code requirements. 3. Ensuring student access to nutrition: Many of Connecticut’s larger LEAs provide access to free meals in schools to all students through the USDA’s Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). For participating LEAs that do not use CEP, program sponsors are provided training and guidance on the categorical eligibility status for children and youth identified as homeless and the verification process that ensures their participation in the federal school meal programs. Out-of-school, locations, and availability of meals provided through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) are widely promoted in schools and to community service providers through advocacy groups to encourage 94 participation among children and youths experiencing homelessness during the summer. Additionally, current Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) sponsors include homeless shelters that serve families with children. vi. Describe the SEA’s strategies to address problems with respect to the education of homeless children and youths, including problems resulting from enrollment delays and retention, consistent with sections 722(g)(1)(H) and (I) of the McKinney-Vento Act. The CSDE framework of activities previously described in section 6.e.ii incorporates activities focused on the unique conditions and needs of children and youths who experience homelessness, including those youths that may not be in the physical custody of a parent or guardian, i.e., unaccompanied youth. Additionally, a focus on youth engagement has been incorporated to allow peer-to-youth input into the design and improvement of programs, policies, and procedures to ensure equal access and success in school. The EHCY coordinator continuously monitors state and local policies that may create barriers to school enrollment of homeless children and youths. LEAs communicate with the EHCY coordinator to identify impediments by local authority. Any barriers to enrollment or retention of children and youths are discussed with homeless service providers and children, youths, and families experiencing homelessness. As a result, policy revisions and remedial measures may be introduced to correct deficiencies or limitations in existing policies and procedures. I. Assistance from Counselors (722(g)(1)(K)): A description of how youths described in section 725(2) will receive assistance from counselors to advise such youths, and prepare and improve the readiness of such youths for college. School counselors, using the Connecticut Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CCSCP), described below, provide a variety of preventions and interventions to assist homeless students in overcoming barriers to learning; make strong connections with educational opportunities in their schools; and to ensure access to a safe, healthy, and supportive environment. The CCSCP, approved by the State Board of Education in 2008, provides a systemic approach for school counselors to engage all students and prepare them for college success and career opportunities, with specific emphasis toward students from underrepresented populations, including homeless students. CCSCP is a whole-child framework (academic, career, and social/emotional) that is planned and implemented by a certified school counselor who works with principals, teachers and other stakeholders to maximize the educational success of every Connecticut student. The program is an integral part of the education process and aligns to college and career readiness standards. CCSCP goals show clear alignment with local, state, and national goals and have four distinct delivery systems; integrated delivery of the student success standards; personalized student planning; 95 responsive services; and student supports. This framework builds social capital, offers enriching curriculum/activities, fosters rigorous academic preparation, encourages early college planning, and guides both students and families through the college admission and financial aid processes. Operationally, the school counselor and school leadership team use multiple data points to assess student needs, identify priorities, and develop a plan of action to collaboratively address the identified needs within each grade level. Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento I.1: Student Identification Student Identification (722(g)(1)(B) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe the procedures the SEA will use to identify homeless children and youth in the State and to assess their needs. The CSDE employs methods and procedures to identify homeless children and youth and to address their needs. To accomplish this, the CSDE provides a framework of activities and a variety of actions targeted to increase the ability of local education agencies (LEA) to identify homeless children and youth and apply the student’s legal protections. These activities include: Professional Development – delivering workshops and providing training on McKinney-Vento requirements and other EHCY related issues. Technical Assistance – providing guidance and assistance regarding questions and issues raised and maintain an ongoing exchange of relevant EHCY information with schools. Evaluation and Monitoring- instituting a system of selfassessment and monitoring with LEAs to determine the adequacy of current services provided to students in homeless situations. Networking – engaging with relevant key stakeholders to promote cross-sector involvement and dialogue on current issues, barriers and solutions to serve homeless families, children and youth. Communication – Engaging in regular communication with superintendents and district EHCY coordinators across the state and maintaining an EHCY webpage with relevant policies and procedures for eligibility. The CSDE routinely examines state data to assess the progress of LEAs in identifying and serving homeless children and youth. This process includes evaluating potential risk by examining whether LEAs 96 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento are effectively serving students in homeless situations. LEAs identified with potential challenges are required to conduct a self-assessment and may require a state monitoring visit. These procedures allow for targeted, individual technical assistance that examines the adequacy of current services and the effectiveness of programs that support students experiencing homelessness utilizing both performance and achievement data. Assessment also includes examining the ongoing needs of homeless children and youth in Connecticut. This includes the review of student data (performance data, absenteeism data, socioeconomic data, disciplinary referrals), school climate indicators, and qualitative data solicited from LEAs and community service providers on the needs and challenges posed to students experiencing homelessness. The Early Indication Tool, described in section 6.1.A, will further assist state and local educators to uniquely examine the academic progress and educational needs of homeless children and youth and provide better supports. Connecticut’s ability to identify and assess the needs of homeless children and youth is bolstered by partnerships and collaborative efforts. The CSDE and the EHCY coordinator are active members of the statewide Reaching Home campaign. Reaching Home is a broad-based coalition working across systems as well as sectors to identify and assess the needs of homeless children and youth and develop the necessary coalitions at the local, regional, and state levels to prevent and end homelessness in our state. Ending youth and family homelessness by 2020 is the state’s goal. Ongoing partnership work includes improving the capacity of our communities to serve runaway and homeless youth. In partnership with the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, CSDE and several LEAs participated in the first statewide Youth Count. Participating schools allow for guidance counselors or other staff to administer the survey on school premises. This effort engages McKinney-Vento Liaisons to participate in long-term endeavors to end youth homelessness in their regions. Liaisons are responsible for connecting homeless youth to resources in their area and are the gateway into school systems. Funding from CSDE supports broad-based collaborative work. This includes the development of the Youth Rights and 97 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento Resources website Youth Help.org. The Youth Rights and Resources is designed for youth, educators, service providers, youth service bureaus, and other professionals working with youth and includes online resources to raise awareness of youth housing instability, laws that protect youth rights, and the available resources for unstably housed youth in Connecticut, including short films to raise awareness about the McKinney-Vento Act and how to protect youth rights; maps of resources and services available for youth ages 14-24 in the state; and links to obtain legal help, information, and resources for youth. I.2: Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution (722(g)(1)(C) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe procedures for the prompt resolution of disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless children and youth. To resolve disputes promptly, the EHCY coordinator accepts and reviews questions and/or issues of compliance regarding the education of a homeless child or youth. The coordinator gathers needed information from statements of the parties involved for review or opinion. All efforts are made to resolve issues and complaints in the shortest possible time, without the use of a formal dispute process. If an issue or complaint cannot be resolved through the EHCY coordinator, a formal process for dispute resolution exists pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 10-186. Prompt timelines, procedures, documentation, and evidentiary support are prescribed by the CSDE and maintained online for public access CSDE School Accommodations Guide (page 11). This process is administered by CSDE, which receives appeals from school district hearings and assigns state hearing officers, and it covers disputes between families and school districts relating to residency, transportation, and other school accommodation issues. Under this statutory process, a parent, guardian, surrogate parent, emancipated minor, or student of eligible age is entitled to request a hearing before the local or regional board of education when a school accommodation is denied. CSDE’s experience has been that disputes involving homeless students normally are resolved without use of the formal hearing process and 98 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento CSDE rarely, if ever, receives an appeal concerning a homeless student. Request for a hearing begins at the local or regional board of education. A hearing may include either the majority of the local board of education, a subcommittee of three board members or a local impartial hearing board established by the board of education. The decision of the board, subcommittee, or local impartial hearing board is a final decision. Subsequent appeals are available by an aggrieved party to the Connecticut State Board of Education, and then to the Superior Court of Connecticut. Whenever a complaint/dispute arises involving a homeless student, he/she must be provided education immediately and admitted to the school of choice while any dispute is being resolved. Additionally, LEAs are required to continue the attendance, including transportation, of the student in an aggrieved party pending resolution of the dispute. I.3: Support for School Personnel Support for School Personnel (722(g)(1)(D) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe programs for school personnel (including the LEA liaisons for homeless children and youth, principals and other school leaders, attendance officers, teachers, enrollment personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel) to heighten the awareness of such school personnel of the specific needs of homeless children and youth, including runaway and homeless children and youth. Providing advice, technical assistance, and training to educators about homelessness and the McKinney-Vento Act are all designed to heighten the awareness of educators to the specific needs of homeless and runaway children and youth. This guidance, technical assistance, and training is critical to ensure that Connecticut’s homeless students are identified and served appropriately throughout each community; enrolled in school; attending school regularly; and achieving grade advancement and academic success. The CSDE’s efforts are directed toward homeless liaisons, principals, school nurses, counselors, attendance officers, enrollment personnel, teachers, and support staff to ensure that accurate and complete information is available because it promotes ongoing improvement to educational programs and services that supports student in homeless situations, including preschool age children. Feedback from participants is gathered and provides critical information to examining efforts to heighten awareness. 99 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento EHCY workshops and professional development sessions will be provided in a variety of methods and settings including webinars, community-based meetings, integrated conference venues, and additional topic-specific trainings. The CSDE incorporates McKinneyVento sessions into statewide training for teachers, principals, superintendents, school nurses, school counselors, school social workers, other school support staff, and community-based support service staff working directly with students. The objectives of all training is to advance participants’ skills, knowledge and competencies in understanding the McKinney-Vento definition of homeless and the ways homeless children and youth must be linked to school and to services. Efforts also place emphasis on providing guidance and training that targets subset populations such as runaway and homeless youth, pregnant and parenting homeless youth and homeless children and youth with disabilities. Specialized workshops and issue briefs target trainings and as a result, schools and communities will jointly share the commitment and responsibility of identifying homeless children and youth and advancing their educational success. I.4.i: Access to Services Access to Services (722(g)(1)(F) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe procedures that ensure that: i. Homeless children have access to public preschool programs, administered by the SEA or LEA, as provided to other children in the State; The CSDE EHCY coordinator uses the following procedures to ensure that homeless children have access to public preschool programs: Collaborates with staff from the Office of Early Childhood (OEC), a separate state agency that was created in 2013 to specifically address issues facing young children such as: working to improve services to families and children who face the highest risk for poor outcomes, including homeless children; monitoring disparities affecting access to services, health care, and education opportunities; and ensuring that all children who are experiencing homelessness, are dual 100 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento language learners, or are in foster care are given priority status in preschool participation Works closely and collaboratively and all state agencies and organizations that serve young children and their families to ensure equitable access to preschool programs and other services. Provides leadership and guidance through the membership of the EHCY coordinator in the Connecticut Early Childhood Cabinet, the Connecticut Early Childhood State Advisory Council, and the Interagency Coordinating Council. These combined leadership and advisory roles provide input into systems that provide access to public preschool programs administered by the SEA or LEAs. Provides training and technical assistance to all LEA Homeless Liaisons to specifically address the identification, needs, and equitable access to quality preschool opportunities for homeless young children. Advises homeless liaisons at LEAs who are statutorily required to be members of local School Readiness Councils to provide guidance to preschool providers, advocate for homeless children, and to facilitate the placement of homeless children into state funded preschool seats. I.4.ii: Access to Services Homeless youth and youth separated from public schools are identified and accorded equal access to appropriate secondary education and support services, including by identifying and removing barriers that prevent youth described in this clause from receiving appropriate credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior school, in accordance with State, local, and school policies; and While targeted remedial services and other supports are important, CSDE will engage in additional efforts to thoroughly expand practices and policies that secure appropriate credit for coursework satisfactorily completed for homeless youth and youth separated from school. Technical assistance and training efforts to address these specific requirements are just one step in this process. Additional assessment of LEA strategies, as well as the development and issuance of state level guidance to LEAs will provide additional support in securing progress in this newly defined provision. 101 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento The CSDE has implemented a cross-systems proactive approach to address the fundamental needs of all youth, with particular emphasis on homeless youth and youth separated from school, to improve educational opportunities and outcomes. Additional targeted supplemental remedial services and other supports, as well as expand learning and re-engagement opportunities that are required by Connecticut statutes include: opportunities to meet the same state academic achievement standards/requirements through course articulation, rigor, and, planning; assistance to advise, prepare and improve readiness outcomes through Advanced Placement, SAT, and counseling services; and alternative educational opportunities that are flexible through online learning, credit recovery, remedial, independent study, employment internship, and supplemental instruction. I.4.iii: Access to Services Homeless children and youth who meet the relevant eligibility criteria do not face barriers to accessing academic and extracurricular activities, including magnet school, summer school, career and technical education, advanced placement, online learning, and charter school programs, if such programs are available at the State and local levels. The EHCY coordinator works to eliminate barriers to access faced by homeless children and youth, in all available programs for which they are eligible including: academic and extracurricular activities, including magnet school, summer school, career and technical education, advanced placement, online learning, and charter schools. This is partially accomplished through the coordination of services throughout the CSDE and with the cooperation of other state and community agencies. Acting through a variety of partnerships, learning programs and activities are identified and coordinated to meet the needs of homeless students. Connecticut’s public schools of choice have a variety of educational programs that offer challenging, relevant, and rigorous curriculum and instruction, as well as creative and flexible environments that value each student’s unique abilities, talents, interests, and learning styles, regardless of racial, ethnic, or economic backgrounds. 102 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento Strategies to recruit, enroll and sustain students experiencing homelessness are implemented through policy and procedural guideline throughout the network of homeless liaisons in both LEAs and in the school choice programs, which include magnets, Open Choice, state and local charter schools, vocational-technical schools and programs, and agriscience and technology programs. Through the investments to the state’s neediest schools and districts with both federal and state (e.g., Title I, IDEA, Alliance Districts, Priority School Districts, extended school hours), assurances and certifications are made by LEAs that attest to their compliance with both federal and state laws governing access, enrollment and success of homeless children and youth are secured. Technical assistance and professional development provided to promote equal access to programs and services available in LEAs. Guidance provided to LEAs and schools of choice will continue to emphasize that full participation of homeless youth requires access to all opportunities within schools as well as access to all schools of choice including: academic and extracurricular activities, including magnet school, summer school, career and technical education, advanced placement, online learning, and charter schools. I.5: Strategies to Address Other Problems Strategies to Address Other Problems (722(g)(1)(H) of the McKinneyVento Act): Provide strategies to address other problems with respect to the education of homeless children and youth, including problems resulting from enrollment delays that are caused by— i. requirements of immunization and other required health records; ii. residency requirements; iii. lack of birth certificates, school records, or other documentation; iv. guardianship issues; or v. uniform or dress code requirements. Issue C.G.S./Education Law 103 SEA and LEA Strategies Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento (i) Immunization & medical records requirements; (ii) Residency requirements; C.G.S. Sec. 10-201(a) “require each child to be protected by adequate immunization … before being permit to enroll in any program operated by a public or nonpublic school …If the parents or guardians of any child are unable to pay for such immunization, the expense of such immunizations shall … be paid by the town.” Additionally, “In those instances at school entry where a school-aged child is not adequately immunized school attendance shall be permitted only if the child: (1) has received a dose of each required vaccine for which that child is behind…; and (2) continues on the following schedule until adequately immunized.” Secure immediate medical attention to a child or youth lacking appropriate immunization, or proof of. C.G.S. Sec. 10-253 prescribes the educational duties and fiscal responsibilities of local and regional board of education when school age children live in “temporary shelters.” The section further augments the statute to include homeless children and youths in accordance with the provisions of the McKinney Vento Act. Provide technical assistance and professional development that assist in securing equal access to programs and services available in LEAs. 104 Secure presumptive eligibility for Medicaid or HUSKY medical coverage through Free/Reduced Price School Lunch Program Review and revise policies which act as barriers to enrollment, and disseminate procedures and best practices to LEAs through the EHCY liaison Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento Review and revise policies which act as barriers to enrollment, and disseminate procedures and best practices to LEAs through the EHCY liaison (iii) Lack of birth certificates, school records, or other documentation; C.G.S. Sec. 10-220(h) requires LEAs to transfer student records expeditiously, “no later than 10 days,” from one district to the next. Provide guidance to LEAs re: the appropriate maintenance of records of homeless students and the importance of immediate transfers to new school districts. Review and revise policies which act as barriers to enrollment, and disseminate procedures and best practices to LEAs through the EHCY liaison (iv) Guardianship issues; C.G.S. Sec. 10-253 delineates equal school access for “Children residing with relatives or nonrelatives…) Additionally, C.G.S., Sec.1094(f) delineates “Surrogate parent” “shall mean the person appointed by the Commissioner of Education as a child’s advocate in the 105 Provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs re: the appropriate guardianship of homeless Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento (v) Uniform or dress code requirements. education decision making process in place of the child’s parents or guardian.” children and youth. C.G.S. Sec. 10-221(f) allows LEAs to “specify a school uniform for students…” Review and revise policies which act as barriers to enrollment, and disseminate procedures and best practices to LEAs through the EHCY liaison LEAs, must prescribed remedies to remove financial barriers to students in securing uniforms. I.6: Policies to Remove Barriers Review and revise policies which act as barriers to enrollment, and disseminate procedures and best practices to LEAs through the EHCY liaison Policies to Remove Barriers (722(g)(1)(I) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Demonstrate that the SEA and LEAs in the State have developed, and shall review and revise, policies to remove barriers to the identification of homeless children and youth, and the enrollment and retention of homeless children and youth in schools in the State, including barriers to enrollment and retention due to outstanding fees or fines, or absences. The CSDE framework of activities previously described in part 1 of this section incorporates activities that are focused upon the unique conditions and needs of children and youth that experience homelessness, including those youth that may not be in the physical custody of a parent or guardian; unaccompanied youth. Previously conducted activities are routinely examined to inform the design and implementation of future efforts. The CSDE is not aware of instances of students in Connecticut LEAs of being denied enrollment because of owing fines or fees, or having absences, but if CSDE were to 106 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento become aware of such a situation, it would respond through the EHCY coordinator to seek correction of the issue. The activities of the EHCY state coordinator are intended to continually safeguard the provisions of the McKinney-Vento Act. Continuous monitoring of state and local policies occurs to ensure that no barriers exist to the enrollment of homeless children and youth to accessing education and related services, including barriers to enrollment due to outstanding fees or fines, or absences. Annual reports and summaries submitted by McKinney-Vento sub-grant awardees provide additional data to assist in the assessment of needs and the elimination of barriers homeless children and youth may face. Connecticut has developed a guide to reduce chronic absenteeism in schools, which provides significant information on best practices for keeping all students, especially students at-risk, in school: Reducing Chronic Absence in Connecticut: A Prevention and Intervention Guide for Schools and Districts. Since 2015, Connecticut’s School Health Survey (CSHS) is has included two questions on homelessness. This school-based survey of students is administered in grades 9-12 with randomly chosen classrooms within selected high schools. Results from the survey are utilized to reduce barriers and to target supports and resources to better identify and meet needs of runaway and homeless youth. In addition, CSDE is in the process of completing guidance for LEAs concerning their legal obligations in regard to student enrollment. The purpose of the guidance, which will cover McKinney-Vento requirements concerning homeless students, is to ensure that LEAs take appropriate measures to enroll students promptly by removing delays or barriers that are not authorized by applicable civil rights law. Youth engagement is also incorporated into the state’s plan to prevent and end youth homelessness. A Youth Action Hub, composed of homeless and formerly homeless youth, directly contribute to the discussion of how to end youth homelessness in our state. Youth conduct original research (focus groups with youth, online surveys) to inform the design of a youth-friendly information and referral system for youth in Connecticut to access a wide array of resources, including education, housing, mental health/health, food, youth centers, etc. 107 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento The continual review of policies, practices, and procedures to remove barriers to homeless children and youth provide an opportunity to introduce or correct deficiencies and limitations in existing statutes. For example, Connecticut recently passed Public Act 16-147: An Act Concerning the Recommendations of the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee (JJPOC). This Act effectively eliminated “Truancy and Defiance of School Rules” as offenses requiring referrals to the juvenile courts. Beginning with this school year, schools will be using the Chronic Absence Prevention and Intervention Guide and Truancy Intervention Models identified by the CSDE, to work with students struggling with attendance or other behavioral problems. Homeless students who miss school will be provided with assistance and case management by student assistance teams. I.7 Assistance from Counselors Assistance from Counselors (722(g)(1)(K)): A description of how youths described in section 725(2) will receive assistance from counselors to advise such youths, and prepare and improve the readiness of such youths for college. School counselors, using the Connecticut Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CCSCP), described below, provide a variety of preventions and interventions to assist homeless students in overcoming barriers to learning; make strong connections with educational opportunities in their schools; and to ensure access to a safe, healthy, and supportive environment. The CCSCP, approved by the State Board of Education in 2008, provides a systemic approach for school counselors to engage all students and prepare them for college success and career opportunities, with specific emphasis toward students from underrepresented populations, including homeless students. CCSCP is a whole-child framework (academic, career, and social/emotional) that is planned and implemented by a certified school counselor who works with principals, teachers, and other stakeholders to maximize the educational success of every Connecticut student. The program is an integral part of the education process and aligns to college and career readiness standards. CCSCP goals show clear alignment with local, state, and national goals and have four distinct delivery systems; integrated delivery of the student success standards; personalized 108 Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, McKinney-Vento student planning; responsive services; and student supports. This framework builds social capital, offers enriching curriculum/activities, fosters rigorous academic preparation, encourages early college planning, and guides both students and families through the college admission and financial aid processes. Operationally, the school counselor and school leadership team use multiple data points to assess student needs, identify priorities, and develop a plan of action to collaboratively address the identified needs within each grade level 109 Consolidated State Plan Assurances Instructions: Each SEA submitting a consolidated State plan must review the assurances below and demonstrate agreement by selecting the boxes provided. ☒ Participation by private school children and teachers. The SEA must assure that it will meet the requirements of sections 1117 and 8501 of the ESEA regarding the participation of private school children and teachers. ☒ Ensuring equitable access to Federal programs. The SEA must assure that, consistent with section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), it described the steps the SEA will take to ensure equitable access to and participation in the included programs for students, teachers and other program beneficiaries with special needs as addressed in sections described below (e.g., 4.3 State Support and Improvement for Low-performing Schools, 5.3 Educator Equity). Please see Appendix E for more information on equitable access to and participation in programs. 110 Appendix A: Consultation and Performance Management Focus Group Overview Education stakeholders across the state participated in focus groups designed to inform implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Invitees represented a wide range of stakeholder groups, including community based organizations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, professional groups, the business community, and parents and students, among others. Focus groups were coordinated by regional education resource centers around the state and were hosted during the months of October, November, and December. The following organizations were invited to participate in focus groups: Community Based Organizations Achieve Hartford Center for Latino Progress The Conference of Churches Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now Connecticut Council for Education Reform NAACP Connecticut State Conference Teach for America – Connecticut Excel Bridgeport African American Affairs Commission L/PR Affairs Commission Urban League of Greater Hartford Urban League of Southwest Connecticut Connecticut Association of Human Services Connecticut Association of (Community Action Agencies) Connecticut Center for Children’s Advocacy Commission on Women, Children and Seniors Connecticut Association for the Gifted World Affairs Council Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Commission on Equity and Opportunity Connecticut Association for the Gifted Philanthropic Organizations Hartford Foundation for Public Giving Greater New Haven Foundation Connecticut Council for Philanthropy Graustein Foundation United Way 111 Connecticut Education Foundations General Electric Foundation Government/Agency Representatives Connecticut State Department of Education Connecticut Department of Children and Families Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development Connecticut Department of Labor Connecticut Department of Social Services Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet Connecticut Early Childhood Alliance Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special Education Education Committee of CSL Black and Hispanic Caucus Latino Caucus Workforce Investment Boards Juvenile Justice System Representation (TBD) Department of Corrections Superintendent and other representation Office of the Child Advocate Commission for Educational Technology CT General Assembly State Advisory Group for School Governance Councils CDC School Health HIV/STD/Pregnancy Prevention CT Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Connecticut Nutrition Standards (CNS) Committee State Advisory Council on Special Education (SAC) Institutional Representatives Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners Connecticut Alliance of Regional Educational Service Centers Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education University of Connecticut UCONN Cooperative Extension Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges Connecticut Technical High School System Board Comer Yale Child Study Center Institution for Social and Emotional Learning School Garden Resource Institute Professional Associations 112 American Federation of Teachers (AFT-CT) Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) Connecticut Association of Schools (CAS) Connecticut Education Association (CEA) Connecticut Federation of School Administrators Connecticut Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) National Association of Black Social Workers Parent and Student Organizations Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC) Connecticut Parent Teacher, Student Association (CT PTSA) State of Black Connecticut Alliance/Connecticut Parents Union State Student Advisory Council on Education (SSACE) Students for Education Reform – Connecticut Connecticut Parent Power Parent University representation African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities Connecticut FAVOR, Inc. Child Health and Development Institute (CHDI) CT Parent Information and Resource Center (CT PIRC)/State Education Resource Center (SERC) Hartford Parent University Business and Industry Representatives Metro Hartford Alliance Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) Regional Chambers of Commerce (each chamber, one rep per) Connecticut Farm Bureau Association Connecticut Mental Health Association Focus groups were held during the following dates: Group Superintendents Parents & community Parents & community Parents & community Parents & community Parents & community Date 10/14/2016 10/25/2016 10/25/2016 10/25/2016 10/26/2016 10/31/2016 113 Parents & community Students & families Teachers CABE CABE Superintendents Philanthropic groups Administrators Administrators Parents & students Superintendents Teachers Teachers Government Agencies RESC Ex. Directors CABE Principals/Administra tors Teachers Teachers Industry and Business Parents Administrators AFT BOE Students BOE Parents & students Superintendents BOE Parents Students Parents & students Parents Administrators Statewide groups Teachers District/Building Admins Administrators CSDE staff 10/31/2016 11/1/2016 11/1/2016 11/1/2016 11/1/2016 11/1/2016 11/2/2016 11/2/2016 11/2/2016 11/2/2016 11/2/2016 11/3/2016 11/3/2016 11/4/2016 11/4/2016 11/7/2016 11/7/2016 11/7/2016 11/8/2016 11/8/2016 11/9/2016 11/9/2016 11/9/2016 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 114 CSDE staff District/Building Admins Superintendents CSDE staff Parents & community Parent University 11/17/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/21/2016 11/30/2016 12/9/2016 115 Every Student Succeeds Act Social Media Plan Week, Day Twitter Facebook Week 1, Day 1 # CT Commissioner of Education announces 18 question #EESA community survey: (link to press release) Commissioner of Education Diana Wentzell announced an 18 question Every Student Succeeds Act community survey today. Read more about the survey and the Every Student Succeeds Act, and find links to the survey here: (insert link to press release) Week 1, Day 2 How can we continue to improve the quality of education in #CT? Share your input here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA How can we continue to improve the quality of education in Connecticut as we implement the Every Student Succeeds Act? Share your input here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 1, Day 3 Share your thoughts on how we can ensure #equity and #excellence for all #CT students: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA Share your thoughts and ideas on how we can all work together to ensure equity and excellence for all Connecticut students. Take our short survey here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 2, Day 1 How can we use #ESSA to improve the quality of education in #CT? Share your ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV How can we continue to improve the quality of education in Connecticut as we implement the Every Student Succeeds Act? Share your ideas and input here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 2, Day 2 What factors are most important to ensure #CT students graduate college & career ready? Share your ideas here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA What are the most important factors in ensuring students graduate from high school ready for college and career? Share your ideas and input with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 2, Day 3 How can we ensure #CT students are receiving a high-quality, holistic public education? Share your ideas here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA How can we use our Next Generation Accountability System to best ensure our pre-K-12 schools are providing a high-quality, holistic education to Connecticut’s 116 students? Share your thoughts and ideas here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 3, Day 1 How can we keep all of our students in #CT in school and engaged? Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA Connecticut has a renewed focus on keeping at-risk students engaged and in school. What strategies do you want to see implemented in schools to keep students from becoming disengaged and disconnected? Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 3, Day 2 What factors are most important to transform low-performing schools? Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #CT #ESSA Our efforts to ensure all students have access to a high-quality education involve turning around low-performing schools. What do you believe are the most important factors to turn schools around? Share your input here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 3, Day 3 How can we ensure English learners in #CT graduate prepared for college and career? Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA As our population of English learners grows it is imperative that we ensure these students graduate from high school ready for college and career. What strategies do you believe will best ensure Connecticut schools are meeting English learners’ needs? Share your thoughts and ideas here: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 4, Day 1 How can we ensure #CT students have equitable access to excellent teachers and leaders? Share your thoughts with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #ESSA How can we ensure that all students in Connecticut have equitable access to high quality teachers and leaders? Share your thoughts with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 4, Day 2 We want to include your voice in our #ESSA plan. Share your ideas and input & shape the future of education in #CT: https://goo.gl/75ILBV As we develop our plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act we want to include your voice. Share your ideas and input and help shape the future of education in 117 Connecticut: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Week 4, Day 3 Help us ensure that all students have access to a high-quality, rigorous education. Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV #CT #ESSA 118 Help us ensure that all students have access to a high-quality, rigorous education. Share your thoughts and ideas with us: https://goo.gl/75ILBV Parent Survey Letters [INSERT DATE] Dear Parent or Guardian: You are invited to participate in a short online survey by the Connecticut Department of Education that will allow you to share your thoughts on the best ways to strengthen the education your child receives in school. The survey was designed to gather feedback from communities across the state about the priorities that will drive Connecticut’s goals around equity and excellence in education. Your feedback will also help inform the development of the state’s plan for the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). You can access the survey in English and Spanish by going to www.ct.gov/sde/essa. Here in Connecticut, we believe parents and guardians should have a strong voice in the conversation about how we can improve educational opportunities for all children. We were thrilled that so many parents were among the 6,700 people across the state who participated in last year’s survey to inform the creation of our Five-Year Comprehensive Plan, which aims to ensure equity and excellence for all Connecticut students. You can read the plan on our website, www.ct.gov/sde. Education has the power to transform lives and prepare students to thrive in a global economy and civic life. Your teachers and administrators are committed to working together to help give all children a chance to pursue their dreams and rise to their potential. By taking this survey, you are helping them deliver on the promise of a great education for your child. I wish you and your family a great rest of the school year. Best wishes, Dr. Dianna R. Wentzell Connecticut Commissioner of Education 119 [INSERT DATE] Estimado padre o tutor: Está invitado a participar en una breve encuesta en línea que realiza el Departamento de Educación de Connecticut, que le permitirá compartir su opinión sobre las mejores formas de reforzar la educación que su hijo recibe en la escuela. Esta encuesta se diseñó para recopilar comentarios de las comunidades de todo el estado acerca de las prioridades que impulsarán los objetivos de Connecticut en relación con la equidad y la excelencia educativas. Sus comentarios también ayudarán a informar al Departamento sobre el plan del estado para la nueva ley educativa federal, la Ley Cada Estudiante Triunfa (ESSA, por su sigla en inglés). Puede acceder a la encuesta en inglés y español en www.ct.gov/sde/essa. Aquí en Connecticut, creemos que los padres y los tutores deben tener voz y voto en la conversación sobre cómo podemos mejorar las oportunidades educativas de todos los niños. Nos emociona haber contado con tantos padres entre las 6700 personas de todo el estado que participaron en la encuesta del año pasado para informar la creación del Plan integral de cinco años, el cual pretende garantizar la equidad y la excelencia para todos los estudiantes de Connecticut. Puede leer el plan en nuestro sitio web: www.ct.gov/sde. La educación tiene el poder de transformar vidas y preparar a los estudiantes para que prosperen en la economía mundial y la vida cívica. Los docentes y los administradores asumen el compromiso de trabajar juntos para ayudar a brindarles a todos los niños la posibilidad de perseguir sus sueños y alcanzar su máximo potencial. Al realizar esta encuesta, los ayuda a cumplir la promesa de brindarle a su hijo una educación excelente. Les deseo a usted y a su familia un buen descanso del año escolar. Atentamente, Dra. Dianna R. Wentzell Comisionada de Educación de Connecticut 120 Connecticut ESSA Consolidated State Plan Stakeholder Engagement Survey and Focus Group Analysis February 16, 2017 Developed for: The Connecticut State Department of Education By The Connecticut Alliance of Regional Education Service Centers 121 Table of Contents Methodology for Data Collection Phase ..................................................................................... 123122 Online Survey ...................................................................................................................... 123122 Focus Groups ....................................................................................................................... 123122 Analysis Processes for Data Collection Phase ........................................................................ 126125 Online Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 127126 Complete ESSA Survey Results.............................................................................................. 127126 Parent/Guardian and Grandparent ESSA Survey Results........................................................ 132131 Every Student Succeeds Act Survey - Open Comments Summary ........................................... 136135 Every Student Succeeds Act Survey - Open Comment Emergent Response Themes, by Policy Question and Audience Profile .............................................................................................. 137136 Focus Group Results ................................................................................................................... 149148 Policy Question One - Academic Standards, Student Assessments and Accountability............ 150149 Policy Question Two - School Improvement for Turnaround and Focus Schools ..................... 153152 Policy Question Three - Increase Focus/Accountability for Improving Outcomes for English Learners ............................................................................................................................................ 156155 Policy Question Four - Effective Teachers and Leaders .......................................................... 159158 122 Methodology for Data Collection Phase Online Survey The CSDE Every Student Succeeds Act Planning Survey questions were developed by the Department of Education to reflect the State Board’s priorities and then, with collaboration, feedback, and approval from the Commissioner of Education and her key staff, were finalized and distributed primarily in electronic format using SurveyMonkey. Announcements regarding the availability of the survey were distributed through the Regional Service Center Alliance, through the department's various state and professional networks, as well as through contacts in a variety of community organizations and local school districts. A clear majority of the respondents learned of the survey and connected to it via a link they received in an email. The survey was hosted by SurveyMonkey, available in both English and Spanish versions, and open to the public between November 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017. RPT staff monitored the survey responses regularly to ensure proper functioning. A total of 6,926 individuals opened the English version of the survey while 31 individuals responded to the Spanish version. Focus Groups The CSDE Focus Group questions were developed by the Department of Education to reflect the State Board’s priorities. Following the approval of questions, an established protocol for conducting the groups was created by the RESC Alliance. A training session was held for the focus group facilitators to ensure the protocols were understood and consistently applied. There were two slightly different versions of the focus group questions which were applied based on the background of the primary audience. Participants who may not have been familiar with the formal public education process, additional background information regarding Every Student Succeeds Act was provided prior to the start of the session. In addition to the organizations identified in subsection (c) of Section 10-4 of the Connecticut General Statutes for inclusion in a long-range planning process, the State Board of Education identified additional groups to be invited to participate in the process. In all, nearly 100 organizations were invited either electronically or personally to send a representative to an in-person focus group. These organizations were grouped for logistical/practical purposes, sessions were scheduled for each group, and invitations for those specific sessions were forwarded to organizational representatives. The invited groups and organizations are listed below: Community Based Organizations Achieve Hartford Center for Latino Progress The Conference of Churches Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now Connecticut Council for Education Reform NAACP Connecticut State Conference Teach for America – Connecticut Excel Bridgeport African American Affairs Commission L/PR Affairs Commission Urban League of Greater Hartford Urban League of Southwest Connecticut Connecticut Association of Human Services Connecticut Association of (Community Action Agencies) Connecticut Center for Children’s Advocacy 123 Commission on Women, Children and Seniors Connecticut Association for the Gifted World Affairs Council Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Commission on Equity and Opportunity Connecticut Association for the Gifted Philanthropic Organizations Hartford Foundation for Public Giving Greater New Haven Foundation Connecticut Council for Philanthropy Graustein Foundation United Way Connecticut Education Foundations General Electric Foundation Government/Agency Representatives Connecticut State Department of Education Connecticut Department of Children and Families Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development Connecticut Department of Labor Connecticut Department of Social Services Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Connecticut Early Childhood Education Cabinet Connecticut Early Childhood Alliance Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special Education Education Committee of CSL Black and Hispanic Caucus Latino Caucus Workforce Investment Boards Juvenile Justice System Representation (TBD) Department of Corrections Superintendent and other representation Office of the Child Advocate Commission for Educational Technology CT General Assembly State Advisory Group for School Governance Councils CDC School Health HIV/STD/Pregnancy Prevention CT Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Connecticut Nutrition Standards (CNS) Committee Institutional Representatives Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners Connecticut Alliance of Regional Educational Service Centers Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education University of Connecticut UCONN Cooperative Extension Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges Connecticut Technical High School System Board Northeast Charter Schools Network 124 Comer Yale Child Study Center Institution for Social and Emotional Learning School Garden Resource Institute Professional Associations American Federation of Teachers (AFT-CT) Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) Connecticut Association of Schools (CAS) Connecticut Education Association (CEA) Connecticut Federation of School Administrators Connecticut Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) National Association of Black Social Workers (Connecticut Chapter) Parent and Student Organizations Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC) Connecticut Parent Teacher, Student Association (CT PTSA) State of Black Connecticut Alliance/Connecticut Parents Union State Student Advisory Council on Education (SSACE) Students for Education Reform – Connecticut Connecticut Parent Power Parent University representation African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities Connecticut FAVOR, Inc. Child Health and Development Institute (CHDI) CT Parent Information and Resource Center (CT PIRC)/State Education Resource Center (SERC) Hartford Parent University Business and Industry Representatives Metro Hartford Alliance Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) Regional Chambers of Commerce (each chamber, one rep per) Connecticut Farm Bureau Association Connecticut Mental Health Association In addition to these representational focus groups, role alike groups of students, parents, teachers, administrators, and superintendents were scheduled regionally in each of the six RESC offices (Litchfield, Trumbull, Hamden, Hartford, Old Lyme and Hampton). Student and parent sessions were scheduled at the same time but were held separately. Each RESC scheduled five focus groups within their catchment area. Governmental representative groups were held centrally at local offices in Hartford and Middletown. Each of these sessions was also conducted by a trained facilitator following the same common protocol. Focus groups were recorded using professional hardware with Audacity software and then labeled with indicators developed and implemented by the RPT. The recordings were saved onto a shared, secure drive, marked for the number of participants and sent to an external transcription service (TranscribeMe) for processing. A total of 52 focus groups were conducted with more than 60 hours of conversational data captured, collected, and transcribed. 125 Analysis Processes for Data Collection Phase All survey questions were analyzed by the frequency of response. For the Focus Groups, Audacity audio files of the focus groups were stored centrally and then sent to a transcription service and were received back in Microsoft Word format. The Word files were then uploaded and analyzed using NVivo software. The RPT worked together to develop a system of coding that identified key ideas while increasing inter-rater reliability. Analysis was broken down by constituent group and reported in aggregate. 126 Online Survey Results Complete ESSA Survey Results Total Completed Responses = 6,230 Results by Question: 1. Towns with most survey responses: (% of total responses) 1. Milford = 13.0% 2. Middletown = 7.7% 3. Bristol = 7.3% 4. Oxford = 3.8% 5. Brookfield = 2.3% 2. Gender 1. Female = 78.5% 2. Male = 21.2% 3. Other = 0.3% 3. Age of Respondents Age Range 12-17 Years Percent 0.2 18-25 Years 1.6 26-35 Years 15.6 36-45 Years 33.9 46-55 Years 29.3 56-65 Years 15.8 Over 65 Years 3.7 4. Ethnicity White or Caucasian Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Other or prefer not to answer Percent 79.7 5.6 4.9 2.2 1.0 7.0 127 5. How did you learn about this survey? Percent Link from an email 83.7 Link from a web page 6.5 Social media 4.8 Word of mouth 3.6 Print publication 1.5 Other responses included: CSDE website, RESC, School/District Personnel and local TV news channel 6. Highest level of education completed: Percent Did not attend school 0.0 5th grade 0.0 8th grade 0.0 9th grade 0.1 10th grade 0.1 11th grade 0.2 Graduated from high school 5.0 1 year of college 2.7 2 years of college 4.6 3 years of college 1.7 Graduated from college 17.2 Some graduate school 5.4 Completed graduate school 62.9 7. What is your role? Percent Educator 54.7 Parent / Guardian 35.9 Business Person 3.3 Community Member 3.0 Elected Official 1.6 Grandparent 1.0 Current Student 0.6 Other roles included: administrators, paraprofessionals, school counselors/social workers 128 8. What are the most important factors in ensuring students achieve learning goals with more rigorous college and career readiness standards? Percent Highly effective teacher and school leaders 77.0 Positive climate and culture 55.4 Instruction personalized to individual student needs 44.4 Social and emotional supports for students 39.2 Maintaining high expectations for all students 38.8 Access to wrap-around services, such as counseling or family 22.0 Equitable Access to Technology 20.8 9. What indicators from our Next Generation Accountability System will best ensure that preK-12 schools are providing a high-quality, holistic education on Connecticut students? Percent Preparation for postsecondary and career-readiness coursework 59.7 Academic growth measured by state assessments 29.9 Arts Access 29.2 Graduation - on track in ninth grade 28.7 Preparation for postsecondary and career-readiness-exams (SAT, AP, IB) 21.6 Postsecondary entrance rate (college enrollment) 20.7 Chronic absenteeism 20.1 Physical fitness 16.9 Graduation - four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 16.4 Academic Achievement status measured by state assessments 14.1 Assessment participation rate 7.3 Graduation - six-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 6.1 10. Connecticut has a renewed focus on keeping at-risk students engaged and in school. What strategies do you want to see implemented in schools to keep students from becoming disengaged and disconnected? Percent Emphasis on personalized, real-world relevant learning 51.3 Mentoring Programs 43.4 Access to mental health supports, such as counseling 35.2 Early warning system that would identify students at risk for school failure or dropping out 34.1 After-school activities for youth 33.7 Focus on social-emotional supports in the classroom 33.4 Maintaining high expectations for all students 27.6 Opportunities for community engagement 19.5 Use of data such as chronic absenteeism to flag at-risk students 16.3 Access to youth employment 13.5 11. Open-ended question: Comments - (see Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 129 12. What do you believe are the most important factors in transforming low-performing schools? Percent Strong parent and family engagement 50.9 Positive school culture and climate 50.7 Highly effective teachers and leaders 45.0 Professional development in curriculum, instructional practice, behavior management and 25.6 social-emotional supports Community partnerships to help meet the non-academic needs of students 25.2 Strategies to support students experiencing trauma outside of school 24.2 Recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, including teachers of color 22.9 Additional time for teacher planning and collaboration 19.1 Menu of evidence-based strategies for school improvement 10.9 Access to technology 10.9 Rigorous Instruction 10.0 Close monitoring of progress by the State Department of Education 4.0 Technical assistance 2.1 13. Which of the following strategies for reducing red tape and streamlining operations do you think will have the greatest impact? Percent Exploring ways to reduce redundant data collection 64.5 Streamlined website to make it easier to access information and resources 52.5 Developing a single electronic application process for districts to apply for state and federal 31.8 funds Online systems for engaging stakeholders on important policy issues 18.9 Online systems for parents to file complaints 9.3 Online teacher licensure system 7.9 14. Open-ended question: Comments - (see Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 15. What strategies will best ensure Connecticut schools are meeting the needs of English learners and preparing them for success in college and career? Percent Access to innovative evidence-based programming for English learners 50.2 Provide translated school materials to parents and make sure translators are provided when 30.4 necessary at parent meetings/events Strong partnerships with community organizations that support immigrant families 29.2 Cultural competency training for all school staff 28.5 Development of a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment 23.1 Support the continued development of first language instruction 21.2 Increase recruitment and retention of bilingual support staff 16.3 State seal of bi-literacy to recognize and honor high school graduates who achieve 7.8 proficiency in two languages 16. Open-ended question: Comments - (See Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 130 17. What strategies best support the State Department of Education’s mission to ensure equitable access to excellent teachers and leaders? Percent Provide incentives for teachers to and leaders to work in low-performing and high37.9 poverty schools Strengthen educator preparation programs 29.8 Teacher and leader mentorship programs 27.9 Provide school-based professional development opportunities 24.3 Provide access to innovative alternative routes to certification 22.7 Continue supporting teacher evaluation and development systems that use multiple 20.1 measures and provide access to quality training Provide supports to districts looking to implement teacher leadership programs 17.4 Strengthen efforts to recruit and retain teachers and leaders 17.2 Provide cultural competency training for teachers and leaders 13.6 Administer student surveys to provide feedback to teachers on their practice 12.5 Create a talent pipeline that includes opportunities such as serving as and administrative 11.4 intern Streamline the educator certification program 11.0 Provide school-based English learner cross-endorsement program to address shortage 8.0 areas and improve teaching skills 18. Comments: (see Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 131 Parent/Guardian and Grandparent ESSA Survey Results Total Completed Responses = 2,507 Results by Question: 1. Towns with most survey responses: (% of total responses) 1. Milford = 22.9% 2. Middletown = 14.6% 3. Bristol = 13.2% 4. Oxford = 7.2% 5. Brookfield = 4.3% 2. Gender 1. Female = 81.1% 2. Male = 18.8% 3. Other = 0.2% 3. Age of Respondents Age Range Percent 12-17 Years 0.0 18-25 Years 0.3 26-35 Years 14.1 36-45 Years 47.1 46-55 Years 32.3 56-65 Years 4.3 Over 65 Years 1.9 4. Ethnicity White or Caucasian Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Other or prefer not to answer Percent 78.5 6.0 5.4 3.8 1.1 7.8 5. How did you learn about this survey? Percent Link from an email 81.0 Link from a web page 7.4 Social media 7.6 Word of mouth 2.5 Print publication 1.4 132 6. Highest level of education completed Percent Did not attend school 0.0 5th grade 0.0 8th grade 0.0 9th grade 0.1 10th grade 0.2 11th grade 0.5 Graduated from high school 11.7 1 year of college 6.0 2 years of college 10.1 3 years of college 3.7 Graduated from college 31.6 Some graduate school 5.2 Completed graduate school 30.7 7. What is your role? Percent Educator 0.0 Parent / Guardian 97.4 Business Person 0.0 Community Member 0.0 Elected Official 0.0 Grandparent 2.6 Current Student 0.0 8. What are the most important factors in ensuring students achieve learning goals with more rigorous college and career readiness standards? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Highly effective teacher and school leaders 83.2 Instruction personalized to individual student needs 56.8 Positive climate and culture 54.0 Maintaining high expectations for all students 36.7 Social and emotional supports for students 32.7 Equitable Access to Technology 24.8 Access to wrap-around services, such as counseling or family 13.1 133 9. What indicators from our Next Generation Accountability System will best ensure that preK-12 schools are providing a high-quality, holistic education on Connecticut students? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Preparation for postsecondary and career-readiness coursework 63.2 Preparation for postsecondary and career-readiness-exams (SAT, AP, IB) 31.6 Arts Access 29.6 Graduation - on track in ninth grade 29.5 Postsecondary entrance rate (college enrollment) 28.3 Academic growth measured by state assessments 27.5 Academic Achievement status measured by state assessments 19.7 Physical fitness 18.6 Graduation - four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 14.3 Assessment participation rate 9.2 Chronic absenteeism 8.9 Graduation - six-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 4.0 10. Connecticut has a renewed focus on keeping at-risk students engaged and in school. What strategies do you want to see implemented in schools to keep students from becoming disengaged and disconnected? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Emphasis on personalized, real-world relevant learning 52.7 Mentoring Programs 47.4 After-school activities for youth 40.0 Early warning system that would identify students at risk for school failure or dropping out 37.9 Access to mental health supports, such as counseling 29.7 Focus on social-emotional supports in the classroom 28.6 Maintaining high expectations for all students 26.6 Opportunities for community engagement 20.1 Access to youth employment 15.3 Use of data such as chronic absenteeism to flag at-risk students 14.3 11. Open Ended Question: Comments - (See Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 12. What do you believe are the most important factors in transforming low-performing schools? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Strong parent and family engagement 54.5 Highly effective teachers and leaders 51.5 Positive school culture and climate 50.3 Professional development in curriculum, instructional practice, behavior management and 29.0 social-emotional supports Recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, including teachers of color 25.9 Community partnerships to help meet the non-academic needs of students 24.0 Strategies to support students experiencing trauma outside of school 20.6 Access to technology 14.7 Menu of evidence-based strategies for school improvement 13.3 Additional time for teacher planning and collaboration 12.9 134 Rigorous Instruction Close monitoring of progress by the State Department of Education Technical assistance 8.6 7.7 2.6 13. Which of the following strategies for reducing red tape and streamlining operations do you think will have the greatest impact? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Streamlined website to make it easier to access information and resources 60.9 Exploring ways to reduce redundant data collection 57.5 Developing a single electronic application process for districts to apply for state and federal 34.9 funds Online systems for engaging stakeholders on important policy issues 20.1 Online systems for parents to file complaints 19.1 Online teacher licensure system 8.1 14. Open Ended Question: Comments - (See Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 15. What strategies will best ensure Connecticut schools are meeting the needs of English learners and preparing them for success in college and career? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Access to innovative evidence-based programming for English learners 51.6 Provide translated school materials to parents and make sure translators are provided when 34.0 necessary at parent meetings/events Strong partnerships with community organizations that support immigrant families 28.9 Cultural competency training for all school staff 27.5 Development of a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment 26.0 Support the continued development of first language instruction 25.3 Increase recruitment and retention of bilingual support staff 19.0 State seal of bi-literacy to recognize and honor high school graduates who achieve 11.0 proficiency in two languages 16. Open Ended Question: Comments - (See Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) 17. What strategies best support the State Department of Education’s mission to ensure equitable access to excellent teachers and leaders? (Choose up to three responses) Percent Provide incentives for teachers to and leaders to work in low-performing and high-poverty 43.7 schools Provide access to innovative alternative routes to certification 32.0 Strengthen educator preparation programs 29.3 Continue supporting teacher evaluation and development systems that use multiple measures 29.0 and provide access to quality training Teacher and leader mentorship programs 27.7 Administer student surveys to provide feedback to teachers on their practice 24.2 Provide school-based professional development opportunities 20.9 Provide supports to districts looking to implement teacher leadership programs 19.5 Strengthen efforts to recruit and retain teachers and leaders 15.9 135 Streamline the educator certification program Provide cultural competency training for teachers and leaders Create a talent pipeline that includes opportunities such as serving as and administrative intern Provide school-based English learner cross-endorsement program to address shortage areas and improve teaching skills 13.0 12.9 12.9 8.0 18. Comments: (see Every Student Succeeds Act Survey – Open Comments Summary) Every Student Succeeds Act Survey - Open Comments Summary The Connecticut’s Every Student Succeeds Act Survey was composed of 14 demographic and policydriven multiple choice questions. Questions were grouped within the context of their overarching policy narratives as developed by the Connecticut State Department of Education in collaboration with the Connecticut RESC Alliance. At the end of each policy question category, survey respondents were provided the opportunity to add comments in an open-ended response format. From a total of 6,230 individuals who completed the survey, 5,999 comments were input. The comments were analyzed and coded thematically using NVivo qualitative analysis software. Respondents self-identified as belonging to one of the following stakeholder groups: Educators, who comprised 52.6% of commenters, Parents/Guardians representing 34.6%, followed by Business Persons providing 3.1% of total comments, Community Members at 2.9%, Elected Officials with 1.5%, Grandparents with .9% and students at .5%. The results reflect the frequency of participants’ perceptions of important issues for each policy area, and are driven by answer choices provided in each of the survey questions. For each policy question, themes became apparent across all stakeholder groups, and the two most consistent themes per policy question are indicated below: Policy Question 1: Academic Standards, Student Assessments, and Accountability Systems The need for established factors recognizing the importance of behavioral/mental health support systems throughout the preK-12 spectrum. The need for significant reduction of state mandated assessments, shifting the emphasis to more time spent on real world curriculum, and measuring individual student improvement over onesize-fits all academic performance. Policy Question 2: School Improvement for Turnaround and Focus Schools A higher level of parent/community outreach/engagement in underperforming districts is critically important in supporting student learning. Additional funding needs should be determined by educators at the district level, with the recognition that the challenges influenced by poverty, family dysfunction and social/emotional stress are not accounted for in state-mandated performance measures. Policy Question 3: Increase Focus/Accountability for Improving Outcomes for English Learners Bi-linguicism should be more widely recognized and promoted as an asset, and greater resources should be provided to immigrant students’ families. More bi-lingual teachers and paras are needed in many districts. There is also a need for greater EL professional development opportunities for mono-lingual teachers. Students need more time to achieve English proficiency before qualifying for mainstream assessment. 136 Policy Question 4: Effective Teachers and Leaders Expand teacher support to accommodate growing issues related to social/emotional/behavioral health challenges, i.e. more relevant PD options, or increased presence of para-professionals in classrooms. Improve teacher effectiveness by re-evaluating tenure/certification reciprocity/retention issues. Streamline certification process for proven teachers from out-of-state, or successful professionals from other fields, reducing amount of time and personal investment to become licensed in CT. Eliminate tenure to remove consistently underperforming teachers and create more openings for new teachers. Reward effective teachers with merit raises or promotions. Other recurrent themes among commenters from various audiences included; teachers deserving more voice in informing policy development, less state-level policy mandates by non-educators, and changing funding by district, to funding by region or county for more equitable distribution of funds. Every Student Succeeds Act Survey - Open Comment Emergent Response Themes, by Policy Question and Audience Profile Policy Question 1: Academic Standards, Student Assessments, and Accountability Systems Educator Comments “Universal Pre-K for all students in the public schools.” “Eliminate all or most of state mandated testing. Let the teachers teach and respect their professionalism. They know the pedagogy.” “So much emphasis is placed on student assessment achievement that the fun, excitement, and intrigue in learning can be stripped away.” “Many elementary school tests provide no valuable information while taking many hours away from instruction. Testing has become out of control and counter-productive.” “Another, VERY important factor in ensuring students achieve is home/family support.” “Individual student growth on curriculum-based assessments and assignments support how schools are providing a high-quality education for all students.” “Counseling services provided for the families of at-risk students, as well as students themselves.” “Create a standard of evidence of mastery based learning.” “Indicators should include more access to Career and Technical Education (CTE) to be truly holistic. There is ample research showing that students who enroll in 2 CTE classes are more likely to enter and finish college. CTE classes help students develop skills needed for employment in today's world, yet these classes are often the first ones cut.” “Greater attention must be paid to social/emotional needs for students and families. We are seeing a rise in the number of students who are unable to learn because of out-of-school factors.” “Health education programs are also crucial, a drop-in drug use and teen pregnancy, and improved overall health will improve academics.” “Support local efforts to measure and monitor student growth over time instead of using one time per year assessments that are so far removed from day to day instruction.” “Make arts access a high priority. When delivered correctly, they are more authentically taught, appeal to kinesthetic learners (who may not be athletes). Arts teachers and classes are often the first to go when budgets suffer.” 137 “Testing is only one window among many, and not always the best way to see how a student is performing.” “I’ve noticed many more behavioral problems since the revamping of kindergarten. Children need time to learn how to cope with problems between themselves and their peers.” “Children are exhibiting high levels of stress due to the amount of testing. I teach 3rd grade, and have had to eliminate the many wonderful hands-on activities I used to provide for deep understanding of the topics we cover.” “It is really important that PK-12 education includes physical education and health education as a core component of student education. Health and well-being is vital to the overall success of students and adults.” “Mentoring programs and after school activities where they can be engaged in activities with good role models are important strategies as well.” “Standardized test results are biased by a student's prior access to technology use and technological terminology.” “Develop a Career Readiness Inventory (CRI) that we believe could be useful state-wide.” “Personalized Learning is vital student engagement critical thinking. I hope that CT understands that schools need the support of the state to consider how Carnegie units should be reconsidered and reconfigured, as we move to MBL and PL.” “Question 9 doesn't have anything about employment as an indicator of success.” “We have to stop ignoring our children's cries for help.” “Trauma informed practices must be followed by educators; it must be taught to teachers and led by administrators.” “Our students thrive in music, art, theater, PE, and dance classes, and need to have those positive experiences to stay engaged in school.” “We need to make social curriculum an integral part of all schools for all students.” Parent / Guardian Comments “What about an executive function or self-regulation or social emotional measure?” “A holistic approach to learning is helpful in engaging students. When coursework integrates science, math & writing skills together, students see the importance of each subject.” “All these choices imply the current system in CT is sustainable, and it is not. As the parent of a student with disabilities, graduation was not indicative of success, just indicative of a financial burden the school was done with.” “High expectations are well meaning, but not realistic for all students. We must serve the highest achieving, AND lowest achieving, and everyone in the middle. Keep curriculum simple, but offer arts or technical programs that would help keep children engaged.” “Assessments don't motivate many students or parents. Testing is not teaching.” “Focus needs to shift to individualized learning and engagement strategies instead of one size fits all assessment based teaching.” “I hate that my son has to take State testing to see how the school and teachers are doing when he should be continuously learning the things that make a difference in his education.” “Focus on social/emotional needs, and on programs for students who do not wish to go to college.” “I would prefer that my tax dollars actually prepare students for college and careers, versus expensive high stakes testing.” 138 “I'd like to see more "whole child" teaching with real world relevant learning.” “Schooling should be portfolio-based evaluation for achievement of standards, NOT standardized assessment-based.” “Too much testing kills the desire to learn. Testing has its place, but learning and doing should be the focus.” “Make art and music a priority instead of an after-thought!” “More computer science” “After school programs and jobs, and hands on work with caring educators helps kids feel successful.” “We need to provide kids with more than just academics to pursue their dreams. They are individuals, not pieces of data.” “Not every college-ready kid is a life-ready kid. Bring back industrial arts and home economics. Teach about loans and debt and taxes. Teach employable skills.” “Please consider revising elementary math curriculum. Current curriculum isn't efficient.” “Student centered learning. Get rid of common core....and empower the teachers to teach.” “This survey was highly focused on assessment...the teachers typically know what’s best!” “We cannot continue to use what we think works, but must rely upon ""evidence based"" interventions and strategies.” “Students cannot succeed academically if they are not learning-ready.” Business Person Comments “Access to mental health services, such as counseling & focus on social-emotional supports in the classroom.” “Be proactive. If teachers see an issue with a student early, there should be a plan in place prior to middle school.” “I'd like to see a reduction in testing- it takes the place of valuable coursework and encourages teach to test instead of emphasis on actual learning.” “Need to provide more technical curriculum for all kids. Not everyone can afford to go to an expensive college. There are increasingly higher enrollments for tech schools offering nursing and trade programs which high schools don't provide.” “The system needs to continue the focus on achievement of academic standards and provide a more relevant educational curriculum for today's student.” Community Member Comments “Current high stakes state assessments are biased, and mistakenly identify low-income students as under prepared for college and careers. Institute authentic performance-based assessments that are created and scored by highly qualified teacher professionals. These are the only reliable measures of student’s achievement.” “Get away from common core. If you’re more about money, then you will use this survey to argue keeping it.” “If you want to provide REAL education, like I received, go back to TEACHING the material, not coaching for SBAC tests.” “Professional development for teachers on how to engage all students is key! Teaching on a block schedule can get very boring for students if teachers are not prepared to design engaging lessons.” 139 Elected Official Comments “More focus must be placed on teaching the brightest at the rate they can learn.” “Technology for every student is way past necessary. Wi-Fi at very low cost should be the norm statewide.” “Easy access to mental health, physical health, and nutrition, caring and skilled educators and engaged child custodians are realistic and important.” “Less focus on standardized assessments is imperative. These assessments take away time from learning in the classroom and provide very little or no information to guide instruction.” “Testing should be informative. Currently SBAC generates a score without details, which helps neither the students nor the school.” “Many people are NOT strong in academics and that shouldn’t be a bad thing. Many jobs do not require AP courses. Setting academic expectations that are not realistic may set many kids up for failure. Not everyone can run a company or be a sports star. Having a good stable job is happiness for many so please stop trying to make it seem that everyone is the same with the same abilities and strengths. This approach drives many kids into depression.” “Maybe we should take a step back and reassess some of our curriculum and put at least an equal amount of emphasis into developing children's social skills, and rewarding teachers and students for achieving them.” “Climate and culture, relevant opportunities, mental health and social and emotional supports play a huge role in the education of the child.” Current Student Comments “Emphasis on real world relevant learning is most important.” “Service-learning focused schooling is on the rise to create equitable learning experiences, because students learn they can all do great service for their cities/states.” “I want to learn stuff that is relevant to the real world. I'm not being prepared for the real world when the school makes up scenarios for us that are not even realistic, and fills our brains with what feels like useless information.” “I would like to see changes for students who are failing academically. Lots of these students are having issues at home or with drug abuse and need help from the school.” “The ‘read, retain, and repeat’ methodologies are antiquated, as are the standardized tests that have been used for over 70 years. We need to learn creative thinking and problem solving, and life techniques that assist us in being functioning adults.” “There reflects ignorance in American culture in reference to World events. I would encourage the Department of Education to improve courses in math, science and Western Civilization in addition to American history and civics.” “Teaching mindfulness at an early age is critical.” Policy Question 2: School Improvement for Turnaround and Focus Schools Educator Comments “Class sizes need to be reduced.” 140 “Connecticut’s educational system will not be able to benefit low-performing districts until the state adopts a regional model to integrate schools, and force all the state’s districts to share the responsibility of educating at-risk students.” “Districts are so focused on collecting assessment data and improving scores that they forget that they’re actually here for the needs of the students.” “The system is controlled by business people who don't know the reality of what educators do and see each day. Students without breakfast, and sometimes dinner the night before. Homeless kids. Each month brings new immigrant students. And those mentally wounded by home dynamics. Then we expect them to sit down and be engaged in scripted lessons.” “Ensure that all students in all schools have access to an effective school library program with an updated school library and a certified school librarian.” “There needs to be transitional kindergartens so those not ready can have their developmental needs met as they prepare for academic engagement.” “I would like to see culturally-responsive parent involvement and communication become primary goals of school reform.” “Numerous conflicting mandates (Is it seat time, or mastery?)” “Reduce unfunded mandates. Stop passing one-size-fits-all laws.” “Let educators educate and do what they do best.” “Connecticut’s achievement gap is relative to the educational and socioeconomic levels of the parents. We can't fix that by punishing the schools or the teachers.” “Each low performing school should be supported in finding the best process to improve their performance, based on that school/community's situation.” “Parents and families need to be engaged, with equal accountability in making sure their children do their job of getting to school, being engaged in classes, doing the required work and being accountable for their actions. We have swung too far away from that in many cases, doing the work for the kids. All the testing in the world is not going to fix that.” “Listen to the teachers; they’re the ones on the frontlines.” “There is an assumption that when schools perform poorly on assessments, teachers are ineffective. Teachers who work in poor districts are often better qualified than teachers in smaller or wealthier districts. Their classes have extremely diverse students speaking other languages and students with trauma, family problems, and learning disorders that are not being identified.” Parent / Guardian Comments “As the saying goes "It takes a village". We, as parents and educators, need to show the students they are not alone in this journey of their life.” “Bad tenured teachers aren’t held accountable and can't be fired. We suffer from inability to remove ineffective teachers.” “Funding needs to be put into area where it is most needed. Districts perform low because they don’t have proper funding to hire quality educators, or for a strong curriculum and the proper social services needed.” “Get rid of Common Core. Hold students accountable for behavior and follow through with consequences.” “Low-performing schools often need integration with the community, and recognition that students often bring outside forces like family issues, trauma, and violence.” “Increasing accountability for outdated curriculum.” 141 “Helping families and communities come to an understanding of expectations would be most beneficial.” “Schools are very disrespectful to most parents, especially minority parents. This must change.” “All students should participate in extracurricular activities, whether sports, academic, or clubrelated as it will create stronger ties between the family and school community. We expect the workforce to work 8 hour days, why are teachers and students exempt? “ “By lessening the power of the unions and shifting more power to teachers, coupled with extending the school day and school year, real progress will be achieved.” “Support the community and the community will support the schools.” “Teacher retention needs to be a focus to help low performing schools. There should be incentives, support and positive climate to support and retain teachers.” “Teachers are being asked to be counselors, behavioral analysts, nurses, lunch ladies, therapists, psychologists, and more! Underpaid and overworked.” Business Person Comments “Bring back discipline in the school system. Children should be accountable for their actions and that is not seen in our educational system today.” “Caring teachers and parents will accomplish more for our students than all the money in the world, all the latest technology, and state of the art facilities can ever do.” “Get rid of tenure system. Hire teachers that want to teach!” “Let's align education technology with software and apps used in business. Engaging future employers to guide curriculum development. Some districts use English curriculum that dates to the 1980s. It's time for modernization.” “Lose common core!” “Many teachers go through the motions of educating, without helping the child. Greater emphasis on obtaining high quality teachers who are interested in teaching and helping children rather than collecting a paycheck.” “Online system for parents to file complaints” “Regionalize the state, eliminate overhead and put that money back in to the schools to reduce class size for more focused teaching.” Community Member Comments “Anything to reduce paperwork redundancy would be a step in the right direction. Paperwork is the world’s biggest time-waster!” “Prioritize systems for engagement, communication, resources, etc. Must actively ensure that the hardest to reach have equal access (i.e. language, literacy, format, method of access).” “Each student and each school is unique. You can't narrow it down and end up being too general.” “No mention of face to face interactions with stakeholders? Parents are the key. Meet with them often, forget the Internet.” “Teachers' selection should be rigorous and teachers should be given greater latitude in planning and organizing their lessons. Fewer high stake tests.” “Provide nurturing school environment in tough neighborhoods, including breakfast and even nursing and dental care. Just take care of the well-being of all kids, hire good teachers, give 142 them end-of-year academic goals. Evaluate them on their student's progress made in a year. Make teachers accountable to their next-grade colleagues.” “The Connecticut education system is a deeply unjust paradigm where the affluent receive more resources/funding than urban districts. The current focus on standardized testing and rigorous data collection only exacerbates these disturbing issues. Students need support in behavior management, access to employment opportunities, and autonomy from the confines of the capitalist, consumer-driven society.” “Maintain small class size to promote strong relationships between teacher and students. Fund public schools to create programs capable of responding to the academic and emotional needs of students.” Elected Official Comments “All schools should welcome parent engagement and create an environment where the disengaged feel connected. Many parents who have had a negative experience when they were students may experience negative feelings toward the school culture. Schools would benefit by having a parent liaison that is approachable, so those parents have a go to.” “Create two tiers of schools: leave the high-performing schools alone and intervene in the low-performing.” “Reduce red tape by giving control of schools back to local leaders. The federal and state governments cannot possibly know what is best for each local school.” “Give teachers, not administrators more say in the educational system.” “More parental accountability” “Most schools need more para professionals to help special needs students stay on task.” “Question 13 seems to be moving the red tape from paper to electronic without reducing the quantity of red tape.” Policy Question 3: Increase Focus and Accountability for Improving Outcomes for English Learners Educator Comments “English learners must accomplish more than one year’s achievement for at least 5-6 years in a row to close the gap between them and native English speakers. Instruction must fully engage ELs, accelerating English language acquisition and learning content across the day. Teachers across all content areas must teach literacy skills and academic language that is at the heart of their expertise.” “School districts must build ownership among all staff of the integrated nature of the education for ELs.” “Foreign language should be taught every year throughout pre-K-12 education.” “Funding doesn’t seem to be available for districts not meeting necessary number of EL students.” “Funding for high quality pre-school, dual language programs and better support for School Readiness and Care4Kids.” “Research shows that multi-lingual minorities, when college-educated, choose NOT to come into the field of education. If you want to meet the needs of ELs, you should offer to educate current highly-qualified teachers in other languages. I would gladly learn another language if supported to do so.” 143 “Mainstream classroom teachers need ongoing job-embedded PD in “sheltered English” (SIOP) AND Second Language Theory, and best practices to employ instructional strategies that make academic content accessible for all ELs.” “School climate and general practice must reinforce the principle that students’ languages and cultures are resources for further learning for all.” “More access to English learning should be available to immigrant families.” “Adequate state funding for schools to hire sufficient number of bi-lingual teachers/paras based on number of EL students. Same for SPED students.” “I have in one class EL students who speak the following languages: Spanish, French (Haitian creole), Swahili, Arabic and Kinyarwanda. I’m given no support for evening assessing them. I’m told, “Just teach them from where they are”. Not easy in a class of 25 students.” “Exempt EL learners from mainstream assessments until they have reached proficiency. Substitute local growth models in lieu of state tests.” “In-depth training urgent for teachers who already have EL students in their classroom.” “Have students with bi-lingual skills help EL students.” “Use language proficiency within 5 years as accountability measure.” “Parents should also be enrolled in EL programs through Adult Ed.” “Many innovative ESL programs that work and demonstrate significant growth have already been phased out and discontinued.” “Lower SES districts bear the greatest influx of immigrants in CT. Many students have seen unspeakable things. They are here by necessity and adapting to an entirely different way of life. For many, school was very different in their home country, creating an adjustment that increases demand on an already fragile system. It is extremely cost-ineffective for every district to try and provide documents in the native language of the parents.” “The seal of bi-literacy can only be achieved if we support students’ first language, providing them with a genuine tool to compete in a highly demanding work environment.” Parent/Guardian Comments “A lot of classroom time is spent trying to translate to non-English-speaking students. This has a hug impact on the rest of the class and learning, as then everyone is stunted.” “Many EL parents do not want their children to learn in their native language. They want them immersed in English language acquisition.” “Develop peer-pairing programs that invite English speaking students to form social and academic relationships with EL learners that strengthen DL learning for both participants.” “Dual language should be a win/win for everyone. Knowing more than one language is a pro, not a con. Don’t take cultural learning away from the schools.” “Districts should not only increase recruitment and retention of high-quality bi-lingual teachers, but also bi-cultural teachers. Research shows this has an impact on student success.” 144 “Provide incentives for immigrant parents to learn English and assimilate.” “We should be giving every child in the school system the opportunity to learn a second language, beginning in pre-K and all the way through.” “Studying a second language has proven to help with improving overall achievement, at every grade level.” “Increasing the number of EL staff is more urgent now than ever, with the greatest demand I’ve seen in 20+ years of teaching.” Business Person Comments “EL services seem focused only on initially learning English. English learners need continued support to build their vocabulary, facility with language and writing.” “We need to provide them with the ability to assimilate to our culture.” “Often, parents aren’t part of the communication loop because they aren’t learning English. Very important to include them.” “Returning to English immersion programs would increase the speed for gaining competency in writing and speaking English, shortening the bridge between cultures.” “Those of us who only speak English are losing because we spend funds on those who don’t want to help themselves. They are around English speaking all day long. That is the best way to immerse in language. If my child takes a second language that they’re being graded on, they must learn it only in the class time alone and then study. Why do we not work this both ways?” Community Member Comments “EL services end before students are ready for full immersion. Helping parents to learn English too is essential.” “English learners should not be having a deficiency, rather, they should be having an extra strength, and be encouraged to retain written and verbal fluency in their native language, as well as English.” “Technology translation support does not matter if educators are not properly trained or empathetic enough to understand cultural nuance or barriers many children in Connecticut face.” “The culture of our country can change based on all cultures represented in the schools. The students need to understand their role and how to blend their culture into that of this country.” “A two-hour teacher training workshop is not enough to instill cultural competency. Seek assistance from Elam Leadership Institute as a possible provider. It’s an excellent research-based systemic program.” “High emphasis should be placed on retaining bi-lingual teachers, even if they’re not ESL certified. I’m bi-lingual, studying English education, and I know that that will help more students than I know.” “I am a TESOL teacher, and having 50 students on my caseload is NOT an effective servicedelivery model. Assessments need to be translated so we can see what students are learning, and NOT how well they can or cannot read a test.” Elected Official Comments “EL students need much more time and support than they are currently provided.” 145 “Non-English language families need to be supported, but should be encouraged to learn English. Translation services are expensive and the expense should not be passed along to the local district.” “Highly quality ESOL teachers are crucial.” “There is an army of retired teachers that could be brought in to support EL learners. I did it for years, but we were the first to be cut in Hartford, and there is no organization to the effort. Many teachers’ knowledge of language acquisition will support this effort.” “If you want them to become EL speakers, you need to stop enabling them with their own language and force them into English.” Grandparent Comments “A bi-literacy seal should be available for all students, regardless of first language spoken.” “It’s important that all students know English proficiently before graduation to succeed.” “My family did not speak English when they came to this country. They learned the language without help in school. They adapted because they had to survive. If we go to another country, we must adapt to their culture.” Policy Question 4: Effective Teachers and Leaders Educator Comments “ALL teachers should be mandated to take a cultural competency course.” “Allow for easier access to cross endorsements. I speak multiple languages, have taught ESL to Adults, but have not taken classes to become endorsed as bilingual teacher. The hoops and costs of getting additional endorsements impedes teachers from growing and doing more to benefit children.” “Our profession is being asked to do more and more with much less: safety, social/emotional support, social work, DCF collaboration/reports, behavioral deterioration, transience, PBIS, SRBI, differentiation, PLC work, etc. Teachers give many hours before/after school, in the summer, spending their own dollars on student supplies. Double conferences for split families, constant communication. It would be lovely to be respected, compensated more appropriately, and funded more productively.” “Create time for teachers to collaborate with each other and discuss best practices.” “Decouple student assessment and teacher evaluation.” “Get rid of tenure.” “There should be a salary step recognition for previous outside employment. It is absurd that an entering qualified teacher (BS achieved 20 years ago, MED achieved for entry into educational system) who has 20 years’ business experience start at the same salary step as a 22-year-old just out of college with a bachelor.” “Provide supports to districts looking to implement teacher leadership programs.” “Provide access to innovative alternative routes to certification, or reciprocity, to help teachers from other states and professionals from other professions become certified to teach in Connecticut, apart from not pushing older and higher paid teachers out of the teaching field.” “Incentivize teachers to retire early with a stipulation that they come back and mentor younger or new teachers.” 146 “To keep and gain high quality teachers there must be some type of evaluation/assessment, but why can't there be multiple ways to reach that target (ex. creating a portfolio, writing a paper, OR taking the test) depending on the learning style? Isn't that what we want our students?” “Reduce administrative tasks and paperwork that teachers much complete in addition to their teaching. Let them teach full time and use their talents instead of trying to make every teacher teach in a box, with no room for individual demonstrations of strengths and talents.” “Professional Development opportunities must be relevant to the teacher.” “Allow teachers to have a say in the decisions that are made at the state level.” “Teachers and faculty need more dedicated time to collaborate on behalf of students. Reducing class sizes and increasing para supports are also key. Increased funding for 504 supports would be helpful.” “Develop a campaign that shows people all the good that teachers do. Treat them like professionals.” “Teachers of color are mistreated by school coaches who are not effective in delivering instruction to inner city students. Most teachers of color are respected by students and parents.” “We need to rethink what the school day and school year looks like. There is not enough time to complete the state requirements for seat time and provide adequate PD time.” “There should be incentive programs to recruit and retain all teachers that are highly qualified regardless of color.” “There is no option for increasing teacher pay! Teachers who work hard and show that they can close the achievement gap for their students should be compensated. We would like to be valued for the time and effort we put into our careers.” “Treat teachers as the professionals they are, so that they stop leaving in droves.” “Teachers from underperforming schools need smaller instructional loads and more time and resources to do their jobs. Instead, things are going in the exact opposite direction. It is a lot easier to be a great teacher in Westport than in Bridgeport.” “Higher salaries in this profession are the best recruiting tool. Teachers are known to be underpaid in the United States.” Parent/Guardian Comments “Abolish tenure, focus on teacher performance and accountability.” “Educators from out of state find it exceptionally challenging to transfer into teaching in Connecticut. Streamlining this process seems like an obvious and necessary first step.” “Develop a state/local partnership with teacher unions and school districts to encourage high performing minority students to consider the teaching profession.” “Teachers need more training on how to identify and refer students with mental health concerns.” “Making school districts larger (regionalization, consolidation) will make for more equitable access to diverse teachers. For example: if you have Madison and Westbrook within the same district.” 147 “Connecticut needs quality teachers. The Alternate Route for Teaching certification is one way to get professionals involved, but the lack of pay, bureaucracy, and shaming of teachers turns many people off.” “There should be a program to encourage male teachers in primary grades. Often, the only strong male figures seen at elementary schools are the principal or the janitor.” “Professional development outside of half days or late arrivals. I think this is poor planning for a city of working families.” “Replace tenure with extended contract terms. There MUST be a way to get rid of underperforming and/or abusive teachers other than just moving them from one school to another.” “Teachers should go to training outside of scheduled school days.” “I am a certified teacher in CA and administrator in NYC. I have a Ph.D. in educational leadership and I teach courses in education at the university level, still the SDE told me that I needed to take more course work if I wanted to get a teaching license in CT!” “The kids can tell you which teachers are effective. Listen to them.” “The majority of training and PD should be held over the summer. PD and training should be limited during the school year to support more instruction time in the class.” “The problem is not certifying new teachers, but getting out the underperforming teachers.” Business Person Comments “A good teacher is a good teacher. Isn't white a color too? Why are we STILL calling this out?” “Get rid of tenure and allow teacher to compete. Also, reward good quality teachers with merit and bonuses.” “"Leaders of color"? We are all humans. What does color have to do with education and intelligence?” “More professionals who cross over from the business sector work in education. Look at how these business professionals can obtain an 092 to further help with areas in education leadership.” “Once again, hiring and retaining should be based on ABILITY and NOT COLOR of skin. We DO need to support those of color in low poverty places and encourage them to be successful, but it is not an automatic and you can't suck at what you do. that would be a vicious cycle of promoting bad behavior and unrealistic world expectations. Then America would have people who suck at their jobs with tenure and that would be a disaster if you get hired solely based on color of skin.” “Open teaching jobs to professional people who do not have degrees in education but do have a desire to teach.” “Pay them more, period.” “Work with Unions to remove underperforming teachers who don't care about teaching kids, so better teachers have a chance at hire.” Community Member Comments “It is outrageous that the student body in New Haven, for example, is 85% minorities (predominantly Latino or black Americans) and 15% white/Caucasian students while the 148 teachers are 85% white/Caucasian and 15% minorities. This systemic misrepresentation of power and influence perpetuates inequality. Role models matter. Mentors matter. It is pivotal that Connecticut makes a concerted effort to address this problem.” “Incentivizing teachers to work in low-performing and high-poverty schools does not work. They are not ingrained in the community. They drive in from the suburbs, do the bare minimum, and drive home. The connection and investment to strive for change does not work. Furthermore, increasing teacher evaluation is ineffective. It serves only to undermine educator's authority and does not address societal issues at hand.” “Less mandating of how teachers get to do their jobs would be a good start.” “The process in place makes it difficult for professionals who want to switch gears and bring life experience to teaching.” “Teaching has become a lost art, systems instead of passion. Put some creativity and individuality back in the system, pay a living wage. This is the best way to reach the higher standards of the past.” Elected Official Comments “Give stipends to teacher mentors as was done in the past. The job is hard enough. Paying for work done will have a better result.” “Move away from tenure and education level which serves as a security blanket for mediocrity.” “I agree that having people with professional experience is good for the knowledge base, but I want them to be well trained as teachers.” “Pay teachers more and treat them like professionals -- the most talented people don't go into teaching because it is not highly respected.” “Revise current tenure laws. Make is easier for principals to remove bad teachers.” “Reward effective teachers with more pay and promotion to reflect skill and competence. Until we do this, the rest is all nonsense.” “How about encouraging creative, innovative teaching/learning models that are not politically correct? How about high schools that are preparing lifelong learners instead of factory widgets ready to subsidize bad college education?” “Teacher accountability for student improvement” “Teacher incentives are essential but also need more support for beginning teachers.” “What has happened in CT in the past few years is causing more teachers to leave the profession and fewer teachers from entering. We are where we were in the early 80'snobody who was smart enough wanted to go into teaching. In an attempt to measure and quantify, the teaching profession is being gutted.” Focus Group Results Scope of Focus Groups a. Total Number of Focus Groups Conducted = 52 b. Total Number of Hours of Data Collected = 61 Key Findings Key findings are described by Policy Question, Focus Group Question, and Focus Group Audience. The bulleted text represents the most common themes discussed in the respective groups. 149 Policy Question One - Academic Standards, Student Assessments and Accountability Q1. - Connecticut’s Accountability System moves beyond just test scores. The system also includes other measures of effectiveness (i.e., graduation rates, physical fitness, access to the arts). Do you think the factors that the state is using in this calculation are providing a better measure of accountability? Superintendents 12 indicators a step in the right direction. Where do social/emotional supports fit into these indicators? Need for trauma-informed preparation and response to priority school populations Concern that some indicators are not currently available/funded/mandatory in all districts Graduation rates still defined too narrowly Administrators Accountability needs to support/recognize the whole child Access to the Arts and physical fitness should be measured in instructional minutes across all schools/districts. New indicators are more representative of whole student, but difficult to standardize to rank performance. Where do EL Learner goals fit into the 12 indicators? Teachers New measures are an improvement, but not enough to recognize whole student growth Indicators should emphasize showing progress over summative scores Assessments are not appropriately measuring curriculum/content being taught, as standards are changing faster than assessments. Parents Overall growth of student more representative than summative assessments Indicators need to reflect a component for addressing social/emotional support systems The 12 indicators do not address formal technology skill training. Need quicker assessment results Students Should not be just about grades, should be about the student's overall experience Students should have greater input as to their goals and interests. The indicators should reflect that individualization Government/Agency Representatives Individual growth is a better indicator than raw standardized test scores Districts with strained resources may be punished on the new scale due to lack of student opportunities The formulas for calculating the indicators need to be reliable across districts Social/emotional indicators need to be included in the calculation Business and Industry Representatives The increased scope of assessment will provide a more robust picture of district performance There needs to be a decreased emphasis on state standardized tests Student community growth should be prioritized over individual summative assessment scores Practical career/technical curriculum needs to be modernized and assessed in a meaningful way SAT is a poor measure of student performance 150 Community Based Representatives Students are tested too often on subject matter that has little practical value Indicators that address whole-child development need to be included Cultural bias in standardized testing continues to be an area of concern in some communities Graduation rates are difficult to calculate with transient populations Union Representatives Social/emotional skills need to be included The effects of school climate on student performance should be addressed Funding needs to be available for all included indicators Too much instructional time is lost in assessing student performance. Teachers have the skills to measure growth without the intrusion of long and tedious standardized tests Q1A. - What measures would you advocate in addition - or how might other evidence be used in making a case for school/district effectiveness? Superintendents Medical/mental healthcare access Mandatory health education Reporting of resources for students not college-bound School/business alliances Student feedback Post-graduation education/career tracking Administrators Social/emotional support indicators Personal growth as opposed to statistical achievement measures Measured trauma-informed practices Formal curriculum options for non-college bound students Mastery-based learning measurement Focus on individual student strengths Long range post-graduation outcomes School climate as own indicator Teachers Social/emotional support indicators Some type of parent/school relationship/family involvement measure Indicator based on real-world school to business internships in senior year Life skills that all students need for post-high school Teacher retention trends Quality of professional development Parents Practical life skills for basic self-sufficiency Level of family/community connectedness Trauma-informed training and practice Students' self-assessment Students Student commitment and engagement should be a measurement based on teacher observation School should track long term improvement, not short term test results Schools should reflect merit scholarships awarded 151 College readiness Personal growth tracking Government/Agency Representatives School climate measures Social/emotional support indicators Professional skill development Business and Industry Representatives College and career readiness Professional skill development Team engagement skills Language and written skill proficiencies Life skills Community Based Representatives Social/emotional support indicators Students' self-assessment Indicator based on real-world school to business internships in senior year Reporting of resources for students not college-bound Union Representatives Social/emotional support indicators Students' self-assessment Life skills that all students need for post-high school Student feedback Post-graduation education/career tracking Q2. - Assessment reduction continues to be an area of focus. What suggestions do you have for reducing the amount of time spent on assessment without degrading our ability to track progress and ensure accountability? Superintendents Whole student growth over time should be measured. Not one-size-fits-all type of testing Portfolios that follow student from pre-K through graduation More choice as to which standardized tests districts can choose from Alternative assessment for non-college bound or interested students The alignment between assessment and instruction should be more precise Administrators Need timelier turnaround of assessment results Assessments do not provide information about special needs. It is unfair to those populations to compete through mainstream assessment measures. Move toward using portfolios and student self-reflection to measure growth over time instead of state assessments Any assessment should provide high-quality, time-sensitive and relevant feedback Decrease emphasis on state assessment and increase on authentic learning experience Teachers State assessments have little impact on informing instruction. No value to student learning Assessment value is lost in slow turnaround time 152 Give teachers more autonomy to develop appropriate assessments for curriculum. Measure growth over time. Move toward using portfolios that begin in pre-K and follow all the way through Remove technology bias from how kids are tested Parents Teachers should have more control over selecting assessments Schools need to see results in same season in which assessments are given Personalized learning should not be tested by impersonal assessments Reduce number of years/grades in which students are state tested Less teaching to the test, so students do not forget what they are forced to memorize Less assessments equal less student 'burn-out' Students “Most of our time is spent on preparing for tests. The teachers are terrified they will look bad if we do not do well. We feel their stress and it affects how we perform. And, in the end, the tests we take don’t have anything to do with what we are supposed to be learning.” Alternative assessment for non-college bound or interested students The alignment between assessment and instruction should be more precise Personalized learning should not be tested by impersonal assessments Reduce number of years/grades in which students are state tested Government/Agency Representatives The alignment between assessment and instruction should be more precise Move toward using portfolios that begin in pre-K and follow all the way through Whole student growth over time should be measured. Not one-size-fits-all type of testing Any assessment should provide high-quality, time-sensitive and relevant feedback Business and Industry Representatives Assessments should be more specific to skills needed in industry Language and writing skills should be assessed more accurately More time on skill development and less time on standardized testing Reduce number of years/grades in which students are state tested Community Based Representatives Assessments should be more specific to skills needed in industry Growth should be measured individually by teachers Standard system for student growth measurement that does not include the use of standardized tests School and community climate sensitivities need to be factored when deciding when and how often assessments are delivered Union Representatives Greater control within districts over which assessments to deliver Schools need to see results in same season in which assessments are given Reduce number of years/grades in which students are state tested Less teaching to the test, so students do not forget what they are forced to memorize Assessments do not provide information about special needs. It is unfair to those populations to compete through mainstream assessment measures. Policy Question Two - School Improvement for Turnaround and Focus Schools Q3. - How can CT best support persistently struggling schools? 153 Superintendents Commit to leadership team long enough for impacts to be recognizable (up to 5-7 years) Expand community/parent presence in school culture Provide schools with information and access to outside support services Equitable technology access to students, at school and at home Change the model to examine growth over time, and adapt assessment metric accordingly Factor in community needs, not just student performance The problem is not quality staffing, the problem is poverty Administrators Stop compelling schools to compensate for all other social services Allow flexibility within grants for school leadership to address needs on district by district basis More direct funding support to students with social/emotional/trauma-based issues More school/community integration Continuity of district leadership Publicize more success stories and share best practices Establish more RESC-directed networking support partnerships between struggling districts Teachers Expand school/home/parent connection and family outreach Better protocols for addressing emotional/behavioral issues in classrooms Incentivize retention of quality educators More support/coaching to help teachers more effectively support struggling students Expand after-school program opportunities Create more district teacher collaboration opportunities Provide Pre-K access to all families Parents/Students Target funding to priority issues per district, instead of spreading funding too thin Better access to technology for all School/Community center alliances More sharing of best practices between high to low performing schools Expand school/local business internship alliances Parents should have influence in shaping relevant local policy Put more funding into pre-K Government/Agency Representatives Establish more RESC-directed networking support partnerships between struggling districts Develop fair way to fund school districts Streamline process for funding delivery while making districts more accountable for the manner in which the funds are spent Greater support to agencies charged with working with turnaround school districts Commit to leadership team long enough for impacts to be recognizable More school/community integration School-level leaders should be empowered to drive change Continuity of district leadership Business and Industry Representatives Access nationwide best practices are models for future mandates More school/community integration 154 Increase engagement of supplemental programs (i.e. Boys and Girls Club) Expand school/local business internship alliances Stop compelling schools to compensate for all other social services Community Based Representatives More school/community integration Increase communication between school and home, especially when language barriers exist Address the institutionalized racism that is inherent in public schools Parents should have influence in shaping relevant local policy Publicize more success stories and share best practices Union Representatives Expand school/home/parent connection and family outreach Better protocols for addressing emotional/behavioral issues in classrooms Incentivize retention of quality educators Improve access to technology and other resources Develop fair way to fund school districts Q4. - When providing assistance to struggling schools, what is the appropriate balance between oversight, additional financial resources and provided technical assistance? Should funding be dependent on other factors? How can we assure that additional resources are having their intended impact? Superintendents Resources and leadership should be of equal importance Sustainability is important in measuring outcomes Balance should be variable based on individual district needs Districts should have accountability for how funds are spent Data should justify why funding should be continued State representation in the district should be represented by a human face State oversight should not be dictatorial, but assistive Administrators Funding, then oversight Use funding to supplement, not supplant Recognize that district leaders doing the work understand district needs best Funding and oversight must be sustainable to effectively build initiative capacity Districts need more autonomy on prioritizing funding directions Educators should be at the table with SDE Districts need partnerships instead of oversight Oversight should include outside evaluators to help districts stay on task with program goals These components may not need to be 'balanced', depending on district dynamics Teachers Oversight should recognize the unique dynamics of each district Districts should have accountability for how funds are spent State should consider practicing more oversight over antiquated teacher preparation programs Decision-making on these components should include teachers, before informed answers can be given Teachers should be surveyed as to district dynamics that are balanced vs imbalanced Funding, then oversight 155 Funding emphasis more on people than tangible resources Parents/Students Funding should carefully identify and approve targeted priority issues per district Perhaps more funding could come from grants as opposed to state if each district had a dedicated grant-writer/coordinator Oversight could include surveys to gauge success level of program implementation Funding, then oversight Government/Agency Representatives State should maintain oversight until school proves that it has made improvements Funding should carefully identify and approve targeted priority issues per district Technical assistance as a managed resource Funding based on equity and not equality Business and Industry Representatives State should maintain oversight until school proves that it has made improvements Funding should carefully identify and approve targeted priority issues per district Funding, then oversight Oversight should recognize the unique dynamics of each district Community Based Representatives Funding should carefully identify and approve targeted priority issues per district Oversight should recognize the unique dynamics of each district Additional resources provided to a struggling district should not come with oversight restrictions so burdensome they discourage a district from seeking those resources Funding should not be dependent on student performance as many districts have high transient population rates Union Representatives Increase accountability for how resources are being used Funding dependent upon need Greater state accountability in large school districts Decision-making on these components should include teachers, before informed answers can be given Policy Question Three - Increase Focus/Accountability for Improving Outcomes for English Learners Q5. What additional supports should Connecticut provide English Learners? Superintendents Create/expand community-based centers for parent development Need to make process easier for bilingual people to become qualified teachers Build district capacity by training the trainers to support EL teachers Maintain the value of EL student's native language and culture Make world language instruction a K-12 obligation Universal practice of cultural sensitivity More trained ESL support staff Administrators Wrap-around services for refugee families, including summer programs Give students more time to learn English before assessing in English 156 More trained ESL support staff Better leverage of language translation technology Change mindset to perceive bilingualism as an asset, not deficit Must be sure not to over-identify students as special education students because of language barriers Middle/high school students should first be skill-assessed in their native language Immersion programs for non-English speakers for the first 6 months Peer mentorships Teachers Extra bilingual support staff to assist teachers in large classes, i.e. bilingual paraprofessionals Avoid mixing EL learners instruction with special education instruction Provide better EL PD for teachers in districts with large EL learner populations Adopt a digital/tech-driven platform to assist EL learners Stipends for existing EL teachers to extend hours of availability to EL students Parents/Students A menu of EL plan options for districts to choose from based on needs assessment Enlist bilingual literacy and translator volunteers Community centers for family EL support, and after-school support programs Every district, even small ones, could have a world language liaison/resource coordinator Cultural and religious sensitivity training for all teachers Total English immersion for 1/2 day, social/academic integration (with possible peer mentor) other half Learning materials for EL students should be culturally relevant Government/Agency Representatives Engage RESC’s to provide resources smaller districts cannot afford Address lack of qualified EL teachers Provide cultural competency PD for all teachers More trained ESL support staff Adopt a digital/tech-driven platform to assist EL learners Middle/high school students should first be skill-assessed in their native language Business and Industry Representatives Community centers for family EL support, and after-school support programs Peer and community mentorships Adopt a digital/tech-driven platform to assist EL learners Extra bilingual support staff to assist teachers in large classes, i.e. bilingual paraprofessionals Increase EL learner teacher training Community Based Representatives Engage community volunteers Increase pay for teachers in schools who volunteer to act as translators Cultural competency training for all teachers Improve communication between home and school Provide an inclusive school climate Union Representatives Extra bilingual support staff to assist teachers in large classes, i.e. bilingual paraprofessionals Stipends for existing EL teachers to extend hours of availability to EL students Must be sure not to over-identify students as special education students because of language barriers 157 Give students more time to learn English before assessing in English More trained ESL support staff Q6. How can Connecticut better prepare teachers to engage English Learners? Superintendents Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Cultivate more EL teacher cross-endorsement, and support for teachers in practice Ease restrictions on bilingual certification More embedded PD for teachers in Tier 1 classrooms More pre-service and in-training teacher emphasis on EL needs Administrators More in-depth pre-service training and embedded/on-going coaching dedicated to EL preparation Revisit current EL certification efficacy Need to explore PD/alternative programs for getting more teachers bilingual Reach out to other districts/teachers using no cost/low cost EL models that are working well Research the effectiveness of Google Translator Encourage colleges to offer more courses in EL teaching strategies/cultural proficiency Teachers Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Referral network for teachers that need additional support with EL students Expand awareness of cultural and curriculum differentiation for each EL student Parents/Students Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Integrate family/community outreach strategies into pre-teacher training Give teachers sabbaticals to become more bilingually proficient Support collaborations between learning EL teachers, and successful EL teachers Make sure cultural sensitivity training mandatory for EL certification Government/Agency Representatives Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Reach out to other districts/teachers using no cost/low cost EL models that are working well Revisit current EL certification efficacy Revisit EL certification reciprocity agreements Modify current teacher preparation programs Business and Industry Representatives Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Referral network for teachers that need additional support with EL students Encourage colleges to offer more courses in EL teaching strategies/cultural proficiency Encourage collaboration with industry partners Mentorship programs Community Based Representatives Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Revisit current EL certification efficacy Require EL learner courses in teacher preparation programs Increase the number of EL paraprofessionals in schools with demonstrated need Engage community organizations to assist teachers with home communication Union Representatives 158 Cultural responsiveness/sensitivity training for diverse settings Revisit current EL certification efficacy Modify current teacher preparation programs Give teachers sabbaticals to become more bilingually proficient Support collaborations between learning EL teachers, and successful EL teachers Policy Question Four - Effective Teachers and Leaders Q7. What steps should CT take to ensure every school is staffed with quality teachers? How should current teacher evaluation system be changed to support this strategy? Superintendents Change societal perception that teaching is not a valued profession Attract high-achieving students to the field by promoting the value and reward of being a teacher Components of evaluation are strong, but rating rankings are oversimplified Many false positives Support teachers in struggling/impoverished school communities to maintain their professional quality of life Add more teacher-only days to school year for appropriately focused PD, skill-building, and peer collaboration Pre-service teacher education should be more rigorous, so first & second year teachers are more effective in classrooms Students shouldn't lose because teachers are underprepared Create more avenues encouraging teachers to train for leadership roles Administrators Teachers should be asked to demonstrate how their work manifests in student learning, not gauging teacher quality by state assessments outcomes Change the perception that teachers are blamed instead of supported in relation to school rankings Ongoing mentoring for all teachers Team teaching option Place more value in wisdom of veteran teachers More PD focused on emotional/social/physical development, and cultural competency Quality teachers hired in struggling schools over spring/summer are often recruited by wealthier districts before fall, leaving lower quality candidate pool to hire from Form stronger connections with higher education Emphasize more experiential learning Teachers Teacher preparation programs need to be brought up to date Stronger teacher mentoring and collaboration opportunities needed Continue to change evaluation models from punitive, to demonstrating student growth Stop linking evaluation with test scores SDE should promote more respect for teachers to reduce burn-out Give teachers more control over PD choices, based on school/class needs Regionalize teacher pay to level the field for hiring quality teachers in struggling districts Parents/Students Teachers need strong foundation in cultural awareness/sensitivity More certification reciprocity across states expands pool of quality applicants 159 Teacher quality will rise when perception of the profession rises Teacher evaluation and rating system needs more high level oversight Be careful not to underrate quality teachers because of student performance Build in more time for peer collaboration and behavioral health training Ask students and parents how they define quality in a teacher Raise the bar of what pre-teachers need to learn in college Government/Agency Representatives Change societal perception that teaching is not a valued profession Attract high-achieving students to the field by promoting the value and reward of being a teacher Support district administrators in being able to evaluate and retain only highly qualified teachers Streamline the certification process; this would not mean lowering the bar for certification Work with teacher preparation programs in developing teachers suited for the needs of today’s students Evaluation needs to reflect the true strengths and weaknesses of each teacher Business and Industry Representatives Engage industry partners as mentors to new teachers; assist in providing subject area expertise Change societal perception that teaching is not a valued profession Attract high-achieving students to the field by promoting the value and reward of being a teacher Teachers should be evaluated based upon the performance of their students; considering the inherent abilities of each student Support district administrators in being able to evaluate and retain only highly qualified teachers Community Based Representatives Change societal perception that teaching is not a valued profession Students shouldn't lose because teachers are underprepared Teacher evaluations cannot be tied to student performance; too many variables associated with student life that cannot be captured by standardized tests Make it easier for passionate teachers to gain certification; too many instances of potential educators not being able to pass the Praxis Union Representative Rapid certification programs need to be re-evaluated Current teacher evaluation process is overly complicated Current teacher evaluation process prevents teacher autonomy and creativity Need to focus more on PD and less on teacher evaluation Change societal perception that teaching is not a valued profession Q8. How can CT better recruit and retain minority teachers? Superintendents Offer student loan forgiveness in exchange for multi-year commitment to the school Demonstrate to diverse groups how they would be valued as future teachers Research and expand range of job posting sites that are currently used Administrators Consider using 'Relay' as an alternative certification provider Recruitment starts in public school Guarantee interested diverse students’ tuition help and jobs back in their own districts if they complete in-state teacher training/certification. Reaching out to historically black and diverse schools/colleges to explore interest 160 Must avoid making minority candidates feel like they're being recruited for that reason Offer college students a paid semester internship with course credit before they have chosen their major Change existing community perception of bias against hiring minority teachers Teachers Change cultural perceptions of the profession before effective recruitment Create recruitment pathway that eases student's financial burden, rather than increasing it Expand student exposure to internship opportunities Increase state oversight of district and human resource hiring practices Many teachers believe there is still obvious racial discrimination in hiring practices Hiring patterns should be audited by reviewing all applications Parents/ Students Education is not viewed as a favorable field to go into right now Increasing salary levels is most obvious way Get students involved in teaching early on Incentivize with scholarship/tuition money/loan forgiveness in exchange for a time commitment Recruiters may not cast their nets nearly wide enough Recruit through black and Latino etc. unions on college campuses, civic organizations, etc. State oversight of HR hiring practices Government/Agency Representatives Fund student loan forgiveness for teachers who commit to teaching in high needs school districts Recruitment starts in public school Increase state oversight of district and human resource hiring practices Education is not viewed as a favorable field to go into right now State task force on recruitment of minority teachers Review certification reciprocity requirements Business and Industry Representatives Increase salaries Recruitment starts in public school Education is not viewed as a favorable field to go into right now Recruit minority candidates from industry, especially in urban areas Recruiters may not cast their nets nearly wide enough Recruitment of minority candidates at state community and 4 year colleges Community Based Representatives Offer student loan forgiveness in exchange for multi-year commitment to the school Increasing salary levels is most obvious way Get students involved in teaching early on Show students in schools that teachers are valued The best recruitment strategy is to have a passionate teacher who has a love for their profession Union Representative The recruitment of minority teachers without proper training and support is a poor strategy Increase diversity of school administrators Increase diversity of decision makers at the state level Having a well-qualified teacher in a classroom is the most important factor in student growth 161 Review certification reciprocity requirements Q9. What steps can CT take to address educator shortage areas? How should teacher certification processes be changed to support this strategy? Superintendents Recruit more teachers from other relevant fields of expertise Administrators Allow more flexibility about STEM cross subject certification Give qualified candidates from private sector abbreviated teacher training/certification Look at teaching ability in ways we are not doing now Review state reciprocity requirements Teachers Draw more expertise from the private sector, and relax certification for them Easier cross-endorsement without having to student-teach again Create more shortage area-specific programs at low cost or with loan forgiveness options Make shortage area training a short process endorsement added on to the certification Many people trained to teach high level STEM courses could earn more in private sector Make second certifications free with small renewal fee Align certification process more closely to other states like MA and NY Parents Students Recruit second career STEM teachers from industry and shorten certification process for them Partnering with tech firms so scientists can work and teach if they are interested Short course for foreign language speakers to become certified for EL learners Losing some great people with excellent qualifications because they cannot pass the Praxis Government/Agency Representatives Recruit more teachers from other relevant fields of expertise Review state reciprocity requirements Draw more expertise from the private sector Business and Industry Representatives Give qualified candidates from private sector abbreviated teacher training/certification Make shortage area training a short process endorsement added on to the certification Many people trained to teach high level STEM courses could earn more in private sector Community Based Representatives Recruit more teachers from other relevant fields of expertise Relax certification requirements Union Representative Increased pay for teachers in shortage areas Education is not viewed as a favorable field to go into right now Increase guidance at the college level to engage students in possible careers in education 162 TO: Ellen Cohn, Deputy Commissioner of Education FROM: Chantae Campbell, Public Policy Fellow DATE: February 28, 2017 SUBJECT: Summary of ESSA Public Comment Survey Responses Breakdown of Respondent Demographics As of Tuesday, February 28, 2017, a total of 21 individuals responded the ESSA Public Comment Survey. Nearly 35 percent (10) of respondents identified as community leaders; 27 percent (8) of respondents were parents and guardians; 21 percent (6) of respondents identified as residents; and 16 percent (5) respondents were teachers and district administrators. We received zero responses from principals, superintendents, and students. Respondents reside, teach, and lead in Coventry, Lebanon, Bolton, Guilford, Stratford, Old Saybrook, Hamden, South Windsor, and Westport. Respondents' Self-Identification 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Respondents' Self-Identification Respondents’ self-identification differs from the total number of responses because several respondents identified with multiple demographic groups. Summary of Responses by Section Section 1: Long-term Goals Hold charter and magnet schools to the same standards as traditional public schools. 163 Ensure that a well-rounded education includes music, physical education, and art, as these subjects sometimes keep kids in school. Include the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model to encourage children’s cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development. Several commenters agreed with this sentiment. The focus on 13-year (K-12) student growth excludes early childhood from the long-term goals section. Make measuring college and career readiness for high school students a top priority in addition to measuring student growth for grades 4-8 when students will be taking the SBAC The creation of the high needs super group may not be in compliance with federal regulations and makes it difficult to analyze subgroup data at a more granular level. Distributing data this way diminishes its utility for parents, policymakers, and other interested parties. Additionally, any data produced for English Learners should be disaggregated by language. Indicators in the growth model do not support educator, school, and district capacity to improve practice, parents and student engagement, and ownership of academic progress. The growth model does not support personalized learning, nor does it utilize Student Growth Percentiles which would allow for interstate comparisons of student growth. Should also include postsecondary persistence and completion measures. Focus more on compassionate and emotional growth building and creating a sense of community for all students. Continue to focus on historical texts that celebrate diverse contributions to U.S. history. The plan does not provide specific guidance on how to incorporate trauma-informed and restorative practices, nor does it include specific measures of social-emotional learning. Growth goals must be used in addition to, not in place of, proficiency. Add a commitment to the plan to hold targets steady, as moving growth targets are meaningless in the long run. Section 2: Consultation and Performance Management Proposed to amend the language of high expectations to include specific references to the mastery of cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and social domains in a system that believes in his or her ability. Several comments expressed this sentiment. Establish a shared vision of a Birth to Grade 3 system at the state and local levels including requiring the creation/enhancement of Birth to Grade 3 coordination councils, promoting coordination by giving priority to Birth to Grade 3 efforts in competitive grants, coordinating state and local data systems to identify need for interventions and most effective program design, practices and curricula to achieve child outcomes and creating formal transition processes and models. Support increased supports for struggling districts and look forward to seeing the list of evidence based practices and details about how CSDE will know that supports are successful. We need more information to know that the resources we are committing to Commissioner’s Network schools and Alliance Districts are resulting in improved student outcomes. Need to include specific measures for personalized and mastery-based learning. Section 3: Academic Assessment Focus less on state testing and more on relationships and differentiated learning. 164 There are no “core” subjects under ESSA, which results in some subjects being treated “disrespectfully.” Despite this, these “disrespected” subjects are integral to student achievement and outcomes. This section should include indicators of kindergarten readiness. SBAC is an imperfect measure of student achievement. Alternative assessments must be used only for the students for which they were designed. Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools Stop hurting teachers and administrators with punitive, invalid, and unreliable teacher evaluations. School integration, both socioeconomic and racial, should be included as a metric given the copious research that demonstrates the benefits of integration. This section is heavy on growth in designating schools of distinction may be a bit misleading since the growth metric fluctuates from year to year. Consider weighing growth and absolute performance equally when designating schools of distinction. Include growth in assessments of students’ overall physical fitness. Programmatic approaches should be chosen over those focused on process, reporting, and accountability mandates. Academic indicators must weight substantially more than indicators of school quality, thus a weight of 63% is insufficient. Section 5: Supporting Excellent Educators The 5 percent of teachers who are performing poorly should not result in extra work for the 95 percent of teachers who are doing a good job. Excellent teachers should be rewarded with one year off of SEED. Section 6: Supporting All Students A well-rounded education should include physical education (not recess, but physical education as physical literacy), art, and music more often that one day per week. Students should have PE at least 2-3 times per week. On page 63, use family partnership rather than family engagement because the former connotes the family as a partner in their child’s education. In addition to offering trainings for family support workers you should also offer more districts resources for family support initiatives. Expand funding for family resource centers beyond the districts that have traditionally received monies. Programmatic responses to ensure a high-quality education for all students should be coupled with an infusion of more money to run those programs. Students with disabilities are disproportionately represented in correctional facilities, therefore, specific information about providing students in such facilities with special education services are needed. 165 Connecticut State Board of Education Meeting February 1, 2017 The Sheff Movement coalition asks that the Board include in its proposed state accountability metrics under the Every Student Succeeds Act the need to track school integration trends within and across school districts throughout Connecticut. The Every Student Succeeds Act requires that State Education Agencies develop four different accountability indicators for elementary and middle schools, and high schools: 1) academic achievement, 2) growth (for elementary/middle) or graduation (high school), 3) English Language proficiency, and 4) state determined measures. The fourth indicator gives states significant flexibility for adding their own metrics to the state accountability plan. The state board of education has proposed six such additional measures. Given the significant body of research supporting the importance and effectiveness of socioeconomic and racial integration in schools, and given the significant investment made in implementing education integration programs within Connecticut, the study and monitoring of integration progress, both within and across districts, should be a measure included by the State in the service of improving our efforts to reduce racial isolation and poverty concentration. Are our schools and districts moving in the direction of greater racial and economic integration – or in the opposite direction? What is the rate of progress over time? The burden of monitoring progress on school integration should not be placed on the already over-burdened resources of individual schools and school districts. ESSA accountability plans must be approved by the U.S. Department of Education, and as a condition of their approval must undergo peer-review by a team selected by the Secretary which includes civil rights researchers and experts. The inclusion of a metric tracking integration trends, a critical measure of the constitutional right of Connecticut students to an equitable education, will help to provide the most holistic picture of our educational progress and inform integration efforts into the future. But even more importantly, it is imperative that we know if and in what ways our students are affected by our significant efforts to provide them with an integrated, equitable education, where we are succeeding, and where we can do more. Rachel Gary The Sheff Movement 860-796-8013 rgary@sheffmovement.org 166 ESSA Draft Plan Feedback Connecticut Education Association February 27, 2017 Donald E. Williams, Jr. Overview There is much in the CSDE’s plan that makes sense and with which we agree; this memo (which was intended to be inserted into the online survey—which unfortunately has a 2000 character limit per answer box) focuses on those parts of the ESSA Draft Plan with which we disagree, and are in need of improvement. Much of the feedback provided by teachers and submitted to the CSDE by the CEA does not appear to be reflected in the draft plan. The Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) was intended to move away from the constraints of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and provide states with more local control. ESSA gives states the chance to reimagine accountability post-NCLB, while involving parents, community members, teachers, and other stakeholders in defining and setting goals for student success. Connecticut’s draft ESSA plan appears to represent a repackaging of what is already being done. If the draft becomes the final plan, the CSDE will have missed a key opportunity to undertake what stakeholders said they wanted, which was to reduce testing and promote holistic measures of student growth. The accountability plan is not dissimilar to that of NCLB, a plan that will likely benefit very few and only harm our most vulnerable. Section 1: Long-term Goals Academic Achievement. WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “In response to strong stakeholder input favoring academic student growth over status achievement for accountability, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) will utilize the results from its Smarter Balanced matched student cohort growth model as the measure for this long-term goal…. Prominently focusing on growth ensures that we do not overemphasize proficiency as happened during the NCLB-era…. The model establishes individual student growth targets for students in grades 4 through 8. The metric that will be used is the average percentage of growth target that is achieved by all students in grades 4 through 8 combined…. The ultimate target for this indicator for all students and all subgroups is an average percentage of target achieved of 100. Linear interim targets will be established for every third year after the first year. The baseline year will be the growth results achieved in the 2016-17 school year.” CONCERNS: The proposal to use SBAC—a summative, proficiency measuring assessment—as a growth measure, is fundamentally flawed. It continues the overemphasis of the state mastery test and the problems associated with the NCLB era. SBAC is neither designed for nor is valid or reliable for measuring student growth over time. Superimposing a vertical scale in the manner proposed by CSDE will result in the arbitrary assignment of higher target SBAC scores as a goal for future proficiency; this should not be confused with measuring growth. The process of connecting lines between the administration of the SBAC test once per year, in successive grades, will fail to provide a true measure of academic growth that occurs in a classroom within an academic year. This use of the SBAC test will also discriminate against students and schools in high poverty districts where summer loss and bias in the SBAC test—especially when used to 167 measure growth—will produce flawed data and outcomes. These flawed outcomes will undermine the ability to use the test data to make correct decisions about curriculum and resources that assist students. English Language Proficiency: WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “The CSDE is in the process of creating a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment. It will use an approach that is similar to one that was used successfully to create a growth model for the Smarter Balanced ELA and Mathematics assessments.” CONCERNS: Using SBAC as a growth model for ELL students is problematic for all of the same reasons stated in “A” above. Section 2: Consultation and Performance Management NCLB Lessons: WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “Having learned difficult lessons from the NCLB era, we believe continuous improvement requires research and data informed decision-making in creating improvement plans with a laser-like focus on a small number of critical goals/targets. That said, a plan alone does not guarantee success, but unwavering attention to ‘fidelity of implementation’ will yield more accurate perceptions of a plan’s effectiveness. Also, sustained effort over time, rather than chasing annual “silver bullets”, will increase the probability of success.” CONCERNS: Despite the acknowledgement of the difficult lessons (and failures) from the NCLB era, the proposed “support plans” for districts, especially the ten education reform districts, still retain failed elements from NCLB, such as the “Check #3” provisions that include “reconstitution,” “reorganizes/ re-staffs the school,” “enters into a management partnership with an external entity,” “transfers the entire management and oversight of a school to an external entity,” and “consolidation/closure.” SEA Performance Management System: WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “Goal 1: Ensuring their nonacademic needs are met so they are healthy, happy, and ready to learn (mental health, nutrition, after-school programs).” COMMENT: The first of CSDE’s four goals for its Promise To Our Students is critical because the other goals flow from this essential cornerstone. Unfortunately, there is little in the ESSA draft plan from a programmatic view that supports this goal, and the cuts in the proposed 2017-18 State Budget undermine programs that support this goal. Section 3: Assessment COMMENTS: See the discussion of SBAC in section 1, above. In addition to those concerns, the draft ESSA plan misses an opportunity to move beyond reliance on the SBAC test for the weighted majority of measuring overall academic success. The ability under ESSA to utilize portfolios of work and other classroom-generated assignments and tests for a larger share of measuring proficiency and growth is not achieved in this draft plan. Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “Connecticut’s Next Generation Accountability System creates a more comprehensive, holistic picture of how students and schools are performing. Focusing on a 168 broader set of indicators, rather than annual assessments alone, guards against the narrowing of the curriculum to tested subjects, expands ownership of accountability to more staff, and allows schools to demonstrate progress on ‘precursors to outcomes,’ as well as outcomes.” COMMENT: The “broader set of indicators, rather than annual assessments alone,” is primarily the SBAC assessment for three of the five measures—Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, and Progress in EL Proficiency. SBAC comprises the majority weight of all the indicators. Unfortunately, the encouraging statement in the draft plan above is not correct, and the concerns of a single test resulting in the narrowing of the curriculum, and repeating the failings of the NCLB era, remain valid. WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “Connecticut’s accountability system incorporates 12 indicators. They are valid for their purposes, reliable in their measurement, and are comparable statewide.” COMMENT: There is no independent study or confirmation cited in the draft ESSA plan to support the statement that the 12 indicators are valid or reliable for their purposes. Without such independent confirmation, this statement is without merit and is especially concerning for SBAC and its proposed use as a measurement of student growth. • State Support and Improvement for Low-performing Schools. WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “CSDE will create evidenced-based guidance in Year 1 for the following areas: oEarly Learning (staffing, programming, instruction, social emotional supports, etc.). oSchool Climate (staffing, teaming, social-emotional supports, restorative/non-exclusionary discipline, etc.) oStudent/Family/Community Engagement (staffing, absenteeism strategies, supports for engaging racially, ethnically, linguistically diverse families, etc.). oAcademics English language arts, mathematics, reading, and math intervention, science (staffing, scheduling, curriculum, instruction, extended day, week, school year programs, tiered intervention, etc.). oEnglish Language Proficiency (staffing, programs, instruction, SIOP, family engagement, etc.). oOn Track/Graduation Resources (staffing, using data/ matching data to supports, transition grade strategies, over-age/under-credit programs, credit recovery, etc.)” COMMENTS: The bulleted areas identified by CSDE are sensible and important. There should be more focus on programmatic approaches to addressing these issues as opposed to an overemphasis on process, reporting, and an abundance of “accountability” mandates and regulations that are found elsewhere in the draft plan. In addition, CSDE should be given the resources (dollars) to help districts meaningfully address these issues, instead of cataloging the issues into ongoing lists and plans. • Support For Educators WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “The CSDE believes that students need to be challenged to think critically and solve real-world problems. To meet this challenge, students must be supported by great teachers and leaders. If we are to increase student achievement consistent with challenging state academic standards, schools and districts must recruit, prepare, induct, evaluate and support, and advance a strong workforce composed of effective educators who represent the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the state’s student population….” 169 “The CSDE is committed to its efforts to ensure that every student is taught by highly-effective teachers and schools are led by highly-effective school leaders. Efforts will focus on improving our certification system, reforming statewide pre-service preparation, and assisting districts in developing high-quality professional learning to improve practice across the educator career continuum. Likewise, the CSDE will continue to invest in and enhance early career support through its statewide teacher induction program, the Teacher Education and Mentoring (TEAM) program.” COMMENTS: The paragraphs above in the draft plan articulate worthy goals. Unfortunately, supporting great teachers and administrators is not consistent with recent CSDE actions to devalue teacher certification by accrediting Relay, and lessening the academic requirements for the teaching profession. This is even more important when considering the following statement by CSDE in the draft plan: “When comparing districts across the state, students attending high-poverty, high-minority schools in Connecticut are more likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers and led by inexperienced principals than students in low-poverty and low-minority schools. Teachers and principals at high-poverty, high-minority schools often lack specific pre-service experience designed to prepare them to meet the additional challenges they experience teaching in these settings, which may include higher incidences of students with disabilities, English learners, and struggling learners, as well as higher rates of homelessness, chronic health issues, student trauma, and chronic absenteeism.” (emphasis added) Connecticut should not exacerbate this problem by lowering the bar in terms of experience and preparation. In addition, it is important that CSDE receive and employ the resources (dollars) necessary to administer the TEAM program as a vital and personal point of contact with new teachers and their mentors. There is increasing concern that the reduction of TEAM resources, training, and personal outreach and contact, will lessen the effectiveness of this good and important program. Finally, in order to recruit and retain experienced teachers and administrators in high poverty districts, it is essential to provide those schools with the infrastructure and resources that lowpoverty schools enjoy, and to promote a school climate that is welcoming and supportive of all students, their families, and teachers. Section 6: Supporting All Students WHAT THE PLAN SAYS: “The Connecticut State Board of Education’s five-year comprehensive plan for 2016-21 outlines the Board’s commitment ‘to ensure that every student— regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, family wealth, zip code, or disability status—is prepared to succeed in lifelong learning and work beyond school.’ The comprehensive plan makes four promises to students: ‘ensuring their non-academic needs are met so they are healthy, happy, and ready to learn; supporting their school and district in staying on target with learning goals; giving them access to great teachers and school leaders; and making sure they learn what they need to know to succeed in college, career, and life.’” COMMENTS: The four goals above are worthy goals. The “programmatic” response to fulfill those goals in the draft plan, however, is mainly to provide lists, dashboards, guidance documents, and advice described in terms such as “tiered supports in the form of technical assistance in evidence-based practices about transition planning such as shared curriculum/pedagogy and data sharing.” What is really needed are resources (dollars) for real 170 programs that have been proven to help students and narrow the achievement gap such as universal and high quality pre-K (where the state continues to make strides forward, but where there is still significant unmet need), literacy and math coaches, before and after school programs, Family Resource Centers that promote parent engagement and early identification of special needs issues, etc. The lack of such programmatic commitment is likely due to fiscal constraint, but if so, it does not make the absence of such measures any less disappointing and unsatisfactory in the effort to assist all students. . 171 Connecticut Facilitated Session on Early Childhood and the Every Student Succeeds Acts February 2, 2017 The Every Student Succeeds Act provides an opportunity to improve linkages between early learning programs and the K-12 system so that children and families have every opportunity they need to succeed in school and beyond. These recommendations are designed to improve collaboration, expand access and quality of programs serving children from birth to third grade, and identify and implement policies and practices that will create high quality learning environments for all young children. They are also designed to create a shared vision across early learning and K-12 systems so that all adults working with young children can help advocate for developmentally appropriate, evidence-based policies and practices at all points in a child's educational career. The recommendations may be incorporated into the state plan, district applications, or technical assistance and other implementation guidance as the state moves forward with its long-term goals for Connecticut's students. Improving Coordination • Establish a shared vision of the birth to third grade system in Connecticut. Through the Governor's office or other agency, the state should convene state leadership and external stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the development of a birth to third grade system to meet the needs of all children, families, providers, schools and other partners. This working group could include SDE, OEC, CAS, CABE, CAPSS, teachers’ unions, teachers, community providers, philanthropy, mental health, physical health, and social services agencies. • Birth to third grade coordination councils: The state plan should articulate desired areas of coordination at the state and local levels, including professional development opportunities to promote the development of the child care workforce, templates for transition planning and development of formal MOUs with Head Start agencies at the local level and inclusion of children with disabilities and their providers in early childhood data collection, professional development planning and availability of high quality early childhood slots. o SDE Coordination: As part of its Title I State plan or its consolidated State plan, the State must coordinate with other programs that provide services to children, including Child Care Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG), Head Start, and IDEA. At the state level, appropriate agencies (including representation from School Readiness and local early childhood councils) should regularly come together to identify best practices and areas of coordination at the state and local level. o Local Coordination: The state should require each LEA to develop or participate in birth to third grade coordinating councils to collaborate with community providers, including Early Head Start and Head Start, programs accepting child care subsidies, School Readiness, and other child care providers. Each plan would lay out appropriate and meaningful transition pathways for young children and their families as they enter the public schools. Such pathways should include the sharing of assessment and chronic absenteeism data, suspension/expulsion, alignment of curriculum and standards within the continuum, the implementation of summer learning programs for preschoolers entering the school setting and coordinated 172 o family engagement activities. Coordinating Data Systems: State and local coordinating councils should work to align data collection and analysis for children from birth to third grade to understand access to programs, quality of services, availability of developmental screenings, use of medical homes and other measures that can be used to improve children's outcomes. • Promote coordination through competitive grants: As the state creates or administers various competitive grants available in ESSA (such as the LEARN sub grants for birth to five early literacy initiatives), coordination, alignment and transition planning between the early learning community and the LEA and local schools should be used as a competitive priority or incentive for receiving grant funds. • Create transition pathways: LEAs should be encouraged to create formal and informal transition pathways as between the early learning grades, i.e., K-1, 1-2, and 2-3. These should be thoughtful and inclusive of providers, parents, school leaders and early learning community leaders. As possible, transition plans should include information about curriculum, assessments, screening and other data. • Improved and aligned professional development opportunities. Using Title I, Title II and Title III funds, the SDE should provide guidance to LEA leaders to create and support joint professional development opportunities for elementary school principals and administrators, elementary school teachers, and early learning providers, including Early Head Start and Head Start, programs that accept child care subsidies, School Readiness programs and other providers. These opportunities should address: o appropriate child development and instructional practices that foster learning across the range of developmental domains, including social and emotional; o improved transition practices for children from early childhood programs to kindergarten and between the early elementary grades (K-1, 1-2, 2-3), as well issues related to school readiness; o working with children with special needs and other issues to identify and support children and minimize suspensions and expulsions; o understanding and implementing standards for social-emotional learning; o effective family engagement strategies and best practices; and o working with children who are English learners. • Include landscape analysis of the early childhood community in all required needs assessments, particularly those for schools needing comprehensive support and improvement. The state level coordinating council may want to help develop a needs assessment template that draws on available state and local data to help LEAs and their schools meet the following goals: o Identify community resources and partners to achieve goals for school improvement and other desired outcomes to support the full range of domains for all students and create and support healthy and safe schools; and o Identify service gaps and duplication to maximize opportunities for partnership and to leverage all available funds. • Design birth to third grade toolkit: As districts implement the goals outlined in the state plan, it 173 will be useful for the SEA and Office of Early Childhood to work together, with the Birth to Third Grade Committee, to design a toolkit that includes best practices for working across the early childhood and school communities, focuses on low and/or no cost opportunities to improve communication and alignment, and can be used by high and low resource communities. • Use data and evidence to identify interventions: At the state and local level, the emphasis in ESSA is on evidence-based interventions. The state coordinating council can help districts analyze available data on early childhood and k-3 programs to identify the most effective program design and practices to promote improved child outcomes. Develop and include social emotional and Kindergarten readiness indicators in addition to SDE’s current 12 accountability measures. • Promote high quality curriculum for young children into third grade that is developmentally appropriate. State agencies can work together to identify appropriate curricula models that support state standards across the full range of domains for all children from birth to third grade, and help local districts to adopt these curricula and support any needed professional learning to ensure effective implementation. 174 Analysis and Comments to Connecticut’s ESSA Draft Plan Connecticut has indicated its intent to submit a Consolidated State Plan to the U.S. Dept. of Education on April 3, 2017. Draft Plan: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/essa/draft_ct_consolidated_state_essa_plan.pdf Comments must be submitted by February 27, 2017 via the survey at https://sdect.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7NJ2so302y0ZEiN The analysis, comments and recommendations in this document focus on those issues most critical to subgroup accountability and to students with disabilities. The page numbers referred to in this document reflect the page number noted on the bottom of the pages of the draft plan, not the pdf page number. Citations are to Federal ESEA regulations. Academic Achievement (page 1) (a) CT’s approach to academic achievement (growth) does not comply with ESSA regulations, which state at §200.13: 1. Academic achievement. (1) Each State must, in its State plan under section 1111 of the Act— • Identify its ambitious State designed long‐term goals and measurements of interim progress for improved academic achievement, as measured by the percentage of students attaining grade‐level proficiency on the annual assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students described in § 200.16(a)(2); While a state may set goals for student growth, such goals must be in addition to, not in place of proficiency on state assessments. (b) The technical report states that the growth model applies only to grades 4 through 8. ESSA requires administration of state assessments in grades 3 through 8 and once in grades 9 through 12. How will the state set goals for grade 3 and HS? 175 (c) There should be a commitment added to the plan to hold targets steady; not reset downward when/if actual performance falls short of the targets. Constantly re‐setting targets renders the long‐term goal meaningless. Graduation Rate (page 4) The approach used for setting 4‐year ACGR goals is admirable! Instead of using a gap‐cutting approach, the state proposes to get all students to the same ACGR (94%) by 2028‐2029. This approach requires significant improvement for the Students with Disabilities (SWD) subgroup – more than 2 percentage points per year. Note, however, that CT has increased its 4‐year ACGR for the SWD subgroup by only 4 percentage points over the first five years that the ACGR calculation has been required by Federal regulation. (See table below.) Five year ACGR data for all states is available here. As with academic assessment goals, the state should commit to maintaining the graduation goals rather than adjusting downward when actual performance falls short of the interim targets. Such an approach renders the goals essentially meaningless. Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), Children with Disabilities State 2010‐2011 CT 62 2011‐12 64 2012‐13 65 2013‐14 65 2014‐15 66 ESSA requires goals for extended year cohorts to be more rigorous than the 4‐year goal because the students have had a longer time in which to graduate. (Regulation §200.13 (b) (2) (ii)) However, the CT draft plan sets a 6‐year ACGR goal of 94% ‐ the same as the 4‐year goal. The plan also states that the extended year ACGR goal only applies to the “High Needs” group. ESSA requires extended year ACGR goals to be set for each student subgroup (e.g. disability subgroup), rather than combining subgroups as a High Needs group. Consultation (page 8) The narrative in this section does not provide any evidence that the state meaningfully consulted with the specific stakeholders required by ESSA. Appendix A indicates that the Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) and the Community Parent Resource Center (CPRC) in CT were invited to participate in focus groups. The Executive Directors of the state’s PTI and CPRC confirmed that neither attended a focus group nor were consulted in any way regarding the state’s draft plan. 176 Academic Assessments (page 26) ESSA requires states to define “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” for IEP team guidance on making decisions about which students will participate in the state’s alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards. Also, ESSA sets a cap on the number of students who may participate in an alternate assessment in the state at 1% of all students in the assessed grades (combined). While not a required part of the state plan, CT should address the definition of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and strategies the state will employ to not exceed the 1% cap on alternate assessments in the plan and encourage stakeholder input. It is critically important to ensure that the alternate assessment is used only for those students for whom the test was designed and field‐tested and does not inappropriately lower achievement expectations for students who should take the general assessment. It is also important for the definition of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to acknowledge that these students are working on the grade level content standards, even though the achievement expectations are different those for the general assessment. Accountability System (page 30) CT’s list of indicators raises several questions: Academic indicators (1, 2, 8) (d) ESSA requires separate indicators for academic achievement, academic progress, 4‐yr graduation rate, progress in achieving English language proficiency. Therefore, combining academic growth and progress in English language proficiency into a single indicator does not satisfy ESSA requirements. (e) The graduation rate indicator must include the 4‐year ACGR and may take into consideration an extended year ACGR. Therefore, indicator 9 does not comply with ESSA. Rather, it should be part of the graduation rate indicator. Non‐academic indicators (7 in total ‐ 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12): (f) Does each of these non‐academic indicators meet the requirements for indicators of school quality or student success in regulation §200.14(c))? For example, each measure within an indicator must be valid, reliable, and comparable across all local education agencies in the state, and be able to be disaggregated by each subgroup of students. (g) Are there so many indicators that none will have any real meaning sufficient to drive improvement? 177 Weighting The pie chart on page 33 is very confusing! If the numbers listed for each indicator are the values of the indicators, the total is 1450, making it impossible to ascertain the relative value of each indicator in the accountability system. ESSA requires that the academic indicators must weigh substantially more than the indicator(s) of school quality/student success. (Regulation §200.18 (b)(1)‐(2)) Using the values of each indicator on the pie chart, the academic indicators would only account for 62% of the overall system (900 of 1450). Such a weighting would not meet the requirement of “substantially more” weight. Subgroups (page 33) CT states that it plans to count previous SWDs in reporting on academic achievement for 2 years following their year in special education. In this case, the state must adhere to the requirements in regulation §200.16 (b) and should affirm this in the state plan. CT will lower its minimum subgroup size from 40 to 20. The state must provide information regarding the number and percentage of all students and students in each required subgroup for whose results schools would not be held accountable in the system of annual meaningful differentiation (separately for academic achievement and graduation). (Regulation §200.17 (a)(3)(iv)) This information is not included in the draft plan. District and School Categories (page 38) Participation Rate CT draft plan states: “Participation Rate: Schools that would otherwise be categorized as 1 or 2 will be lowered a category if the participation rate in the state summative assessment in any subject for either the all students group or the high needs group is less than 95 percent.” (Page 38) (Note: The High Needs Group is an unduplicated count of students who are from a low socioeconomic background, an English learner, or a student with a disability. “Unduplicated count” means that the student counts only once, even if he/she is in multiple subgroups (e.g. for race, poverty and disability). Being in multiple categories often has an increased impact on student achievement, which is why it is important to count the student in every subgroup to which he or she belongs.) ESSA requires states to measure the “annual measurement of achievement” for all students and for each student subgroup separately in reading/language arts and math. (Regulation §200.15 (a)(2)) Therefore, CT’s plan to only measure participation for the “high needs group” does not comply with ESSA. 178 ESSA requires states to factor the participation requirement in one of four ways. It is unclear and uncertain whether lowering the school’s rating by one category satisfies this requirement. Furthermore, the state must provide information on how it will support schools that fail to meet the 95% participation rate for all students or any subgroup (Regulation §200.15 (c)) School Identification (page 40) The draft plan states: “Comprehensive Support Schools (Turnaround): In 2018‐19, these will be schools whose three‐year average of the accountability index is in the bottom 5 percent of all schools statewide. In addition, schools with six‐year adjusted cohort graduation rates for all students that are less than 70 percent in each of the three most recent cohorts will also be identified for comprehensive support.” ESSA requires states to identify for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI): (h) The bottom 5% of Title I schools. If the state elects to identify additional (non‐title I) schools, it must ensure that the bottom 5% of title I schools are included in those identified. (i) High schools with a 4‐year ACGR of 67% or less. States may not use the extended year ACGR for identification of comprehensive support and improvement schools. (j) Chronically Low‐Performing Subgroup. Any Title I school identified for targeted support and improvement that did not improve over a state‐determine number of years. The final plan must reflect the ESSA requirements for identification of schools for CSI. The draft plan states: “Targeted Support Schools (Focus): In 2018‐19, these will be schools in the bottom 10 percent of all schools statewide based on the average percentage of target achieved by high needs students in English language arts (ELA) or mathematics (i.e., matched student cohort growth – Indicator 2) in each of the prior three years. In addition, schools with six‐year adjusted cohort graduation rates for the high needs group that are less than 70 percent in each of the three most recent cohorts will also be identified for targeted support” ESSA requires states to identify for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI): (k) Any school with one or more consistently underperforming subgroups. Therefore, use of the “high needs student group” for this purpose does not comply with the Act. (l) Any school in which one or more subgroups of students is performing at or below the performance of all students in the lowest performing schools (referred to as low‐ performing subgroups). Use of the “high needs group” does not comply with ESSA. ESSA does not require identification of another group of schools (ie, bottom 10 percent) The final plan must reflect the ESSA requirements for identification of schools for TSI. The draft plan states: “Recognition – Schools of Distinction: These are schools in categories 1, 2 or 3 that are in the top 10 percent in any of the following four categories and are not flagged as 179 having an achievement gap, a graduation rate gap, or participation rate below 95 percent on the state summative assessments. ii. Overall Performance (top 10 percent of accountability index) iii. Growth – All Students (top 10 percent on points earned for All Students for indicator 2) iv. Growth – High Needs (top 10 percent on points earned for High Needs Students for Indicator 2) v. Overall Improvement – Schools without Indicator 2 growth only (top 10 percent of rate of improvement on the Accountability Index from one year to the next)” ESSA does not require identification of schools of distinction. However, here again the use of the High Needs group should be questioned. Supporting All Students (page 56) Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At‐Risk Students with disabilities are over‐represented in correctional facilities. Therefore, CT should state specifically how it will ensure that students in such facilities are provided with special education and related services as needed as well as how child find will be carried out. In response to the question: Does the SEA intend to use funds from Title IV, Part A or other included programs to support strategies to support LEAs to improve school conditions for student learning, including activities that create safe, healthy, and affirming school environments inclusive of all students to reduce: • Incidents of bullying and harassment; • The overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom; and • The use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety? CT provides an overly broad answer with no specificity regarding students with disabilities who are disproportionately impacted by bullying, harassment, discipline practices and aversive behavioral interventions. CT should be encouraged to provide more specifics regarding SWDs. In addition, in both the Supporting Excellent Educators and Supporting All Students sections of the plan Ohio should discuss building capacity for and the implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (www.udlcenter.org) and inclusive best practices. Both UDL and Inclusion have been shown to improve student outcomes for students with and without disabilities. There is one mention of UDL on page 50 of the plan. 180 Consolidated State Plan Assurances Coordination – The state indicates that it has coordinated the state plan with other statutes including the IDEA. However, there is no mention of the State Systemic Improvement Plan and how that plan will be integrated/coordinated with other provisions of the ESSA plan. Appropriate identification of children with disabilities – The plan should include specific mention of identification of children in correctional facilities. Ricki Sabia Senior Education Policy Advisor National Down Syndrome Congress PH: 301‐452‐ 0811 Email: ricki@ndsccenter.org See ESSA resources at https://www.ndsccenter.org/political‐advocacy (click on policy documents and webinar archives) Candace Cortiella Director The Advocacy Institute PH: 540‐364‐0051 Email: Candace@advocacyinstitute.org See ESSA resources at www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESSA © 2017 National Down Syndrome Congress and The Advocacy Institute 181 February 28, 2017 Dianna Wentzell Commissioner of Education OFFICE ADDRESS Dear Commissioner Wentzell: CAPSS staff and I have recently reviewed the Connecticut ESSA Plan and we are pleased with the department’s emphasis on academic proficiency and growth as well as the alignment between the ESSA Plan and the State Board’s Five Year Plan. We have also recently reviewed KnowledgeWorks’ Matt Williams’ comments and observations about the Connecticut ESSA Plan and agree with and support his recommendations but we would like to offer some observations of our own. ASSESSMENT Positive Highlights Opportunities Incentivizing accelerated coursework for all students. There is no provision to break state summative assessments into smaller, more frequent assessments administered throughout the year. Focus on growth There is no provision in the SAT to measure student growth with the administration of performance tasks. This eliminates opportunities for students to demonstrate deeper levels of mastery. EDUCATOR WORKFORCE Positive Highlights Opportunities 182 Flexibility with teacher certification programs RISE. No evidence of an effort to have teacher and leader prep programs collaborate with K-12 systems to define professional competencies for personalized, mastery-based learning. No provision to modernize credentialing policies to ensure they align to statewide professional competencies for personalized learning and reflect the range of new teacher roles that will emerge in personalized learning environments. There is no provision for teachers and leaders to advance along individualized career pathways. All professional development programs should be highly personalized, ongoing, and job embedded – there is no provision for this. EXTENDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES Positive Highlights Opportunities Flexibility given in use of Title funds. No digital registry No plan for Early College High Schools OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Positive Highlights Uses the 12 indicators to measure how schools are performing Opportunities What does the state view as the “change unit?” In one place it cites the district and in another, it cites the school as the “change unit.” Clarity on this point is needed. Flexible pathways to obtain a teaching certificate. CSDE has identified a strategy for developing mastery-based systems that embrace earning Developing mastery-based, personalized systems that embrace earning credits upon the 183 credits on the demonstration of mastery of standards for underrepresented students. demonstration of mastery of standards could be for ALL students. Development of online platform to serve as a single repository for test data. There are no personalized learning indicators to incentivize adoption of personalized, masterybased learning strategies. Vision and Goals for ESSA align with State Board of Ed Five Year Plan: High Expectations for Every Student, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Great Schools. Expectation for participation in arts’ courses is low - 60% CSDE intends to use the ESSA’s focus on wellrounded education opportunities to improve access to high quality educational opportunities by addressing the academic and non-academic needs of students and students within subgroups. The opportunities may include: pre-school programming; advanced coursework; STEM/STEAM programming; physical education; career and technology education; 21st century skills; competency-based learning; personalized learning. CSDE will also assist districts in building new career and technical education courses/pathways, developing mastery-based learning systems that embrace earning credits based on mastery of standards and increasing participation in work-based learning opportunities. For those districts that are implementing mastery-based, personalized learning, provide an option that breaks annual summative assessments into smaller, more frequent assessments administered throughout the year. The “just in time” feedback will give students and educators more opportunities to maximize performance. Develop an Early Indication Tool (EIT) from the state’s EdSight data warehouse for use by schools and districts in identifying critical student needs. Use of Title IVA funds to incentivize district innovation focused on mastery-based, personalized learning. I realize that the State Board of Education acknowledged feedback regarding this plan this morning and that the Board did not have this letter when it did so. I am asking, therefore, that the State Department of Education staff and you incorporate CAPSS’ feedback to the extent to which you are comfortable doing so before the Plan is sent to the Governor for his approval. 184 I make this request because the opportunities that are specified above are ones that would enhance the already growing movement in CT school districts towards mastery based personalized learning. As always, I would be happy to discuss any and all of this with you. Sincerely Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Ed.D. Executive Director CAPSS 185 Review of the Connecticut ESSA Plan KnowledgeWorks February 27, 2017 Highlights: 1. Strong focus on growth within the accountability system. 2. Inclusion of 4- and 6-year graduation rates is strong allowing for capture of better grade-span data and ensuring that all students are graduating. 3. Indicators 5 and 6 (Preparation for Postsecondary and Career Readiness Coursework and Preparation for Postsecondary and Career Readiness Exams respectively) incentivize accelerated coursework for all students. 4. The creation of the “one-stop” online platform provides a strong foundation for aligned, focused work from districts. This aids in transformation (e.g. personalized and competency-based learning) as well as school improvement. 5. Within the section on well-rounded education, pages 57-58, the focus on transitions (e.g. pre-school to elementary, elementary to middle school, middle school to high school, high school to postsecondary, etc.) is strong. 6. Enumerating innovative approaches to education on page 59 is a strong statement for the state of Connecticut. Specifically naming STEM, STEAM, competency-based learning and personalized learning provides a platform to incentivize and launch greater innovation in the state. Opportunities: 1. The state should clearly define a vision for education in the state. Pieces of this exist in the longterm goals section, however, it can be stronger and help with alignment between the sections as well as the implementation of the plan and increasing local ownership and buy-in. 2. The system of performance management and tiered systems of supports is strong. With an eye on personalized and competency-based learning, aligning a system of improvement alongside a system 186 of innovation would provide a world-class school district support structure. The system could also provide increased flexibility with high levels of performance and greater innovation. 3. The accountability system is unique with a strong blend between growth and proficiency as well as indicators that drive at a well-rounded education. The weighting seems good as well. The “I wonder” here, are there too many indicators? Should some be reported on rather than be part of the actual accountability index? To borrow the car dashboard metaphor, can drivers keep their eyes on this many gauges? Is there a risk of watering down the accountability system or hiding performance? 4. Advance personalized and competency-based learning strategies and models as an evidence based strategy within the school improvement section. This would provide greater alignment between school improvement and the well-rounded, Title IV section of the state plan. 5. It is hard to tell how many check-ins and the frequency of those check-ins for schools in school improvement, those processes are clearly there but being more overt about the number and frequency would be very helpful for both peer review as well as for implementation. 6. With an eye towards supporting districts and schools that are making the shift towards a more competency-based learning system, provide an option that breaks annual summative assessments into smaller, more frequent assessments administered throughout the year. This will enable students to demonstrate mastery when ready and provide stakeholders with more timely feedback to make necessary improvements to maximize performance. 7. The plan outlines flexible pathways for teacher certification which is strong. How can that be better aligned to professional development for teachers? Would flexible, more personalized pathways serve the states’ teachers better? This could also provide increased alignment to the well-rounded, Title IV section where personalized and competency-based education are called out overtly. This could also be an expressed strategy to build a nimble teaching force able to scale personalized and competency-based education in the state of Connecticut. 8. Once again, outlining an expressed goal and focus on development of personalized and competencybased teachers begins to build the field and aligns to an expressed focus in the well-rounded, Title IV section. 9. As referenced throughout this feedback the section in the well-rounded, Title IV section of the state plan is rather strong. The calling out of innovative strategies like personalized, competency-based education, and STEM/STEAM shows foresight and casts a vision for what education in the state could be. This section could be foundational for the entire state plan in the following ways: a. It could be tied into the overall vision for education in the state of Connecticut. 187 b. The section itself could be built out with more specificity with an expressed focus on building networks of districts and schools. The networking would allow for the engagement of partners across the state, region, and nation to help transform education in the state to be more student-centered and personalized. These networks could be built around the state areas (e.g. personalized, competency-based, STEM, STEAM, etc.) as well as networking all of those discrete areas together to create common supports for transformation and scaling of practice. c. In addition to the stated areas in the state plan, inclusion of dual enrollment and early college high schools would also help to propel the state forward. Additionally, this would increase the alignment to Accountability Indicators 5 and 6. 10. Tied to opportunity number 9 above, consider driving further on competency and personalized learning by using the Title IV State Block Grant to Incentivize District Innovation Focused on Personalized Learning. The state could use the Title IV state block grant to create an innovation fund for districts interested in scaling personalized learning strategies. In addition to Title IV resources, districts could receive greater flexibility from state policies in the following areas: curriculum and instruction, assessment and student supports, professional and leadership development, technology and data, and learning environments and partnerships. Districts should demonstrate alignment to one of the three purposes of the Title IV program: 1) a well-rounded education; 2) improve school conditions for student learning; and 3) improve the use of technology in order to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy of all students. 11. Consider using the Title IV State Block Grant to help districts leverage technology to expand personalized learning opportunities. The state should reserve a substantial portion of the Title IV state block grant to provide subgrants to districts for technology improvements or programming that enhance the quality of teaching and learning. Priority should go toward applicants that demonstrate a strong vision for personalized learning and have a technology policy that allows for ubiquitous, safe access to the internet at all times of the school day. 12. Prioritize extended learning opportunities in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Grant Program. The state should redesign their 21st Century Community Learning Centers program to give priority to applicants with a plan to provide students with access to high-quality credit bearing opportunities outside of the traditional classroom environment. Applicants should also receive priority treatment if they propose to serve students attending schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement and targeted support and improvement. 188 Connecticut Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Draft Plan Survey Feedback Submitted by: Connecticut Association of Administrators of Health and Physical Education (CAAHPE) Connecticut Association of Health and Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (CTAHPERD) Section 1: Long-term Goals Reference Page 1: Proposed added language: As part of your long-term goals, we suggest including the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) Model for the purposes of improving the cognitive, physical, social and emotional development of each child. This well-rounded approach allows for greater integration of, and collaboration between, education and wellness. Section 2: Consultation and Performance Management Reference Page 11: Current language: • High Expectations for Every Student means that every student is expected to meet high standards and is supported by a system that believes in his or her ability to master challenging academic curriculum. Proposed changed language: High expectations for Every Student means that every student is expected to meet high standards and master challenging curriculum involving the cognitive, affective, psychomotor and social domains, which is supported by a system that believes in his or her ability. In conjunction with WSCC, we should not educate our children in parts by treating one aspect of their being as more important than another, without consequences. The goal is for CT students to be smart, happy and healthy! Section 3: Academic Assessments Not applicable/ No proposed changes Section 4: Accountability, Support and Improvement for Schools Reference Page 32: 189 Proposed changed language: Indicator 11a. – Physical Fitness: Fitness is only one component of a quality Physical Education program. This is evidenced by standard 3 of the SHAPE America national standards. Therefore, in keeping with the philosophy of the growth model in the CT draft ESSA plan, we would like this indicator a to reflect the percentage of students meeting or exceeding showing growth working towards the “Health Fitness Zone Standard” in all three of the four areas of the Connecticut Physical Fitness Assessment. This assessment (like FitnessGram) includes tests that assess muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and cardiovascular fitness. It is administered to all students in grades 4, 6, 8, and once in high school. Criterion-referenced standards are used. Multipliers are applied if participation rates are between 70 percent and 90 percent (0.5) or 50 percent and 70 percent (0.25). The ultimate target is 75 percent. Proposed additions: Indicator 11b. Physical Activity: This indicator will reflect an implementation of the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day as supported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP), and CT Physically Active School Systems (PASS). Proposed additions: Indicator 11 c. Moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA): This indicator would promote the implementation of moderate to vigorous physical activity during Physical Education class, in accordance with SHAPE America’s recommended 150 minutes/week for elementary level and 225 minutes/week for secondary. Section 5: Supporting Excellent Educators Not applicable/ No proposed changes Section 6: Supporting All Students Reference Page 57 ● The bullet that starts “Curate and disseminate evidenced-based interventions….” Add this language to the end “; movement-based learning (PASS); comprehensive K-12 Health & Physical Education (HPE) taught by certified educators, etc. Reference Page 61 Letter C. Line 5 after the words “these strategies” add “using guidance from the WSCC model” Page 64/65: E. Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Line 7 after the word “science” add “Health and Physical Education” Line 8 after the word “Music” add “and CT PASS” 190 ESSA Webinar #1 - June 15, 2016 Registered Attendees Tim Van Tasel 42. Dr. Michael Fernandes Natalie Carrignan 43. Dr. Tamu Lucero David Howes 44. Dr. Judith Singer Karen Berasi 45. Earl Kim James Agostine 46. Christopher LaBeIle John Battista 47. Dr. Eileen Howley Sheila Casinelli 48. Teresa Carroll Colleen Murray 49. Michele Mulialy Vonda Tencza 50. Dr. Anna Cutaia-Leonard . Aresta Johnson 51. Shawn Parkhurst . Kristin Heckt 52. Francine Coss . Patricia Ciccone 53. Michael Yamin . Fran Rabinowitz 54? Ian Neviaser . Lois DaSilva?Knapton . Dina Crowl . Alicia Roy . Janet Robinson .JiIIJohnson . Gary Cialfi . Joseph Macary . Robert Testa . Dr. Manuel Rivera . Kevin Farr . Joshua Smith . Christine DeBarge . Theresa Kane . Bryan Luizzi . Sheryl Mortensen . Cheri Burke . Dr. Mary Anne Morris . Dr. Anthony Gasper . Christopher Montini . John TaylorJr. . Gary Mala . Rochelle Hamel . Dr. Paula Talty . Desi Nesmith . Christopher Leone . Anne Marie Mancini . Nathan Quesnel . Ritchie 191 ill?152016 EdAdvance Curriculum Council Dr. Isabelina Rodriguez 11 11?1?-2016 CREC Curriculum Council Dr. Isabelina Rodriguez 22 11?17-2016 EASTCONN Staff Development Council Abe Krisst 22 11?18-2016 ACES Curriculum Council Dr. Isabelina Rodrigui 20 11-18-2016 ACES Curriculum Council Abe Krisst 25 11-30-2016 CES Curriculum Council Abe Krisst 10 12-08?2016 CAPSS Assessment and Accountability Ajit Gopalakrishnan 15 12-21?2016 LEARN Curriculum Council Dr. Isabelina Rodriguez 12 09-2015 Statewide Mastery Examination Dr. Dianna Wentzell ?'15 on a 12?2016 Committee Legislativeiy mandated basis committee (21 members from diverse stakeholder groupsi that met during that period. 01?13-2017 LEARN Superintendents Ajit Gopalakrishnan 25 02?14-2017 ESSA Weblnar #5 Connecticut State Ellen Cohn TBD Plan Ajit Go palakrishnan -..-.- .. All materials online. 192 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event. ?753/4 /8 ECHSH SDE Staff: yum/la Date: (I WM, Name Organization/Parent Contact Information .IOM 1). BAAL Jaw/g 5 6% 5. [4 #0443equal/QR pobI/( (law/'8. orb If I [9/5 TEE-F ?Jib-1700? ?057 LVN I . atngAc?JS' ziliJ g?ds '9 "0 ?th 0 K, {rm-791 (JFK: Plies . we ADI to) le [4w 0] (4.4m . L12 A) eUtager Nexims M1 ESSA Webinar #2 September 15, 2016 Registered Attendees Colleen Murray Chris LaBelle Alicia Roy Lois DaSilva Knapton Ray Rossomando Jesse Turner Aresta Johnson Bryan Luizzi Sheryl Mortensen . Earl Kim . Timothy Van Tasel . Natalie Carrignan . Christopher Leone . Chris Willems . David Howes . Michele Mullaly . Jill Kelly . Anthony Gasper . Darren Schwartz . MiguelCardona . Kathleen Greider . Alan Addley . Christopher Clouet . Elizabeth Rivera . Holly Hollander . Gary Cialfi . Desi Nesmith . Francine Coss . Sharon Locke Printed Name Slgn-ln Sheet SAC September 21I 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: V2774 A 5'14 SDE Staff: Aid/Lo, gm [+17 Date; Name Organization/Parent Contact Information L9 Vania? HMO Fl?: - 35.310 0 . 13? (aironc?I?tS .. - 223:5; ?k (ASA act/3 I \m k. CUch'hon $905k.? . (52.7% .24ch 7 ?Ll/rd a awn/8+ Imam- Aa- rat/es (Sc/n5- r< 6 ?3 (Om/Mo micsc 8% warm/m WW Marika ?ap ML: 55? f?kQ Jm us . 2/243? 8 am Moor? We Chn?h?t ?Momma Sanka?! VA (.69?pd4 fw??g?3?w Mme; ka PM QM {m?LF/ew c, ??qa k?mgf?tfhWme Sween gk (2%?le WW ?rhpqua ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDEStaffzfi?nv/ul?, Igor-Zea; Date: ?C'l?Lil?Lr ?Adm IJ, (3.. 0" Yum) mw? \m ?4un e30 KM 35 manic? 4: ma . . rdu Int/Id", la edu (W ?Wife/4c. o?'a ?e . Mahatma ?l?ma? .SSKQ ?rruu?o mneh'dq '{Est? Jal?mrcw .Ix. .chwm a) 'Hor In ca .c (i?q Caucisloex thur'krco Event: Alliance District Symposium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: DesiNesmith Chief Turnaround Officer Date: October 17, 2016 Stag?ford Ptblic Scibols I Artaiz Rachael Derby High School Baim Pamela Waterbury Public School pbaim@waterbury.k12.ct.us Baker Michelle Waterbury Public School mbaker@waterbury.k12.ct.us mag?Z Baldwin Melissa Waterbury public Schools mbaldwin@waterbury.k12.ct.us 105; m; Bannish Wendy Bloom?eld Public Schools Bonner Portia East Haven Public Schools 1 a R- Bracey Jeana Child Health DeveIOpment Institute bracey@uchc.edu WW Brisson Pamela Bristol Public Schools pamelabrisson@ci.bristol.ct.us Brooks Althea New Haven Public Schools althea.brooks@nhboe.net ?46 Bruce .. Teri Putnam Middle School brucet@putnam.k12.ct.us Tm Buckley Noreen Waterbury Public School nbuckley@waterbury.k12.ct.us \l Cappella Kimberly Hamden Public Schools kplanas@hamden.org ?9 [34/06:ij Cardona, Miguel A. Meriden Board of Education miguel.cardona@meridenk12.org Carey Julie Bridgeport Public Schools jcarey@bridgeportedu.net Carlson Vikki Danbury Public Schools carlsv@danbury.k12.ct.us Q/I?mo ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2016 SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 0 33323525 Stamford Public Schools Rachael Derby High School Baim Pamela Waterbury Public School pbaim@waterbury.k12.ct.us Baker Michelle Waterbury Public School mbaker@waterbury.k12.ct.us Baldwin Melissa Waterbury public Schools mbaldwin@waterbury.k12.ct.us Bannish - Wendy Bloom?eld Public Schools Bonner Portia East Haven Public Schools Bracey Jeana Child Health Development institute bracey@uchc.edu Brisson Pamela Bristol Public Schools pamelabrisson@ci.bristol.ct.us Brooks Althea New Haven Public Schools althea.brooks@nhboe.net Bruce Teri Putnam Middle School brucet@putnam.k12.ct.us Buckley Noreen Waterbury Public School nbuckley@waterbury.k12.ct.us Cappella Kimberly Hamden Public Schools kplanas@hamden.org Cardona, Miguel A. Meriden Board of Education miguel.cardona@meridenk12.org Carey Julie Bridgeport Public Schools jcarey@bridgeportedu.net A ?En Carlson Vikki Danbury Public Schools carlsv@danbury.k12.ct.us Event: Alliance District Symposium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet 505 Staff: Desi Nesmith: Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 "mm-u. ?hm?y Signature; . Carvalho - - Windsor Public Schools scarvalho@windsorct.org I #4 (WW East Windsor Public Schools dcasella@ewct.org Cassada New Britain Public Schools cassada l\ zCe/lio Audra Windsor Public Schools acelio @windsorct.or - 8 4? Ciccarini Mario Bradley School i 2 Cohn Ellen State Department of Education ellen.cohn@ct.gov Conway Matthew Derby Public Schools Conway Alison Derby public Schools Cooke Craig; Windsor Public Schools ccooke@windsorct.org a I) 2 \r Coppotelli Michele Danbury School District coppom@danbury.k12.ct.us Cristofaro Mary Hartford Public Schools \l Cullinan Anne Marie Bloom?eld Public Schools A A \j Danishevsky Nicole West Haven Public Schools Druzolowski Anne West Haven School District (W Foley Patty Norwalk public schools foleyp@n0rwalkps.org A - Cm\\kv{ak Mil/lam, 6 Q??ck? Event: Alliance District Smgosium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 Carvalho Windsor Public Schools scaNalho@windsorct.org East Windsor Public Schools Cassada New Britain Public Schools {free/[lo Era) Windsor Public Schools acelio@windsorct.o rg Ciccarini Mario Bradley School Cohn Ellen State Department of Education ell en.cohn@ct.gov 7 Conway Derby Public Schools Conway Alison Derby public Schools Cooke Craig Windsor Public Schools ccooke@windsorct.org Coppotelii Michele Da nbury School District coppom @danbury.k12.ct.us \i Cristofaro Mary Hartford Public Schools \l Cullinen Anne Marie Bloom?eld Public Schools \1 Danishevsky Nicole West Haven Public Schools Anne West Haven School District Foley Patty Norwalk public schools foleyp@norwalkps.org I Event: Alliance District gosium 2015 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith, Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 John CSDE Fronc Raffaela West Haven School District . Garcia Patricia Windham Public Schools pgarcia @windham.k12.ct.us Nth. . Ga role-Blocker Dolores New Haven Public Schools haven.k12.ct.us hostlaw Carla CSDE carla.ghostlaw@ct.gov Goeler Jody hamden public schools jgoeler@hamden.org Gohagon Michelle Middletown Public Schools Am Grant Kelly New Britain School District Hilser Edward Anosnia ehilser@ansonia.org Hull William Putnam Public Schools 1220 Mark Derby Public Schools mizzo Jackson Typhanie New Haven Public Schools Jewers-Daillev Kim Clifford Beers Clinic Johnson David Post Traumatic Stress Center f5 Llordan Kristina NLPS velazquezi@newlondon.org Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet 505 Staff: Desi Nesmith. Chief Turnaround Officer Date: October 17, 2016 Bassinelli John Csoe johnfr?assin?elli i4 Fronc Raffaela West Haven School District Garcia Patricia Windham Public Schools pga rcia@windham.k12.ct. us Garcia-Blocker Dolores New Haven Public Schools haven.k12.ct. us IEastlavv Carla CSDE ca rla.ghostlaw@ct.gov . Goeler Jody hamden public schools jgoeier@hamden.org Gohagon Michelle Middletown Public Schools Grant Kelly New Britain School District ?zz? [f \ll Hilser Edward Anosnia ehilser@ansonia.org fir Hull William Putnam Public Schools hullw@putnam.k12.ct.us 1220 Mark Derhv Public Schools A \4 Jackson Typhanie New Haven Public Schools I \j Jewers~Dailley Kin? Clifford Beers Clinic kieWers-daillev@cliffo rdbeers.org I Johnson David Post Traumatic Stress Center I Jordan Kristina NLPS velazquezi@newlondon.org N?nlm l5 odyfm?n?uhm Splwols phi\@ Mid?ewaht? had ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet 5135 Staff: Desi Nesmith, Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 Event: Alliance District Svmposium 2016 ?ksplan'" Elias? Koziara Les Windsor Locks Public Schools lkoziara@wlps.org [53:10 K12 I\j Lagace Francis Killingly Public Schools I ?7 \r Lamenzo Lisa CSDE lisa.lamenzo@ct.gov 1 a of) \l Lester-Harriat Regina Bloom?eld Public Schools Levenduski David Meriden Board of Education dave.levenduski@meride nk12.org Levend us ki Kara Norwich Public Schools Lewis? Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement wildrosefarm1740@gmail.com Mactean Keri MiddletOWn Public Schools Middletown Public Schools A .E 1 76;? A, Martino Joe Danbury Public Schools martij@danbury.k12.ct.us \l McCann Stacey Bloom?eld Public Schools Melillo Chris Hamden Public Schools cmelillo@hamden.org Michelle Baker Waterbury Public Schools mbaker@waterbury.k12.ct.us Michna George Bristol Public Schools georgemichna@ci.bristol.ct.us Moreau Sue Bristol Public Schools 2 5 I ESSA Siakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2015 DE Staff: Desi Nesmith. Chief Turnaround Officer Date: October 17, 2016 kkaplan@hamden.org LKoziara Les Windsor Locks Public Schools lkoziara@wlps.org Legace Francis Kiliingly Public Schools I Lamenzo Lisa CSDE lisa.lamenzo@ct.gov Lester-Harriet Regina Bloom?eld Public Schools Levenduski I David Meriden Board of Education dave.levenduski@meridenk12.org if Evenduski Kara Norwich Public Schools I 2 I Lemme?4mg; 3 Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement wildrosefarm1740@gmail.com 7 I MacLean Keri Middletown Public Schools {?me Ks; Wri CK Ea: I Middletown Public Schools . ?alanine Joe I Danbury PublicSchools martij@danbury.k12.ct.us \l McCann Stacey I Bloom?eld Public Schools Melillo I Chris I Hamden Public Schools cmelillo@hamden.org I \3 Michelle I Baker I Waterbury Public Schools I Michna I George I Bristol Public Schools georgemichna@ci.bristol.ct.us I \i I Moreau I Sue I Bristol Public Schools I Event: Alliance District oosium 2015 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith, Chief Turnaround Officer Date: October 17, 2016 Ranch 1? Morgan Ryan New Britain School District oft/W O?Callaghan Joe Stamford Public Schools jocallaghan@stamfordct.gov O'Lean/ Kaitlyn Norwich Public Schools Kg Oliver 53 ntosha Windsor Public Schools soliver@windsorct.org (g to Windsor Public Schools soliver@windsorct;org Olson JenniFer [wing School GM a I Ortiz Alejandro Frank J. DlLoreto Magnet School \3 Owen Wendy Waterbury Public Schools wowen@waterbury.k12.ct.us f) Pascale Martin Derby High School W4 ,1 \l I Perrone I Susan Menden Board of Education susan.perrone@mendenk12.org Petti Kristen Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement krislyn.petti@gmail.com Pierson Lynne Killingly Public Schools Putnam Tricia New Britain School District (aka-?ES \l Quinones Monica Hartford Public Schools - Tiffany New Haven Public Schools ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2016 SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith. Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 Morgan Ryan New Britain School District O'Callaghan Joe Stamford Public Schools jocallaghan@stamfordct.gov O'Leary Kaitlyn Non/vich Public Schools \l Oliver Santosha Windsor Public Schools - soliver@windsorct.org i 'ver Win Windsor Public Schools soliver@windsorct.org Olson Jennifer lrving School Ortiz Alejandro Frank J. DiLoreto Magnet School ortiza \l Owen Wendy Waterbury Public Schools wowen@waterbury.k12.ct.us \1 Passcaie Martin Derby High School \l Perrone Susan Meriden Board of Education susan.perrone@meridenk12.org \3 Petti Kristen Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement krislyn.petti@gmail.com Pierson Lynne Killingly Public Schools ?Mm Putnam Tricia New Britain School District Quinones Monica Hartford Public Schools \l Rauch Tiffany New Haven Public Schools 25>? /?7(44 254: fc?cv? 797% Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2015 ahii?a'iib Public Schools riosjo@nowvaikps.org Rioux Steven Killingly Public Schools Rivera Manuel NLPS velazquezi?newlondomorg Robinson Josh Windsor Locks Public Schools jvro binson@wlps.org Rouillard Darryl East Windsor Public Schools drouillard@ewct.org Russell-Bonner Jill Da nbury Public Schools russeji@danbury.k12.ct.us Ryan Matthew East Windsor Public School mryan@ewct.org - Samberg-Champion Johanna New Haven Public Schools haven.k12.ct.us a Sarra Nancy New Britain Public Schools Schwartz Darren Waterbury Public Schools Sheridan Shelley Derby Public Schools Silver Bethany Bloom?eld Public Schools Singh Cecilia Yale University cecilia.singh@yale.edu Connecticut State Department of Sullivan Kari Education kari.sullivan@ct.gov Swan Robert East Haven Board of Education i( Wk\ Event: Alliance District Symgosium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith. Chief Turnaround Officer ate: October 17, 2016 Rioux Public Schools riosjo@nonvalkps.org Steven Killingly Public Schools \l [Rivera Manuel NLPS velazquezi@newlondon.org I Robinson Josh Windsor Locks Public Schools jvrobinson?wips.org Rouillard Darryl East Windsor Public Schools drouillard@ewct.org Russell-Banner Jill Danbury Public Schools russeji@danbury.k12.ct. us Ryan Matthew East Windsor Public School mryan@ewct.org 5W. I Samberg-Champion Johanna New Haven Public Schools haven.i<12.ct.us Sarra Nancy New Britain Public Schools sarra Schwartz Darren Waterbury Public Schools us Sheridan Shelley Derby Public Schools Silver Bethany Bloom?eld Public Schools Singh Cecilia Yale University Connecticut State Department of Sullivan Kari Education kari.sullivan@ct.gov Swan Robert East Haven Board of Education ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith Chief Turnaround Officer Date: October 17, 2016 Event: Alliance District Symposium 2016 \l Thompson, Jr. James Bloomfield Public Schools jthompson?blm?d.org Tilton Christine New Britain School District Torres Daisy NLPS velazquezi@newlondon.org Torres Lisa Frank J. DiLoreto Magnet School Torres Elsie Meriden Board of Education elsie.torres@meridenk12.org Child Health and Development . Vanderploeg Jeffrey institute jvanderploeg?uchcedu \l Velazquez lvelise NLPS velazquezi@newiondon.org Vitelli William Derby MiddleSchool wvitelli@derbyp5.org . Walkewicz Heather Ansonia hwalkewicz@ansonia.org I White Jesse Bloom?eld PublicSchools g7 . Ame (OW Wilson Michael Ansonia mwilson@ansonia.org \l Young Dementred Bridgeport BOE dyoung2@bridgeportedu.net - Dm'blir AXQJEMM ill-tum p. 3- Qty?dd} NP a VJU) ?l?vmiese. icon 53 ea laminar! 00-42 Event: Alliance District Symposium 2016 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 Thomas Helen East Windsor Public Schools hthomas@ewct.org Thompson, Jr. James Bloom?eld Public Schools Tilton Christine New Britain School District Torres Daisy NLPS velazquezi@newlondon.org Torres Lisa Frank J. DiLoreto Magnet School . . . . . Torres Elsi-9 Menden Board of Education CWW Child Health and Development . - Vanderploeg Jeffrey Institute jvanderploeg?uchcedu Velazquez Ivelise NLPS velazquezi?newlondonorg Vitelli William Derby Middle School WW Walkewicz Heather Ansonia hwalkewicz@ansonia.org White Jesse Bloomfield Public Schools Wilson Michael Ansonia mwilson@ansonia.org Young Dementred Bridgeport BOE dyoung2@bridgeportedu.net ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Alliance District Symposium 2016 SDE Staff: Desi Nesmitht Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17, 2016 ??xm?eu A (?a?wf ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Alliance District nggosium 2016 SDE Staff: Desi Nesmith? Chief Turnaround Of?cer Date: October 17. 2015 32?de Voice?; 12/. ACADEMIC OFFICE STAFF MEETING ATTENDANCE SIGN IN FORM DATE: October 20, 2016 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE .4 mm amas 6d?dl/f ?0 MI Fr 3.6 ?Hiram mes/? 0?0" 1'3 110'va ?1&er ACADEMIC OFFICE STAFF MEETING ATTENDANCE SIGN IN FORM DATE: October 20, 2016 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE 53H Atacm-Ti ESSA Webinar #3 October 20, 2016 Registered Attendees Alicia Roy Joshua Smith Aresta Johnson Karen Berasi Sheryl Mortensen Bryan Luizzi Elizabeth Rivera Holly Hollander Sheila Casinelli . James Agontine . John Battista . Michele Mullaly . Desi Nesmith . Jennifer Webb . MiguelCardona . Sarah Malinoski . Christopher Leone . Nathan Quesnei . Cheryl Poltrack . Douglas Fetchin . David Howes . Alan Addley . Jesse Turner . Dina Crowl . Christopher Montini . Timothy Van Tasel . Colleen Murray . Earl Kim . Gary Cialfi . Michael McGrath . Darren Schwartz . John Taylor . Jason Hartling . Teresa Carroll . Francine Coss . Catherine Carbone . Megan Graham . Joseph Onofrio . Sharon Locke . Lois DaSilyanKnapton CT AJVH. Edvc?a?lloh ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: AACE Dre (+00 SDE Staff: 6-. Pt+th0~ Date: 6 Na? t+rec 06MM ?ax/176414 )23/erfo'wr/ (2267 Am Event: @mm SDEStaff: Name 6 i 000?.? 0 Tee-fr] 7? I't'f ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Organization/Parent GTGIUMH 9L bail. van CT Sum Emma Date: Contact Information . - . .ctirm -- \mua?o'l {3:3ka I cm! . M. 56486 com haem- (cu/3c I7-i?? B'Twl?r 0w 14w.? war 6 I: Who?i? ail. (om an?? ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: er't' Wadi-00K. SDE Staff: Date: "2 5 4F ?0 C/wls 2% 9? ESSA Stakeholder Sign-in Sheet EVENT: CES Curriculum Council Meeting SDE Staff: Isabelina Rodriguez Date: 10-26-2016 Name I E-mail Address '4 0 kill] (1.1 '5 I 0 150 (?nus ?rad/7"" ex Elli . - . 0v a, ll?Jl 3) {hr . a? 1 ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: sz- SDE Staff: TU f??m mf? Date: I I 4" LP Organization/Parent Contact Information ob 09:6 ~60 (90311 (9 53 79320 John oH-c \Mlc; Vac-rowan MM $47370 7?18??7718? m. C: (r33? - ?o??zbvl? Cg 059,00 .dqu I .04; liar.? .L?ua. dem?s-Mg .0r Sai- ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: Nl'l" SW Name Organization/Parent :me. LL10- m: ms SDE Staff: ?Ur? nomoumd HVT LAD/?Warsaw )1 2/ ask/e QC 73y Hwy (.Ifw. PS br (. 51c. turr Date: Lg Contact Information ARM 0Y3 0 mail ?5 6?2/w/Kv4 /7 ?/Ca?g u? a la (53? 4 at) W?w wally-03 . .CLNIW .KW he. ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: SDEStaffz?ESrnow?ounJL Date: LP Name Organization/Parent Contact Information mm Cm k? - ?x7e (.?Mz?sk 3 . 7%?ka N?j . - (I i505" (Md 9 It 5 uM/x/g/w/ (ll/Lu ?Il of 25$ Kw? N9 Z?c/len? 6.34 6. @v . If}. /2 . .0ng ESSA Stakeholder Sign in Sheet Event: 3+ng 2433?? 1/14?? 3327,0- ?Nov ESSA Webinar #4 November 15, 2016 Registered Attendees Oliver Santosha Desi Nesmith Cheryl Poltrack Douglas Fetchin Sheryl Mortensen Shawn Parkhurst Paula Talty Janet Robinson Joshua Smith . MaryAnne Morris . Sheila Casinelli . John Taylor . Francine Coss . Alicia Roy . Anne Marie Mancini . Ritchie . Earl Kim . Dina Crow] . Colleen Murray . Philip O?Reillv . Lois DaSiIva-Knapton . Kathleen Greider . Garyr Cialfi . Christopher Clouet . Sarah Malinoski . Karen Berasi . Lois Lehman . Ray Rossomando . Megan Graham . Elizabeth Rivera . Patricia Ciccone . MiguelCardona . James Agostine . Lorinda Weaver ESSA Stakeholder Sign-in Sheet EVENT: EdAdvance Curriculum Council Meeting SDE Staff: lsabelina Rodriguez Date: 11?15?2016 Name Agency E?mail Address If} {3 [03. Hi. 2L. E: rii'ifm?: $.43 ant-?5' f? and-- H?s; mm: Hirosi$ erm?m as1?3: max? .usIt! fL/IV/aw {Cor Mi ?6 aw FD 5 - brooks z, .5, VM whom 3 . Lk ESSA Stakeholder Sign-in Sheet EVENT: CREC Curriculum Council Meeting SDE Staff: Isabelina Rodriguez Date: 11-17-2016 Agency E-maii Address hollom a Add rec er Orl-engan UK Lbf??k?) [a . nth} 11?? (1 055 #1 agairniJ-x (aft; 51,100 J. raSS?I/lah 1.. g? Q4\pl~ ?400? h?fle??rfuk $0.4 ?95; ?me Id or Po la. hoot . (1r - v' ?z ESSA Stakeholder SIgn-in Sheet EVENT: ACES Curriculum Council Meeting SDE Staff: lsabelina Rodriguez Date: 11-18?2015 Name Agency E-mail Address Michele: Sherba? New Haven Michele. shaman nanm?le {a - ., 1? Gr1..) GYM [Ca Momma were/LCD: . . . Ga} - Iva(?rst. ll 'l madam ltcc. Far-raid/f? . +51! P. If I 9/5? o? .l 1 -, mn/ L: CURRICULUM NET WORK 8:30 11:30 am, Rooms 112-115 December 21, 2016 Name Print District/School Email address w. 09> We Lane/?6? 0- vi wheetcr? \oh? 6' I sham fr? choc .cf? 4 /s,0 v$if??cu5 2 . (Bromide Parker pom; OQJF 33! 10W igfgl?tat Leade?rsffoekga/esdbbamry 8?ng Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 9:00 AM - Monday, October 31. 2016 at 3:00 PM (EDT) Various Locations - See for Dates and Locations - Celder?n Champagne Champagne Colebrook German Hernandez Kelly Otero Otero Page Rauoh Verunes Vasquez Vasquez Veneges Jocelyn Laura Marilyn Jose Jose Ann Merle Giana Joseph Abraham Abraham Melvette Kete Hector Hector Denlee Tl?eny Kiomery Mary Jose Ramon Jose Ramon Lorene Tawenda Registrant] F: Registrant! Session E: Onilne Registrant] Seesion F: Registr. r- Sesslon E: Onllne Registrant] E: Onllne Registrant! 1 E: On?ne Regislrentl F: Onlne Registrant] E: Oniine Regislrent/ F: Onllne Registrant] E: Oniine Registrant] Session E: Oniine Registrant] F: Registrant! Registrant! F: Onilne Reglsiw Session E: Onllne Registrant] F: Registrant! F: Online Registrant! Onllne Registranll F: Registranv E: Oniine Registrant! Free Free Order Free Order Free Order Free Free Free Free Free Order Free Order Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Order Free Order Free Free Order . Brent: 17-47-1 15-000 10(25f2016 ESSA Focus Groups with Families and Communities - Session A 9:00 AM - 1 1:00 AM FustName . Title . .. .. Districtio ?on ., .. SIGN-INSIGNATURE .. . . . . .. Champagne Jose Senior Pastor Monte tie Sanlidad IDP Church Finlaysuu Penelope Family Engagement Technical Connecticul Technical High School Syslem Assistant c. I E: .. Hernandez Abraham Executive Director NHCLE, New Haven Powers Community Repmmalive Windham School District I . .. Michelle Managing Director Teach for America. Hartford Tranquilli-Bausher Anne Education Consultant Stralford a 00. (AQCDOZFS In order to receive participants must sign-in and sign-out '1 gif??mm? 3343 PO LUKS SERC I "Faith EVOKSL Monday. October 24. 2016 Page 1 of in Event: 17-47-116-000 10/253016 ESSA Focus Groups with Families and Communities - Session 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM -- SERC Classroom - Middletown ff F?it?Nal?e? Title 7 WWO ?i ii. sxeTv-owsxcufn?u? i Tenorio Sue Comrade: In order to receive CEUS, panidpauts must sign-in and signoout St ?vjt?rc? Monday. October 24. 20l6 Page I of Sigh-?sh: Event: l7-47-1 17-000 l0/25/2016 ESSA Focus Groups with Families and Communities - Session 3:30 PM - 5:30 PM . SERC_Cla_s_sr_oonL Migdlelown Lia?st? Name FirstName Title District/0W? SIGN-IN SIGNATURE - Borysewicz Lori PRC Coordinator Plymouth me Malay Naiomi Pamu Maiden MM Q?k gm order to receive CEUs, pu?cipanls must sign-in and sign-out 3m. [50.45? Ow?m Mzoidle?ram Monday. October 24. 20 6 @9423? (9 Page I of] Sign-Out Sheet Event: 17-47-1 18-000 10/26/2016 Greene Heather 11mm? . re, Raccio Tammy Richardson Andrea Wednesday. October 26. 2016 ESSA Focus Groups with Families and Communities - Session Title Pater" CT PTA. Waterbury Parent Waterbury Chair Parent Advisory Group. Wallingford Health Information Spccinlis! Hartford .. 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM Library Community Room 7_Mi<1_r11eioyr1 In order to receive CEUs, participants must sign-in and sign-out 3 My? CW Pagclofl 3a 2 Spamsh Q1 . RIMS- .. I. Cont-P 1, 120mg. (?ca-UM? 3.5c1gocl1ne Gum's-c I LL 5W 5.?52?1?51 Lcwa ?ling-3:0 ,3 .. mm W. try #263? ?as 1% N1 ugh: Coordination with Federal Programs The vision for Connecticut’s coordination is to ensure collaboration with outside agencies in order to braid funding, ensure cohesiveness among programs, and educate the whole child from preK-12. Interaction between programs and staff will generate improved services to students, schools, and LEAs. This comprehensive thinking locates the intersections and weaves together the strategies, timelines, and funding sources from the multiple programs in order to achieve a cohesive vision. One example of Connecticut’s coordination with federal programs is with the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. The CSDE has worked to coordinate with our Perkins plan to ensure that our state’s challenging academic standards are aligned with our relevant state career and technical education standards. This alignment continues the work of Perkins in which Connecticut expanded the seven traditional pathways to align with the 16 federal career clusters. The coordination with Perkins includes the integration of academic and career and technical education content along with work-based learning opportunities. In addition to aligning standards, we also plan to provide spending guidance on the use of Title funds in order to support the goals of Perkins. For example, Title I funds can be used to include enrollment and participation in academic courses tied to career and technical education coursework; Title II funds can be used to provide high-quality professional development integrating career and technical education, workbased learning, and rigorous academic content, as well as training on best practices to understand State workforce needs and transitions to post-secondary education and the workforce. Furthermore, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and Perkins goals align to Title IV, Part B in which 21st Century School programs can partner with in-demand fields of the local workforce or build career competencies and career readiness. This funding may provide workforce development boards with additional opportunities to collaborate and leverage resources for in-school youth services. Continued coordination with these programs will help to unify CSDE guidance. Similarly, since ESSA’s provisions aim to promote early learning, greater alignment with the early elementary grades, and early education-focused capacity building among teachers, leaders, and other staff serving young children, the intersections of the provisions of ESSA with Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant are apparent. With input from the Office of Early Childhood (OEC), the CSDE will provide clear and consistent guidance for schools that elect to use Title I funds to support early childhood education programs in order to ensure that the services comply with the performance standards established by the Head Start Act. ESSA outlines supports for students, particularly during transition points, in which Title I funds may include supporting strategies for assisting preschool children in the transition from early childhood education programs to local elementary school programs. Due to the inclusive nature of ESSA’s provisions, it is essential that coordination between CSDE and OEC is ongoing to maximize impact on student outcomes. Throughout the Plan, CSDE is taking steps to ensure coordination among education agencies at the local, state, and federal levels is more efficient and streamlined. ESSA expects that the Plan will include assurances that the SEA will modify or eliminate state fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other federal, state, and local sources to improve educational opportunities 237 and eliminate unnecessary fiscal and accounting requirements. Connecticut has been utilizing crossdivisional work within the CSDE to identify duplicative approaches and/or barriers to implementation of effective and efficient programming. ESSA provides the ideal opportunity to coordinate the funding and administration between different federal programs. The CSDE is pursuing a consolidated application in order to facilitate a more streamlined and efficient process which will include federal (Title I, Title II, Title III) and state grants (State Bilingual Grant, Alliance Districts, Priority School Districts). 238 Appendix B: Strategy Profiles TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of Strategy: Improve Alternative Education Settings/Programs Leadership: Who is the single person Mark Linabury responsible for making sure implementation happens? Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than 5)? Improve educational outcomes for students in alternative schools/programs by facilitating the implementation of “The Guidelines for Alternative Education Settings.” Effective implementation will positively impact graduation rates and overall well- being of students. 100% of alternative education settings will understand and implement the content provided in the Guidelines to improve program design. 1. Develop a Professional Learning Community (PLC) that will provide training, networking and support related to the Guidelines and best practices. 2. Develop additional guidance that is focused on expelled students by reconvening the Alternative Schools Committee. 3. Develop partnerships with private and public stakeholders (through the Connecticut Association of Schools (CAS) and SERC) involved in vocational, college and career readiness, including family and community organizations. 4. Build agency capacity to support the social, emotional, behavioral and academic needs of students in alternative education settings. Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the 1. Non-academic needs and supports 239 strategy have significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Scale: At what scale (number of students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? This strategy will reengage students in alternative education settings and will assist in the development of a culture of high expectations. Coupled with additional supports, students will be better positioned to succeed in their academic careers. By 2021, all 80 alternative schools and programs implement the Guidelines with fidelity. Resources Required: What additional Organizational partnerships people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? Human resources and available time to promote activities Financial resources to actualize goals Impact: What is the estimated impact of this Increased graduation and attendance rates in strategy on the goal over time? alternative education settings. 240 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation of Strategy Profile on Alternative Schools? Activity SY 16-17 Insert one activity per row here (from above) Insert milestone here (Month in parentheses) Develop a Professional Learning Community (PLC) that will provide training, networking and support related to the Guidelines and best practices PLCs developed to support SY 17-18 SY 18-19 PLCs conducted PLCs conducted SY 19-20 PLCs conducted SY 20-21 PLCs conducted guidelines and best practices Develop additional Alternative guidance that is Schools Committee focused on reconvened and expelled students guidance developed by reconvening the Revised guidance sent Alternative Schools to Superintendents and Committee Alternative Schools Practitioners Introduce new Guidance at PLCs Reaffirm new Guidance at PLCs 241 Reaffirm new Guidance at PLCs Reaffirm new Guidance at PLCs Develop partnerships with private and public sector stakeholders (through CAS and SERC) involved in vocational, college and career readiness, including family and community organizations Pursue partnerships with stakeholders Build agency capacity to support the social, emotional, behavioral and academic needs of students in alternative education settings Identify key CSDE staff (Bureau of Health, Nutrition, Family Services and Adult Education and Turnaround Office)to build agency support to meet the needs of students in alternative education settings with focus on alternative education settings in Alliance Districts Convene meetings with PLCs and partners Convene meetings with PLCs and partners Deploy CSDE staff to meet the needs of students in alternative education settings in Alliance Districts Deploy staff and review impact Review implementation of action plan on partnerships Review implementation of action plan on partnerships Deploy staff and review impact Deploy staff and review impact Implement action plan on partnerships 242 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of strategy Family and Community Engagement Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Judy Carson, Ph.D. Description: Support student academic achievement and school improvement through effective Describe the strategy in a sentence or two. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? school, family and community partnerships. Families, districts, schools, and community partners are able to cultivate and sustain active, respectful, and effective partnerships that foster school improvement, link to educational objectives, and support children’s learning and development. Staff who are prepared to engage in partnerships with families can: create and sustain school and district cultures that welcome, invite, and promote family engagement; develop family engagement initiatives and connect them to student learning and development; and honor and recognize families’ existing knowledge, skill, and forms of engagement. Families who, regardless of their racial or ethnic identity, educational background, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status, are prepared to engage in partnerships with schools and districts and can negotiate multiple roles (supporters, encouragers, monitors, models of lifelong learning, advocates, decision makers and collaborators). Community Partners who can connect and support schools and families in the achievement of their mutual goals. Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this 1. Establish an intra-agency collaboration process to inform decisions relating to family and community engagement, including establishing a metric through family surveys. 243 strategy (no more than five)? 2. Continue the Commissioner’s Roundtable for Family and Community Engagement 3. Train schools to implement best practices (aligned with the national framework): Creating Welcoming Schools Linking to Learning: Academic School-Parent Compacts Based on Grade-Level Goals Conducting Parent-Teacher Home Visits 4. Develop school staff capacity to lead family and community engagement Continue monthly network meetings for family engagement professionals Establish a family engagement certificate program 5. Work with organizations to train families and community members with the skills necessary to develop school and community partnerships. Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? This strategy addresses all four goals of the Strategic Plan: 1. Non-academic needs and supports 2. Standards and assessments 3. Great teachers and leaders 4. Great schools Rationale: Why do we Research shows that well-planned partnerships among families, schools and believe it will have an community members can make a powerful contribution to greater student impact? success. No matter what their income or background, students with involved families tend to have higher grades and test scores, better attendance, and higher rates of homework completion. They enroll in more challenging classes, have better social skills and behavior, and are more likely to graduate and go on to college. Families and schools also benefit. Families engaged in partnerships have a greater sense of efficacy, stronger social ties and are more likely to continue 244 their own education. Teachers report greater job satisfaction when they work with families, and families who are more involved hold more positive views of teachers and schools. Increased involvement develops feelings of ownership, resulting in greater family and community support for public education. Scale: At what scale (number of districts, students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? Fam-School Relationship Welcoming Survey Schools SchoolParent ParentCompact Teacher Professional Home Visits Network Family Ed Reform Alliance Districts Districts Statewide X X X X X X X X Engagement Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? Title I Schools X internal resources for staff dedicated to managing and Certificate coordinating activities in the Office of Student Supports. support and identified coordinators from the Performance Office, Academic Office, Talent Office and Turnaround Office to align activities and objectives. resources for survey implementation, training, on-site support, local programming. 245 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity SY 16-17 SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 Insert one activity Insert milestone per row here (from above) here (Month in parentheses) Intra-agency Group meets Group meets Group meets Group meets Group meets collaboration on family engagement bimonthly bimonthly bimonthly bimonthly bimonthly Commissioner’s Group meets Group meets Group meets Group meets Group meets Roundtable for quarterly quarterly quarterly quarterly quarterly School-Level Baseline Re-assessments assessments conducted and reports prepared Updating Compacts: Training and Re-assessments Training on best practices Training and support Family and Community Engagement conducted and reports prepared Compacts complete d Parent-Teacher Home Visits conducted with Sample Parent-Teacher Home Visits conducted with submitted to evaluator 80% of families Parent-Teacher 246 support Compacts complete d Sample submitted to evaluator conducted and reports prepared Parent-Teacher Home Visits conducted with 60% of families TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 60% of families Home Visits conducted with Parent-Teacher Home Visits conducted with 70% of families 90% of families Develop school staff capacity to lead family and community engagement efforts. Continue Continue Continue Continue Continue monthly Friday Café, Family and Community Network meetings monthly Friday Café, Family and Community Network meetings monthly Friday Café, Family and Community Network meetings monthly Friday Café, Family and Community Network meetings monthly Friday Café, Family and Community Network meetings Study and develop a plan regarding the Pilot certificate program in Ed. Reform districts. Refine and expand certificate family and communit y engageme nt certificate. Work with organizations to train families and community members . Work with parent leadership groups and members of the Commissioner’s Roundtable to develop family training module. 247 program to Alliance Districts Pilot training Expand training Expand training module is selected Ed. to all Ed Reform to Alliance Districts. Districts. Reform districts. TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 STRATEGY PROFILE: TEMPLATE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of strategy Next Generation Student Supports Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? John D. Frassinelli, Bureau Chief Bureau of Health/Nutrition, Family Services and Adult Education Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two Develop tiered systems of supports to maximizing students’ learning potential and to focus on key areas for improvement: discipline, chronic absenteeism, social emotional learning, and trauma informed practices, school environment, behavioral/physical health and contact with the juvenile justice system for vulnerable students including students disproportionately affected. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? 1) increase in the number of students consistently present in school; 2) reduction/elimination of punitive discipline in favor of restorative practices; 3) staff trained in trauma informed interaction with students; 4) timely transition and support systems for students returning from the juvenile justice system; 5) increase student participation in school breakfast Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? 1) Develop, provide training and implement state-level tiered intervention models to reduce chronic absenteeism and prevent and address suspensions including social emotional learning and focusing on adult actions and equity. 2) Develop trauma guidelines for districts and deliver a systematic and sequential series of professional learning. 3) Expand partnerships and identify school and communitybased supports and provide professional learning for meeting the behavioral and physical health needs of students and the development of positive and supportive school environments. 4) Coordinate multiagency case management of students reentering school districts from the juvenile justice system. 5) Use the Connecticut Breakfast Expansion Team (CBET) to market and increase participation in school breakfast. 248 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Scale: At what scale (number of districts, students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? 1. Non-Academic needs and supports Students’ content knowledge and academic skills are only part of the equation for student success. A wide variety of factors intrinsic to students and the external environment shape students’ academic performance. Coupled with mastery of academic skills and social emotional/health proficiency this will prepare students to be positive architects of their lives (essential skills and habits). The focus is to address the needs of the whole child to remove non-academic barriers to academic achievement and ensure that students achieve their full potential. Activity 1: tiered intervention Alliance Districts Activity 2: trauma guidelines Alliance Districts Activity 3: behavioral and physical health needs Alliance Districts Activity 4: reentry to school of justice-involved Hartford, Bridgeport, New youth Activity 5: expand school breakfast Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? Haven, Danbury, Waterbury school districts Education Reform Districts staff and time for planning and implementation of sustainable practices to build a system of collaboration across internal and external boundaries to integrate the CSDE initiatives, policies, and grants to link optimal behavioral and physical health to academic achievement; staff and time for planning preparation, implementation/ sustainable practices and funding to provide ongoing professional learning and technical assistance to districts; dedicated staff for juvenile justice issues and interagency collaboration with CSSD, DCF and CSDE; agency and administration support for promotion of school meals programs including school breakfast. 249 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity SY 16-17 Insert one activity per row here (from above) Insert milestone here (Month in parentheses) Develop, provide training and implement statelevel tiered intervention models to reduce chronic absenteeism and prevent and address suspensions including social emotional learning and focusing on adult actions and equity. Develop crossagency model for tiered intervention to support reducing chronic absence that addresses suspensions including social emotional learning and focusing on adult actions and equity. (February 2017) SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 Train crossagency teams to implement model (June 2017) Review and update crossagency tiered model (May 2018) Review and update crossagency tiered model (May 2019) Review and update crossagency tiered model (May 2020) Implement tiered supports (June 2018) Implement tiered supports (June 2019) Implement tiered supports (June 2020) Implement tiered supports (June 2021) 250 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Develop trauma guidelines for districts and deliver a systematic and sequential series of professional learning. Expand partnerships and identify school and communitybased supports and provide professional learning for meeting the behavioral and physical health needs of students and the development of positive and supportive school environments. Coordinate multiagency case management of Trauma guidelines will be completed for final edit and publication (June) Work with CT School Counselors Association, CT Association of School Nurses, Child Health and the Child Development Institute to identify and assess community partnerships. (June) Engage Department of Children and Guidelines sent to districts through a superintendents’ letter (Oct) training will be made available to school mental health staff (Nov) Sponsor district level meetings with community providers. (Oct) Enhance LEA capacity for implementation and sustaining a Multi-Tiered Behavioral Framework by providing training and technical assistance to LEAs (Nov) Engage and coordinate with districts to 251 Institute providing train the trainer model to mental health staff to train their staff (Sept) 50% of CT schools will have trauma informed practices in place (Sept) Develop a professional learning community for schools (June) 70% of CT schools will have trauma informed practices in place (June) Identify district and school professional learning needs related to behavioral and physical health and the development of positive and supportive schools. (Oct) Implement a system of learning opportunitie s and technical assistance based on tiered identificatio n of districts. (Sept) Develop and implement plan that insures Provide ongoing guidance and technical 100% of schools will be engaged in trauma informed practices and school mental health personnel are prepared to support their local school staff (Dec) Results-based report to BOE Report on results, identify additional TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 students reentering school districts from the juvenile justice system. Use the Connecticut Breakfast Expansion Team (CBET) to market and increase participation in school breakfast. Families and Court Support Services Division to identify issues and barriers for justice-involved youth from reentering school. (Feb) Hold school breakfast summit to increase awareness and provide training to districts. (May) identify district and school needs related to reentering youth. (SeptOct) Work with Ed Reform districts to identify barriers to full participation. (Aug) Develop strategic plan based on identified needs and expand participation in Ed Reform districts. (Oct) 252 coordination of agencies and districts for the care, coordination, and retry of students. (Oct) Work with districts to develop marketing program to promote breakfast. (Sept) assistance to districts and evaluate progress with Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee. Identify examples of successful implementa tion and expand best practices. (Nov) needs and make improvements to the program. Coordinate professionallear ning for districts regarding increasing participation. TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 STRATEGY PROFILE – CHALLENGING ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS (ISABELINA RODRIGUEZ) Name of strategy Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy and by when? Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? Early Literacy by Grade 3/State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) (Academic Achievement and English Language Proficiency) Melissa Hickey The goal of the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) is to ensure all Connecticut students will be proficient, engaged and active readers (at or above grade level) by the end of Grade 3 prepared for greater academic challenges and ultimately graduate from high school as responsible global citizens prepared to contribute to their communities and succeed in college, career and life. Districts will have a multi-tiered, coordinated system of reading instruction and assessment, through which children have access to personalized structures and individualized supports necessary to become fully literate. Teachers will be able to reliably and systematically identify students' individual needs related to critical early literacy skills. Teachers will provide explicit instruction that utilizes culturally responsive, scientifically research-based literacy practices to provide all students with the skills and tools necessary to be lifelong readers. Support all districts in understanding K-3 literacy standards, valid and reliable reading assessments and scientifically research-based reading instruction. Develop highly effective teachers and administrators skilled in utilizing student assessment data to drive scientifically researchbased reading instruction. Assist districts in systematically assessing and evaluating current literacy practices, interventions, materials and systems to increase literacy outcomes for all students including English Learners (ELs) and students with disabilities. Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Support districts’ systemic early literacy improvement efforts related to building infrastructure and capacity to create conditions and sustain effective literacy practices over time. Standards and Assessment (Goal 2) Great Teachers and Leaders (Goal 3) Great Schools (Goal 4) If educational leaders and educators are able to meet the needs of all learners through increased knowledge of culturally responsive, scientifically research-based literacy instructional and assessment practices then all students will have the skills and tools necessary to be lifelong readers. 253 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of strategy Early Literacy by Grade 3/State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) (Academic Achievement and English Language Proficiency) If school systems regularly use data to inform decision making, develop practices to support students and establish systems to support staff, then student outcomes will improve. Scale: At what scale (number of students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? By 2021, scientifically research-based early literacy teaching and learning put into practice for all K-3 students and reduction of targeted achievement gaps. Resources required: What additional people, time, money and technology will be needed to implement it? Additional financial resources, human resources and time to work collaboratively across CSDE and with partners. Impact: What is the estimated impact of this strategy on the goal over time? TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE Delivery chain: How and through whom will the strategy reach the field at scale? What are the risks and how will we manage them? What feedback loops can we set up to track progress? TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE 254 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity Support all districts in understanding K-3 literacy standards, valid and reliable reading assessments and scientifically research-based reading instruction. SY 16-17 Blended professional learning opportunities for K-3 teachers and administrators for 82 teams in understanding the Literacy Standards. (ReadConn, by July 2017) Implementation of the CT K-3 Intensive Reading Strategy in 65 schools. (June 2017) Literacy Content and tools updated on websites (state personnel development grant [SPDG], scientific research-based interventions [SRBI], Dyslexia and Connecticut Competency System [CCS]) along with developed and posted webinars. (June – Aug. 30, 2017) SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 Blended professional learning opportunities for 95 teams of K-3 teachers and administrators in understanding the Literacy Standards. (ReadConn, by July 2018) Blended professional learning opportunities for 125 teams of K-3 teachers and administrators in understanding the Literacy Standards. (ReadConn, by July 2019) Blended professional learning opportunities for 150 teams of K-3 teachers and administrators in understanding the Literacy Standards. (ReadConn, by July 2020) Increased and expanded use of Menu of ResearchBased Universal Screening Assessments. Literacy Content and tools updated on websites (SPDG, SRBI, Dyslexia and CCS). June 2019 Literacy Content and tools updated on websites (SPDG, SRBI, Dyslexia and CCS). June 2020 SRBI advisory council meetings (quarterly). SRBI advisory council meetings (quarterly). Literacy Content and tools updated on websites (SPDG, SRBI, Dyslexia and CCS) along with posted webinars. (Aug. 2018) Regularly held statelevel SRBI advisory council to discern policy needs and issues, promote visibility and coherence (quarterly meetings). 255 SY 20-21 Literacy Content and tools updated on websites (SPDG, SRBI, Dyslexia and CCS). (July 2021) Regularly held SRBI advisory council meetings (quarterly). TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Activity SY 16-17 SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 Established SRBI Advisory Council comprised of key stakeholders. (July 2017) Develop highly effective teachers and administrators skilled in utilizing student assessment data to drive scientifically research-based reading instruction. Blended professional learning opportunities for K-3 teachers and administrators in utilizing student assessment data to drive scientifically research-based reading instruction. (Webinars, classes, online courses, workshops, coaches etc.). (July 2017) Increased professional development (PD) in and scaled up efforts in SRBI and instructional strategies for students with Dyslexia through the provision of learning opportunities and tools/materials, Initial roll-out of SRBI scale-up management plan informed from CIPP process and regional SRBI coaches’ network (quarterly meetings). Revise SRBI guidelines document. Disseminate/train on new SRBI document. Continue regional SRBI coaches’ network (quarterly meetings). Continue regional SRBI coaches’ network (quarterly meetings). Annual SRBI Symposium statewide conference. Annual SRBI Symposium statewide conference. (Spring) Annual SRBI Symposium statewide conference. (Spring) Implementation of Professional Learning opportunities for K-3 teachers and Administrators in utilizing student assessment data to drive scientifically research-based reading instruction. Teaching all students with a specific learning disability (SLD)/Dyslexia Facilitated D-LET in 12 targeted districts (winter). Facilitated D-LET in 12 targeted districts (winter). 256 Continue regional SRBI coaches’ network (quarterly meetings). Annual SRBI Symposium statewide conference. (Spring) TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Activity SY 16-17 assessment. (June 2017) Completed SRBI management plan. (July 2017) Assist districts in systematically assessing and evaluating current literacy practices, interventions, materials, systems to increase literacy outcomes for all students including English Learners (ELs) and students with disabilities. Designed multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) for PD, technical assistance (TA) and data collection to address identified local education agency (LEA) needs, particularly for schools from high needs LEAs for 1/3 of CT districts whose grade 3 literacy outcomes were reviewed to identify targeted support efforts (fall). Supported literacy improvement efforts in 6 districts selected for intensive supports (spring). SLD/Dyslexia: Connecting Research SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 (Workshops, webinars, online classes, courses coaches). (July 2018) Facilitated D-LET in 12 targeted districts (winter). Continued annual MTSS for PD, TA and data collection to address identified LEA needs, particularly for schools from high needs LEAs for 1/3 of CT districts whose grade 3 literacy outcomes were reviewed to identify targeted support efforts (fall). Continued annual MTSS for PD, TA and data collection to address identified LEA needs, particularly for schools from high needs LEAs for 1/3 of CT districts whose grade 3 literacy outcomes were reviewed to identify targeted support efforts (fall). Continued annual MTSS for PD, TA and data collection to address identified LEA needs, particularly for schools from high needs LEAs for 1/3 of CT districts whose grade 3 literacy outcomes were reviewed to identify targeted support efforts (fall). Continued annual MTSS for PD, TA and data collection to address identified LEA needs, particularly for schools from high needs LEAs for 1/3 of CT districts whose grade 3 literacy outcomes were reviewed to identify targeted support efforts (fall). Continued supported literacy improvement efforts in 6 districts selected for intensive supports (spring). Continued supported literacy improvement efforts in 6 districts selected for intensive supports (spring). Continued supported literacy improvement efforts in 6 districts selected for intensive supports (spring). Continued supported literacy improvement efforts in 6 districts selected for intensive supports (spring). Building District Capacity to Conduct Comprehensive Evaluations for Students Suspected of having SLD/Dyslexia. Wilson Foundations Level 1 Workshops (K, 1, 2 and 3). Wilson Foundations Level 1 Workshops (K, 1, 2 and 3). spring Twice Exceptional: Gifted Students with SLD/Dyslexia (Self- 257 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Activity SY 16-17 to Practice in CT (12 hr. web-based modules).* Building District Capacity to Conduct Comprehensive Evaluations for Students Suspected of having SLD/Dyslexia. (June 2017) Support districts’ systemic early literacy improvement efforts related to building infrastructure and capacity to create conditions and sustain effective literacy practices over time. Identified districts to serve as models to other districts in building readiness to implement the CT K3 Reading Instruction Model. (June 2017) Blended Professional Learning opportunities related to building infrastructure and conditions and sustain effective literacy practices to include the implementation of the CT K-3 Reading SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 Paced Online Modules). spring Supporting ELs: Is It SLD/Dyslexia? (SelfPaced Online Modules). Wilson Foundations Level 1 Workshops (K, 1, 2 and 3). June 2018 Identified districts to serve as models to other districts in building readiness to implement the CT K3 Reading Instruction Model. (June 2018) Identified districts to serve as models to other districts in building readiness to implement the CT K3 Reading Instruction Model. (June 2019) Blended Professional Learning opportunities related to building infrastructure and conditions and sustain effective literacy practices to include the implementation of the CT K-3 Reading Instruction Model Blended Professional Learning opportunities related to building infrastructure and conditions and sustain effective literacy practices to include the implementation of the CT K-3 Reading Instruction Model 258 Identified districts to serve as models to other districts in building readiness to implement the CT K3 Reading Instruction Model. (June 2020) Identified districts to serve as models to other districts in building readiness to implement the CT K3 Reading Instruction Model. (June 2021) Blended Professional Learning opportunities related to building infrastructure and conditions and sustain effective literacy practices to include the implementation of the CT K-3 Reading Blended Professional Learning opportunities related to building infrastructure and conditions and sustain effective literacy practices to include the implementation of the CT K-3 Reading TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Activity SY 16-17 Instruction Model and how to teach the EL and SLD/Dyslexia student. (Fall 2016Spring 2017) SY 17-18 SY 18-19 and how to teach the EL and SLD/Dyslexia student. (Fall-Spring) 259 and how to teach the EL and SLD/Dyslexia student. (FallSpring) SY 19-20 Instruction Model and how to teach the EL and SLD/Dyslexia student. (FallSpring) SY 20-21 Instruction Model and how to teach the EL and SLD/Dyslexia student. (FallSpring) TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 STRATEGY PROFILE – ASSESSMENT REDUCTION/STREAMLINING Name of strategy Mathematics Council Recommendations Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Jennifer Michalek Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two. We must ensure that all Connecticut students are provided with a rigorous standards aligned mathematics education that prepares them for college, career and life. This requires that we support both teachers and students so that math instruction leads to improved mathematics achievement. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Scale: At what scale (number of students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? All districts will have developed Connecticut Core Standards – Mathematics (CCS-M)-aligned curricula that utilize appropriate materials implemented with fidelity. All teachers responsible for mathematics instruction will have a deep understanding of mathematical content and pedagogical strategies to meet the needs of all students. Families and communities will be informed, knowledgeable and engaged in mathematics education. Provide districts with support, guidance, training, and resources to aid in the development of deep knowledge of the content standards and effective use of the practice standards to implement Connecticut Core Standards – Mathematics (CCS-M) with fidelity. Provide guidance to districts on the implementation of appropriate intervention and acceleration models. Provide resources to support keeping families and communities informed, knowledgeable, and engaged in mathematics education. Goal 2 – Standards and Assessments (Academic Achievement and English Language Proficiency) Goal 3 – Great teachers and leaders Goal 4 – Great schools When all stakeholders are involved in the education of students, students are more likely to be academically successful. For all students to attain a deeper understanding of the content and practice standards, comprehensive mathematics curricula must be delivered by knowledgeable teachers. By 2021, all Connecticut students’ mathematics education will be aligned to the CCS-M. Additional financial resources to support professional development and materials development Human resources to review programs and provide professional development 260 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of strategy Mathematics Council Recommendations Impact: What is the estimated impact of this strategy on the goal over time? TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE Delivery chain: How and through whom will the strategy reach the field at scale? What are the risks, and how will we manage them? What feedback loops can we set up to track progress? TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE 261 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity SY 16-17 SY 17-18 Develop clear and consistent understanding of the Connecticut Core Standards – Mathematics (CCS-M) at the classroom, school, district, and state level. This understanding is defined as a deep knowledge of the content standards and an effective use of the practice standards. 30 teachers are trained with Intel (August 2017) Release 5-part webinar series about the math practices (September 2017) Convene a group of stakeholders to review teacher prep coursework related to mathematics Post lessons and units to CTCoreStandards, created by the Intel Math Science Partnership grant (October 2017) 30 teachers are trained with Intel (August 2019) Provide the necessary support and training to effectively implement the CCS-M with fidelity in all classrooms, schools, and districts. Instructional Material Evaluation Tool Training (IMET) ( Dec – March 2017) Increased participation in selfpaced online modules related to both the practice and content standards (September 2017June 2020) Post links to Bridging Practices, a Math-Science Partnership grant which contains modules related to argumentation SY 18-19 SY 19-20 Stakeholder group makes recommendations to improve mathematical preparation of preservice teachers SY 20-21 Update coursework requirements for pre-service teachers to include more mathematical preparation 30 teachers are trained with Intel (August 2018) Collect data from districts trained in IMET regarding alignment of materials (June 2018) Increase the number of districts/teachers trained in the state’s model curriculum (June 2019) 262 Form focus groups of districts utilizing the same curriculum materials Increase in the number of elementary schools that have one hour daily math instruction (Sept 2020) TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Implement appropriate intervention and acceleration to support the needs of a diverse group of learners. Increased participation selfpaced modules specifically for meeting the mathematical needs of special populations (Sept 2017 – June 2020) Engage all stakeholders in the process of putting the CCS-M into practice through effective communication that keeps teachers, parents, and community members informed and participating in the process. Provide professional development to districts on family engagement (March 2017) Implement a statewide Inspiration in Math week (May 2018) Implement a Commissioner’s Summer Mathematics Challenge (Summer 2018) Create a toolkit for districts to assist in helping them communicate with families (June 2018) 263 Revise the scientific research-based intervention framework to address the mathematical needs of students (June 2019) Provide professional development about CCS-M and Smarter Balanced specifically targeting local board of education members (November 2018) Provide regional information sessions for families about the expectations of the CCS-M Create a suggested list of assessments for mathematics and communicate to districts (January 2020) TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 TALENT OFFICE STRATEGY PROFILE- GOAL #3- STRATEGY 1 Name of strategy Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Develop strategic partnerships to create pathways to address shortage areas and increase racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the educator pipeline with a focus on candidates seeking a career change or those eligible for certification cross-endorsement(s). Kimberly Audet Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two The CSDE will proactively reach out to stakeholders and key partners to inform the development and design of pathways to increase the pool of qualified educators with a focus on persistent shortage areas and increasing the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the workforce. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Increased number of available and accessible crossendorsement programs that address designated shortage areas; e.g. additional RESC partnerships and district-embedded models. Increased enrollment/completion rates in ARCs or crossendorsement programs for educators of color and candidates in designated/priority shortage areas over the next five years. Develop a plan for targeted recruitment of career changers (unemployed, paraeducators, substitutes, tutors, clinical practitioners in other fields) in partnership with the Department of Labor, educator preparation programs (EPPs), and LEAs. Collaborate with the CEA/AFT to expand student groups at institutions of higher education (IHEs) and/or identify key recruitment resources. Collaborate with the RESC Alliance to create a new crossendorsement programs in a shortage area not already addressed. Research, design, and pilot a district-embedded crossendorsement program specific to bilingual education. Create media profiles of highly-effective educators as an “attract” strategy for distribution across education markets at the state and national level. Create brochures/marketing materials describing employment opportunities, potential salary schedules, early career supports, and professional learning, and career ladder/lattice opportunities. 3 (1, 2, 4) Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Deliberate action to focus efforts on attracting high-quality candidates through a comprehensive communications campaign and developing innovative pathways into the profession will increase the educator workforce/talent pool. 264 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Scale: At what scale (number of districts, students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? By 2021, increase the statewide percentage of educators of color from 8.3% to 10% (n=approximately 1000 educators). Decrease the # of unfilled vacancies (certified educators) on October 1st of each year by 25% for the next 3 to 4 years (specifically in math, science, special education, and bilingual). CSDE consultants Education Specialists from the RESC Alliance EPP deans/directors, advisors, career counselors, and certification officers CT partners in education (CAPSS, CAS, CABE, etc.) Union leadership (CEA/AFT/CFSA) CSDE Communications Office National partners to help with the research and state scan (coordination with Strategy #2) 265 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Talent Office Milestones for Strategy 1: Develop strategic partnerships to create pathways to address shortage areas and increase racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the educator pipeline with a focus on candidates seeking a career change or those eligible for a certification crossendorsement. Activity SY 16-17 Develop and implement a plan for targeted recruitment of career changers (unemployed, paraeducators, substitutes, tutors, clinical practitioners in other fields). Coordinate/manage the CPRL student team work to include analysis of findings, recommendations for strategy implementation at the state and local level, a proposed SEA work plan, and communication plan. Continue to work with the EPP deans/directors to execute a large-scale campaign focused on the teaching profession. SY 17-18 SY 18-19 Convene stakeholders to share CPRL analysis and recommendations and develop a recruitment plan to include measures of success. Partner with the Department of Labor, IHEs (ARCs), unions, and LEAs to coordinate on the broader publicity campaign. 266 Execute communication, media, and marketing effort. Create media profiles of highlyeffective educators as an “attract” strategy for distribution across education markets at the state and national level. Create brochures/marketi ng materials describing employment opportunities, potential salary schedules, early career supports, professional learning, and career ladder/lattice opportunities. SY 19-20 Monitor implementation and success of communications strategy based on change in rates of career changers entering the profession. SY 20-21 Monitor implementation and success of communications strategy based on change in rates of career changers entering the profession. TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Collaborate with the RESC Alliance to design and develop crossendorsement programs in a shortage area not already addressed; research, design, and pilot a new districtembedded model Convene stakeholders to inventory current CT crossendorsement programs. National scan of other configurations of cross-endorsement programs. Develop at least one new crossendorsement program in collaboration with the RESC Alliance, IHEs, LEAs, and other education partners. 267 Design and pilot of a new districtembedded model with a focus on bilingual education. Monitor implementation and success of existing crossendorsement programs. Continue to research opportunities for additional programs. Make adaptations and updates to existing programs. Continue to research opportunities for additional programs. Replicate successful programs/components of programs. TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 TALENT OFFICE STRATEGY PROFILE- GOAL #3- STRATEGY 2 Name of strategy Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Develop a repository of best practices, resources, partnerships, and guidance documents for advancing long-term and short-term recruitment of high-quality educators with the target audience of local education agencies (LEAs) and educator preparation programs (EPPs). Kim Wachtelhausen Identify, disseminate, and showcase promising practices- statewide and nationally- for increasing the pool of qualified PK-12 educators with a focus on increasing the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the workforce and decreasing the number of vacancies in designated shortage areas. Completed guidance document disseminated and publicly available to address recruitment and retention strategies to increase educator diversity and decrease number of vacancies in shortage areas. Increased number of well-established partnerships between CT EPPs, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and LEAs. Collaborate with the Center for Public Research and Policy (CPRL) at Columbia University to develop a robust repository of innovative recruitment and retention strategies and practices. o Complete a state and national scan of strategies to increase educator diversity and increase supply of educators prepared to teach in designated/priority shortage areas. o Conduct partner interviews and focus groups to mine successful practices and develop action planning documents and a needs-assessment for LEAs and EPPs. o Research practices and needs across comparable LEAs and EPPs. o Use feedback from ESSA stakeholder process and continue to solicit feedback from others partners and stakeholders to inform a draft guidance document to inform recruitment and retention efforts. o Develop a work plan with short, mid, and long-range goals. Develop a communications plan with strategies for statewide engagement. Host a Call-to-Action Summit to activate LEA and EPP partnerships with a focus on increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity and increasing number of teachers certified in priority shortage areas. Goal 3 (1, 2, 4) 268 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Scale: At what scale (number of students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? Resources required: What people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? The repository will provide a “one stop shopping” hub for resources and guidance on attracting/recruiting educators with an emphasis on diversifying the candidate pool and filling shortage areas. These resources will support the creation of a robust system that identifies effective strategies for recruitment and retention and further information about certification. The Summit will provide a forum to debut and widely disseminate these resources. EPPs, LEAs, educational associations and partners across the state will be called upon to contribute to and support this effort, which will result in a robust resource to inform recruitment and retention strategy planning. Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL) Dedicated Education Consultant (Talent Office) National experts CT partners in education (CAPSS, CAS, CABE, etc.) Union leadership (CEA/AFT/CFSA) LEA leadership/human resources managers Communications Office staff 269 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Talent Office Milestones for Strategy 2: Develop a repository of best practices, resources, partnerships, and guidance documents for advancing long-term and short-term recruitment of high-quality educators with the target audience of local education agencies (LEAs) and educator preparation programs (EPPs). Activity Conduct a national/state scan to identify promising/best practices for minority teacher and shortage area recruitment by June 2017. Develop guidance of strategies to increase educator diversity. Plan and host “Call-to-Action Summit” in winter 2018. SY 16-17 SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 Partner with Columbia University, Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL) student team to develop a resource guide Conduct partner interviews and focus groups to mine successful practices and develop action planning documents and a needs-assessment for LEAs and EPPs Disseminate guidance document to LEAs with priority focus on Equity and Alliance Districts to support ongoing recruitment/retention efforts Build out a website for best practices and resources Identify a core stakeholder group of LEA and EPP partners to focus on retention efforts for first through third year teachers Expand/make adaptations/updates to the guidance document and website, as appropriate Monitor usage and effectiveness of the guidance document and website by way of surveys and small focus groups Convene LEA and EPP partners on a regular basis to check in on progress to implement strategies Expand/make adaptations/updates to the guidance document and website, as appropriate Convene the LEA and EPP partners on a regular basis to check in on progress Develop work plan for Summit; identify potential guests and location Execute the Summit event and determine follow-up opportunities Identify a core stakeholder group focused on recruitment efforts to build off action plans developed at the Summit Convene stakeholder group on a regular basis to check in on progress and be accountable for results Convene stakeholder group on a regular basis to check in on progress and be accountable for results Potentially plan for a follow up Summit/convening, if appropriate 270 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 TALENT OFFICE – STRATEGY PROFILE – GOAL #3 – STRATEGY 3 Name of strategy Modernize certification to meet contemporary workforce needs. Leadership: Who is responsible for making sure implementation happens? Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two Julianne Frost Create greater flexibility and new certification endorsements to increase the number of educators in shortage areas, as well as the number of ethically, racially, linguistically diverse educators. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Increase in certification pathways and endorsement areas. Decrease shortage areas and increase diversity in education workforce. Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy? Add cross-endorsement in the areas of Blended Science, STEM, and Computer Science Expand DSAPs to allow for issuance for dual bilingual candidates Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? It will increase the number of educators entering our education workforce, particularly in shortage areas. It will result in a more diverse education workforce. 3 (2) Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Fewer barriers and more flexible pathways, while retaining standards, will allow more candidates to become educators in Connecticut when previously they may not have been eligible. Scale: At what scale (number of districts, students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? All districts, and both in-state and out-of-state candidates interested in pursuing education as a career – with particular emphasis on filling shortage areas/meeting needs of Alliance/Ed Reform Districts. Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? CSDE – Talent and Academic Offices (staff and time); Institutes of Higher Education (staff and time); SBE (approval). Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity Expand DSAPs to include dual bilingual candidates SY 16-17 Allow pilot case for dual DSAP (December 2016) SY 17-18 SY 18-19 Determine requirements for issuance of dual DSAP Inform districts & IHES of dual DSAP option (December 2018) (December 2017) 271 SY 19-20 Issue dual DSAPs for content area & bilingual ed. (October 2019) SY 20-21 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Add new endorsements to meet current workforce needs (e.g. Blended Science, Computer Science, STEM) Hold workgroups to determine criteria for additional endorsements (June 2017) Obtain approval from SBE to issue new endorsement areas to align with NGSS (February 2018) 272 Issue “Unique Endorsements” or “Microcredentia ls” (August 2018) Explore regulatory process needed to formally add additional endorsements (December 2019) Propose legislation to add new certification endorsements (2020) TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Name of strategy Leadership: Who is the single person responsible for making sure implementation happens? Description: Describe the strategy in a sentence or two Build the internal capacity of the CSDE cross-divisional review and support teams to effectively monitor and support schools and districts, and to build external capacity of districts and schools to understand and use vital information from the Next Generation Accountability System to produce great schools for all CT students Leslie Carson 1. We must ensure Turnaround Office Staff, as well as members of CSDE cross-divisional review and support team members, have understanding of evidence-based interventions and practices to support schools and districts in order to make progress toward the goal of exiting schools from Category 4 or 5, Turnaround or Focus, status. 2. We must also ensure districts and schools have understanding of evidence-based interventions and practices to improve student outcomes and to ensure progress towards the goal of increasing the percentage of district schools exiting from Categories 2 and 3 to Category 1. Definition of success: What would success look like for this specific strategy, and by when? Activities: What are the largest component pieces of work within this strategy (no more than five)? This includes efforts focused on improving understanding of: the indicators in the Next Generation Accountability System, the development of systematic approaches to data collection and analysis, the identification of critical challenges uncovered in the school and district data, the establishment of interim benchmarks for academic progress in reading and mathematics on district-supported interim assessments in order to measure progress toward improvement on the Next Generation Accountability System, and the understanding and utilization of evidence-based interventions or practices to support progress toward interim benchmarks and school improvement on performance indices in the Next Generation Accountability System. Schools in Category 4 and 5 schools will exit either Turnaround or Focus status, or make substantial annual improvements. Schools in Category 3 will be reclassified as Category 1 or 2, or make substantial improvement. Schools in Category 2 will be reclassified as Category 1, or make substantial annual improvement. Schools in Category 1 will remain classified as Category 1 schools. Internal Capacity-Building: 1. Train CSDE cross-divisional teams in the Turnaround Office framework (Talent, Academics, Culture and Climate, and Operations [T.A.C.O.]), the Next Generation Accountability System and in protocols for working as cross-divisional teams in Ed Reform Districts. 2. Build a directory of CSDE staff with expertise in improving accountability system indicators. Foster relationships with 273 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Turnaround Office staff and CSDE staff from other CSDE divisions to encourage effective cross-divisional support for schools and districts. External Capacity-Building for Schools/Districts: 1. Revise Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement to include specific CT school (labeled by region) implementing evidence-based interventions and practices for each indicator. Distribute to schools and districts. 2. Conduct Webinar training for school/district leaders focused on the Next Generation Accountability indicators and evidencebased interventions and practices to support improvement of each indicator. Webinars are designed for either elementary or secondary in order to provide Grades K-8 leaders with information about the growth model and to provide Grades 9-12 leaders with information about indicators specific to high schools. Performance Office conducts Webinars with representatives from schools currently implementing evidencebased interventions and practices. Schools in Ed Reform districts will receive more intensive training through monthly visits made by Turnaround Office consultants and cross-divisional team members. 3. Create a CSDE coordinated calendar of all professional development offered to schools and districts and post to the CSDE Website. Update as new professional development opportunities become available. Goal(s): On which goal (or goals) will the strategy have a significant impact? Rationale: Why do we believe it will have an impact? Scale: At what scale (number of students, educators, etc.) will it be implemented? Primary goal: Great schools--Improve the percentage of schools rated as Category 1 in the Next Generation Accountability System and increase the number of schools exiting Category 4 and 5 status. Secondary goals: Standards and Assessments—Increase the percentage of 11th/12th graders meeting benchmark on SB, SAT, ACT, AP or IB; Improve Grade 4-8 vertical scale growth; and, improve growth on LAS Links. Non-academic Needs and Supports—Improve chronic absenteeism and 4- and 6-year graduation rates Great teachers and leaders—Increase the number of teachers supplied in shortage areas and the number of teachers who bring in additional diversity If we provide cross-divisional teams and Turnaround Office consultants with a common vision for school improvement, including a common language and examples of evidence-based interventions and practices, the schools and districts which seek guidance from CSDE staff will receive consistent messaging from CSDE, will more quickly adopt the common vision, and will implement efforts for improvement with fidelity. This will result in more schools exiting Category 4 and 5 status and more schools receiving a Category 1 rating in the Next Generation Accountability System. By 2021, all Category 4 and 5 schools in Ed Reform Districts (N=98 in 2016-17) will be effectively served by cross-divisional teams with a common vision for school improvement and consistent messaging 274 TEMPLATE : STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 focused on making improvements to ensure schools are making progress toward exiting Category 4 and 5 status. Resources required: What additional people, time, money, and technology will be needed to implement it? Impact: What is the estimated impact of this strategy on the goal over time? Delivery chain: How and through whom will the strategy reach the field at scale? What are the risks, and how will we manage them? What feedback loops can we set up to track progress? By 2021, all districts with schools identified in Categories 2 and 3 (to be identified in 2017) will receive effective CSDE support focused on making improvements to ensure schools are making progress toward reclassification as Category 1 schools. Human resources from Performance Office to prepare and deliver internal and external training on the Next Generation Accountability System, identification of best practices schools and assistance with revising the Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement. Human resources from various CSDE divisions (Turnaround, Talent, Academics, Special Education, Performance, and Finance) with expertise in specific indicators to serve on CSDE crossdivisional school improvement teams, with more resources needed in Ed Reform districts (For example, Kari Sullivan, chronic absenteeism or JoAnne White, early literacy). Collaborative training and planning time for cross-divisional teams and Turnaround Office consultants CSDE commitment to a common vision for school improvement WebEx Coordinated schedule of all CSDE professional development TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE TO BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE 275 TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Milestones: What are the most important milestones for implementation? Activity SY 16-17 SY 17-18 SY 18-19 SY 19-20 SY 20-21 Revise Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement By June 2016, complete revisions to guide. Distribute guide to all district superintendents and to all leaders of Category 4 and 5 schools. Revise list of best practices schools based on new accountability results as needed and distribute guide to districts and schools. Revise list of best practices schools based on new accountability results as needed and distribute guide to districts and schools. Revise list of best practices schools based on new accountability results as needed and distribute guide to districts and schools. Schedule and prepare training materials for a CSDE cross-divisional training on the Turnaround Office framework and the Next Generation Accountability System. Develop training module for CSDE cross-divisional staff. Deliver CSDE internal cross-divisional training. Update and deliver CSDE internal crossdivisional training, as needed. Update and deliver CSDE internal crossdivisional training, as needed. Update and deliver CSDE internal crossdivisional training, as needed. Survey CSDE staff about expertise in improving accountability indicators. Prepare directory of CSDE staff expertise and distribute to Turnaround Office staff. Develop guide of protocols. Distribute to CSDE crossdivisional school improvement teams. Update CSDE directory of staff expertise. Distribute updates to Turnaround Office. Update CSDE directory of staff expertise. Distribute updates to Turnaround Office. Update CSDE directory of staff expertise. Distribute updates to Turnaround Office. Build a directory of CSDE staff with expertise in improving accountability system indicators. Develop protocols for CSDE cross-divisional teams working with schools and districts 276 Update guide of protocols as needed. Distribute updates to cross-divisional teams. Update guide of protocols as needed. Distribute updates to cross-divisional teams. Update guide of protocols as needed. Distribute updates to cross-divisional teams. TEMPLATE: STRATEGY PROFILE DRAFT 12/6/16 Prepare and conduct Webinar training for school level leaders focused on the Next Generation Accountability indicators and evidence-based interventions and practices to support improvement of each indicator. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities. Develop Webinar training modules for elementary and secondary schools. Conduct Webinar training modules for elementary and secondary schools. Record and post to CSDE Website. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities in SY17-18. Post on CSDE Website. Distribute to schools and districts. Communicate updates of Accountability System through Webinars, Alliance District Symposiums, Netstat Sessions, SDE newsletters, etc. Provide updates as needed. Update SY17-18 CSDE professional development calendar as new opportunities develop. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities in SY18-19. Distribute to schools and districts. Provide updates as needed. 277 Update SY18-19 CSDE professional development calendar as new opportunities develop. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities in SY19-20. Distribute to schools and districts. Provide updates as needed. Update SY19-20 CSDE professional development calendar as new opportunities develop. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities in SY20-21. Distribute to schools and districts. Provide updates as needed. Update SY20-21 CSDE professional development calendar as new opportunities develop. Develop CSDE coordinated calendar of district and school professional development activities in SY21-22. Distribute to schools and districts. Provide updates as needed. Appendix C: Educator Equity Differences in Rates APPENDIX C: EDUCATOR EQUITY DIFFERENCES IN RATES Instructions: If an SEA requests an extension for calculating and reporting student-level educator equity data under 34 C.F.R. § 299.13(d)(3), it must: (1) provide a detailed plan and timeline addressing the steps it will take to calculate and report, as expeditiously as possible but no later than three years from the date it submits its initial consolidated State plan, the data required under 34 C.F.R. § 299.18(c)(3)(i) at the student level and (2) complete the tables below. DIFFERENCES IN RATES CALCULATED USING DATA OTHER THAN STUDENT-LEVEL DATA Table 1: All Schools STUDENT GROUPS Rate at which students are taught by an ineffective teacher Differences between rates Rate at which students are taught by an out-of-field teacher Differences between rates Rate at which students are taught by an inexperienced teacher Low-income students (High Poverty Quartile) Box A: Box E: Box I: To Be Calculated 2.0% 31.9% Non-lowincome students (Low Poverty Quartile) Box B: To Be Calculated 0.5% 18.9% Minority students Box C: Box G: Box K: To Be Calculated 1.8% 32.2% (High Minority Quartile) Non-minority students (Low Minority Quartile) To Be Calculated Differences between rates 12.9% Box F: 1.5% Box J: 12.8% To Be Calculated 1.3% Box D: Box H: Box L: To Be Calculated 0.5% 19.4% 278 If the SEA has defined other optional key terms, it must complete the table below. STUDENT GROUPS Rate at which students are taught by Ineffective Principal Differences between rates Rate at which students are taught by Inexperienced Principal Differences between rates Shortage Area Vacancy Rate (District level data used) Low-income students (High Poverty Quartile) Box A: Box E: Box I: To Be Calculated 53.7% 12.7% Non-lowincome students (Low Poverty Quartile) Box B: To Be Calculated 37.8% 5.6% Minority students Box C: Box G: Box K: To Be Calculated 51.0% 14.6% (High Minority Quartile) Non-minority students (Low Minority Quartile) Box D: To Be Calculated To Be Calculated To Be Calculated Differences between rates 7.0% Box F 15.8% Box J: 6.7% 11.0% Box H: Box L: 40.0% 7.9% DIFFERENCES IN RATES CALCULATED USING DATA OTHER THAN STUDENT-LEVEL DATA Table 2: Schools Assisted under Title I, Part A STUDENT GROUPS Low-income students (High Poverty Quartile) Non-lowincome students (Low Poverty Quartile) Minority students (High Minority Quartile) Non-minority students (Low Minority Quartile) Rate at which students are taught by an ineffective teacher Box A: To Be Calculated Box B: To Be Calculated Differences between rates To Be Calculated Box C: To Be Calculated Box D: To Be Calculated Rate at which students are taught by an out-of-field teacher Box E: 2.1% Box F: 0.5% Differences between rates 1.6% Box G: 1.8% To Be Calculated Rate at which students are taught by an inexperienced teacher Box I: 32.2% Box J: 18.9% 279 13.3% Box K: 32.4% 13.0% 1.3% Box H: 0.5% Differences between rates Box L: 19.4% If the SEA has defined other optional key terms, it must complete the table below. STUDENT GROUPS Low-income students (High Poverty Quartile) Non-lowincome students (Low Poverty Quartile) Minority students (High Minority Quartile) Non-minority students (Low Minority Quartile) Rate at which students are taught by Ineffective Principal Differences between rates Box A: To Be Calculated Box B: To Be Calculated Differences between rates Box E: 53.9% To Be Calculated Box C: To Be Calculated Box D: To Be Calculated Rate at which students are taught by Inexperienced Principal Box F 37.6% Box H: 40.0% 280 Differences between rates Box I: 12.7% 16.3% Box G: 51.1% To Be Calculated Rate at which students are taught by Shortage Area Vacancies (District level data used) Box J: 5.6% 7.0% Box K: 14.6% 11.1% 6.7% Box L: 7.9% CONNECTICUT’S THREE-YEAR PLAN TO IMPLEMENT STUDENT LEVEL EDUCATOR EQUITY CALCULATIONS The CSDE will be utilizing four data sources to develop these metrics and conduct the calculations. They are: 1. Connecticut Educator Certification System (CECS): This is Connecticut’s certification and credentialing system. It contains data on all certified educators (including administrators, classroom teachers, support personnel) in Connecticut. It is the authoritative source for the subject areas and grades an educator is permitted to teach. CECS assigns a unique educator identification number (EIN) for each educator. This is a mature system and has been in existence for over five years. 2. Educator Data System (EDS): EDS is Connecticut’s educator employment system for people occupying roles that require certification. EDS relies on the EIN created in CECS. The data collected about educators includes the district/school/program, grades taught, effective dates, and teaching assignments. It also contains demographic information as well as prior educational background for all educators. The years of experience for an educator is derived from the EDS. The CSDE utilizes EDS and CECS to conduct annual compliance activities relative to teacher certification and to identify educators who may be working out-of-field. This is a relatively new system that has been in place for over two years; it replaced a legacy system that has been in existence for over a decade. 3. Teacher Course Student (TCS): TCS is the data collection system that connects teachers, the courses they teach, and the students in those courses. TCS uses the EIN that is established in CECS. TCS also utilizes standardized NCES-based course codes. It also includes data about course outcome status. TCS was originally launched as a pilot in 2011-12 and has been collecting full-year course data for three years. This data collection is still maturing and districts are only recently beginning to increase their familiarity and knowledge of these data. 4. Public School Information System (PSIS): PSIS is the authoritative source for core student information. It contains basic demographic information (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) as well as programmatic information (e.g., free/reduced price meal eligibility). PSIS is a mature, legacy system. The CSDE recently launched a data warehouse (EdSight) that is beginning to integrate the above listed data sources. However, the data from these systems have never been used in the manner that would be necessary in order for the CSDE to develop high-quality, valid, and reliable, student-level educator equity metrics. In particular, the educator credential/employment data have not been formally linked with the student data and there is very limited validation across those two areas. Therefore, over the next years, the CSDE will work collaboratively with stakeholders to: identify the requisite metrics for student-level educator equity based on the available data; develop the business rules and procedures for all the calculations; create the technical code to implement the calculations; pilot the preliminary results with select districts and make modifications to the procedures and code as necessary; incorporate validations in source system if necessary to improve data quality; develop report specifications and the actual reports to publish the data; 281 provide training and support to districts to interpret the information; and develop and implement an accountability framework for these metrics to drive positive change. A timeline of the activities is presented below: Year 1: 2017-18 Assemble stakeholders Identify metrics Develop business rules Begin technical code development Identify pilot districts Year 2: 2018-19 Finalize first draft of technical code Generate preliminary results Review results with pilot districts Conduct training for districts on the metrics and procedures Make modifications to technical code as necessary Develop report specifications Year 3: 2019-20 Develop report templates and reporting code Test and disseminate reports Provide professional learning opportunities to interpret and use the report Collaborate with stakeholders to establish targets and an accountability framework After Year 3, the CSDE and districts will utilize these reports to monitor progress on the metrics, provide technical support, and identify areas for continuous improvement. All data and reports will occur through CSDE’s data warehouse, EdSight. A recent screenshot of the warehouse public portal is provided below. 282 Appendix D: Supporting All Students CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Title I, Part A Schoolwide Program - Poverty Threshold Waiver Request School Year 2017-18 (district) requests that the 40 percent Title I schoolwide program poverty threshold be waived for (school). (school) has conducted a comprehensive needs assessment to determine the needs of students in the school, especially the school’s lowest-achieving students. The Title I schoolwide program will best serve the needs of the students, including those who would otherwise be eligible for targeted assistance under Title I. Description of the identified needs and how the Title I schoolwide program will address the needs: The following is ensured: 1. A school improvement plan is in place that meets the Title I schoolwide program plan requirements; 2. The school improvement plan is maintained at the local level and is available for state monitoring; and 3. The school improvement plan will be evaluated and revised as necessary by the district to ensure that it is effective in increasing student achievement, particularly for the school’s lowest-achieving students. Superintendent of Schools Date Signed Principal Date Signed 283 As you are likely aware, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to develop consistent entrance and exit criteria for English Learners (EL). We are seeking information regarding which tests you administer for EL identification purposes in order to get a picture of what assessments are most commonly used and at which grade levels. Please complete the very brief survey about these assessments. We have intentionally left the responses open ended, so that you can name the assessment that you use for the grade level/s. We request that the survey is completed by Wednesday, November 30, 2016. Thank you in advance for your assistance. What is your District Survey Completed Name? 11/23/2016 12:23 Amity 11/30/2016 15:05 Andover 11/30/2016 11:18 Ansonia Public Schools 11/30/2016 15:10 ashford What Entrance Assessment is used in Kindergarten? NA Pre-LAS LAS Links Placement Test Second Edition pre las o 11/30/2016 16:16 Avon Pre-LAS 2000 11/30/2016 15:01 Barkhamsted 11/23/2016 20:09 Berlin 12/1/2016 8:24 Bethany 11/28/2016 9:49 Bloomfield 11/30/2016 20:25 Bolton 11/23/2016 12:54 Branford 11/30/2016 14:32 Bridgeport What Entrance Assessment is used in Grade 1? NA LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test Second Edition pre las o LAS Links Placement Test or LAS Links Form A or B LAS Links, DRA, observation, school records and performance, interview with parents LAS Links, observation, school records and performance, interview with parents PreLAS LAS Links LAS Links Placement Assessment-Speaking and Listening LAS Links Placement Test PreLAS LAS Links Initial test: Pre-LAS 2000 or K-1 LAS Placement; If necessary -LAS Links Form A or B Pre-LAS 2000 Pre-LAS LAS Links A or B Pre-LAS Initial LASLinks Placement Test 284 What Entrance Assessment is used in Grades 2-12? LAS LINKS LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test Second Edition las links A/B or C LAS Links Placement Test or LAS Links Form A or B LAS Links,DRA, observation, school records and performance, interview with parents LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test LAS Links LAS Placement tests first edition or LAS Links form A or B if necessary LAS Links A or B Initial LASLinks Placement Test We start with the Home Language Survey followed by a classroom observation then if warranted we move to an oral interview and the Pre-LAS 11/23/2016 12:26 Bristol 11/28/2016 10:53 Brookfield prelas 2000 c & d 11/28/2016 12:01 Brooklyn 11/28/2016 14:19 C.E.S. Pre Las LAS LINKS SOLOM PreLAS Placement Test PreLAS is used for placement District universal screening Grade Level Benchmarks for 11/27/2016 7:59 Colchester Public Schools Literacy 11/28/2016 11:14 Coventry LAS Links 11/23/2016 12:38 Cromwell K-1 Las Links Placement test We start with the Home Language Survey followed by a classroom observation then if warranted we move to an oral interview and the Pre-LAS prelas 2000 c & d Older version of Las Links B This year will be using version C LAS LINKS SOLOM PreLAS Placement Test LSF DRA Writing sample with district rubric 11/23/2016 15:04 Cheshire PreLAS is used for placement District universal screening Grade Level Benchmarks for Literacy LAS Links K-1 Las Links Placement test We start with the Home Language Survey followed by a classroom observation then if warranted we move to an oral interview and the LAS A, B or as of this year C assessment. 2006 (grade bands 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12) Older version of Las Links B This year will be using version C LAS LINKS SOLOM LAS Placement Test SRI Writing sample with district rubric LAS Links is used for placement Grade Level Benchmarks for Literacy We use the LAS Links levels set LAS Links Las Links Placement tests Grades 9-12 LAS Links 11/28/2016 8:13 11/23/2016 12:18 11/30/2016 15:02 11/30/2016 16:02 CTHSS Danbury Darien Public Schools East Haddam LAS Links Forms A or B Pre-Las Links, Forms A, B and C Las Links 285 LAS Links Forms A or B Forms A, B and C Las Links For students who apply for SY 2017-2018 the STAR Reading Assessment is administered. LAS Links Forms A or B Forms A, B and C LAS Links East Hartford Public 11/27/2016 13:24 Schools 11/28/2016 8:44 East Haven 11/30/2016 14:49 East Lyme 11/30/2016 16:31 Ellington 11/27/2016 10:31 ENFIELD Explorations Charter 11/28/2016 10:37 School LAS Links Placement or Pre-LAS PreLAS form C and LAS, form A/B, listening and speaking sections LAS Links LAS Links Placement or Pre-LAS LAS Placement assessment, form A/B LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test and/or Form A or B PreLAS Links LAS Links A LAS Links B Note: These tests are the only option districts have at this point, especially since the CELP Standards have been adopted and there is a need for a language level determination to support any modifications. Both tests are really inappropriate as the K-1 tests were designed to be administered at the end of an academic year. Kindergarten students that are native speakers, with preschool experiences, can not pass these language tests LAS Links A (particularly the Writing LAS LinksB n/a n/a Pre-LAS for the beginning of first grade 11/23/2016 12:53 Glastonbury Pre-LAS 11/23/2016 12:28 Greenwich Pre-Las if under the age of 6; oral LAS Links form A or B; oral interview interview 286 LAS Links Placement or LAS Links B LAS Placement assessment, form A/B LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test and/or Form A or B LAS Links A LAS Links B Sometimes LAS Placement Test n/a LAS Links Form A or B Las Links form A or B for grades 2 -8 Las Links Placement test for grades 9 - 12 11/23/2016 13:06 Griswold 11/29/2016 11:56 Groton 11/29/2016 11:39 Guilford 11/25/2016 15:33 Hamden Public Schools 11/30/2016 15:40 Hartland Integrated DAy Charter 11/23/2016 22:17 School LAS Links Placement test other informal assessments LAS Placement test Las-Links Form C LAS Links Placement test other informal assessments LAS Placement test Las-Links Form C LAS Links Placement Test Second Pre LAS Placement Assessment Edition We currently do not have any ESL We currently do not have any ESL students at Hartland School but students at Hartland School but would be very glad to have a would be very glad to have a screening tool recommended for screening tool recommended for LAS Links Placement test other informal assessments LAS Placement tests Las-Links Form C LAS Links Placement Test Second Edition We currently do not have any ESL students at Hartland School but would be very glad to have a screening tool recommended for LAS LAS LASR Entrance: Pre LAS Links LAS Links off level (Level B) this year- just listening and speaking LASLinks NWEA pre las links N/a LAS Links off level (Level B) this year- just listening and speaking LASLinks NWEA pre las links N/a 11/30/2016 16:24 ISAAC 11/30/2016 16:02 LEARN 11/28/2016 15:30 Lebanon 11/28/2016 8:44 ledyard 11/23/2016 13:01 Litchfield The District has traditionaly used the Las Links. I am hoping to 11/29/2016 15:40 Madison Public Schools transition to the Pre-Las Links. Pre-LAS or LAS Links Placement 11/23/2016 13:48 Manchester Public School Test 11/30/2016 14:58 Marlborough Pre LAS Links 11/30/2016 14:50 Meriden Las LInks LAS Links Placement test Pre LAS Links Pre LAS 2000 is used for Grade one testing is the same as Kindergarten only. We have levels grades two through twelve one through five. testing. 287 Exit : Computer based LAS Links 2-5 - we are an elementary school LASLinks NWEA pre las links LAS-Links The District has traditionally used the Las Links long form, I am hoping to transition to the Las Links Placement Test LAS Links Placement Test or LAS Links Forms (A or B) LAS Links LAS Links Placement Test is used for grades one through twelve. The levels are not proficient, approaching proficient, and 11/23/2016 12:50 Middletown 11/30/2016 14:35 Milford 11/28/2016 8:08 Monroe Public Schools 11/28/2016 8:11 Monroe Public Schools 12/1/2016 6:07 Montville 11/28/2016 12:31 Naugatuck 11/23/2016 12:31 New Britain Pre-LAS The literacy "game" is only for use...we don't identify with this part of the test. Pre-LAS 10 question point value assessment LAS Links form A or B Speaking and Listening only Pre-Las/ LAS Links A or B Las-links placement Las-Link placement under 6 PreLAS 6+ LAS Las Links Placement Test 2nd preLAS Las Links Placement Test 2nd (1) Personal Interview (2)Pre-Las English , oral component (Form C) (3)Gather information on past educational history and record on checklist. (1) Personal Interview Grey area students (Level) (2) LAS-Oral (Form 1C) Pre-Las 2000 English Oral and Pre- (3)Gather information on past Literacy components (Form C) educational history and record on Pre-Las 2000 Spanish Oral and Pre- checklist. Literacy components 288 Grades 2-5= LAS Links form A or B ALL Grades 6-8= LAS Links Placement Test (I just want to see if they qualify for the program... my staff wants to get as much info as they can but this takes up way LAS Links A or B Las-Links placement Las-link placement LAS Las Links Placement Test 2nd (1) Personal Interview (2) LAS-Oral (Form 1C) (3)Gather information on past educational history and record on checklist. Personal interview Pre-LAS English, oral component (Form C) Gather information on past educational history 11/23/2016 12:46 New Britain 11/30/2016 16:26 new canaan 11/30/2016 9:18 New Fairfield Schools 11/28/2016 8:56 11/30/2016 16:36 11/28/2016 11:21 11/29/2016 9:15 New Hartford New Haven New London New Milford Grade 2 Personal Interview LAS Oral English Gather information on past educational history Grey Area (Level 3) LAS Reading/Writing English (Form 1A) LAS Oral Spanish (Form (1B) LAS Reading/Writing Spanish (Form 1A) Grades 3-12 Personal Interview LAS Oral English (Grades 3-6, Form 1C, Grades 7-12 Form 2C) LAS Reading/Writing (Grades 3-6 Form 1A, Grades 4-6 From 2A, Grades 7-12 From 3A) Gather information on past educational history Grey Area Students (Level 3) LAS Oral Spanish (Grades 3-6 Form 1B, Grades 7-12 Form 2C) LAS Reading/Writing Spanish (Grades 3 From 1A, Grades 4-6 Form 2A, Grades 7-12 From 3A) Personal Interview LAS-Oral (Form 1C) Gather information on past Grey Area Students (Level 3) educational history Pre-LAS 2000 English Oral and Pre- Grey Area Students (Level 3) Literacy components (Form C) LAS Oral Spanish (Form 1B) Pre-LAS 2000 Spanish Oral and Pre-LAS 2000 English and Spanish Pre-Literacy components (Form C) Pre-Literacy components (Form C) pre las las links a/b las links a/b LAS Links Placement Tests LAS Links Placement Tests LAS Links Placement Tests LAS Links LAS Links LAS Links Pre-LAS LAS Form 1D LAS Placement Pre-LAS LAS LINKS placement Exam LAS LINKS placement exam Pre-LAS form C or D LAS Links Form A/B LAS Links Form A/B 289 11/28/2016 11:23 Newtown Public Schools 11/23/2016 13:52 Norwalk First, I give an oral interview. If the student doesn't pass, I entify him as EL. If I am still uncertain of his dominant language, I administer the Pre-LAS. I hesitate to give the Pre-LAS to all students, because if the student did not attend preschool, and doesn't know some letters or site words, the pre-LAS will automatically place him as EL, which is not always an accurate placement. Some students are English dominant, but did not attend a nursery school where letters, sight words and numbers are taught. Some native English speakers do not attend preschool. They too, would not pass the PreLAS due to not being taught how to read and write. The pre-LAS LAS A or B LAS A or B July-December: LAS Links Placement Test for grade 1Speaking and Listening only (If student scores a 4 or 5 on Speaking and a 4 or 5 on Listening, then we give the Pre-LAS Literacy July-December: LAS Placement test - student must get a 3) Test for prior grade. January-June: LAS Links January-June - LAS Links Placement Test on grade level. Pre-LAS 290 LAS Links Second Edition Placement Test: Grades K-1 (Speaking and Listening only) 11/23/2016 12:17 Norwich 11/23/2016 12:38 Norwich Free Academy 11/23/2016 14:09 Orange 11/28/2016 9:04 Orange 11/30/2016 15:38 Path Academy 11/29/2016 13:44 Plainfield Plainville Community 11/30/2016 16:10 Schools 11/28/2016 10:31 Plymouth 11/23/2016 14:04 Pomfret 11/30/2016 14:57 11/28/2016 17:08 11/28/2016 13:53 11/23/2016 14:00 Pomfret Putnam Public Schools Region 15 Region 16 N/A Grades 2-3 LAS Links Second Edition Placement Test: Grades 23 Grades 4-5 LAS Links Second Edition Placement Test: Grades 45 Grades 6-8 LAS Links Second Edition Placement Test: Grades 6Grades 9-12: Shining Star Placement Test Las-Links Placement test for new arrivals or those whose English is quickly determined as being beginner level or close to beginner. Las-Links Placement test for new arrivals or those whose English is quickly determined as being beginner level or close to beginner/pre-emergent. Proficient students are re-tested at the end of grade 1 with the full LAS Links Form C or D (depending LAS Links Second Edition Placement Test: Grades K-1 on the year) in all domains. N/A LAS Links Placement Test Las-Links Form C for students who Las-Links Form C for students demonstrate some English who demonstrate some English At Path Academy we use the Connecticut LAS Links Forms A/B for the initial assessments. For the exit criteria, we use the CT LAS Links Forms C/D LAS Links Placement Test LAS Links Placement Test LAS Placement Test (A, B, and C) LAS LAS Placement Test (A, B, and C) LAS LAS Placement Test (A, B, and C) LAS LasLinks LasLinks LAS Links Form A or B LAS-Links A, B, or C Pre-LAS LAS Links Form A or B LAS-Links A, B, or C LAS Links Ballard & Tighe Oral Assessment LAS links PreLAS 2000 Pre-LAS 2000 C and D Pre-LAS 291 11/30/2016 13:15 Regional District 11 11/30/2016 13:16 Regional District 11 11/28/2016 9:15 RSD#10 11/30/2016 17:21 RSD13 11/26/2016 9:59 Shelton 11/28/2016 9:13 Side by Side Charter 11/28/2016 8:42 Somers 11/23/2016 12:01 South Windsor 11/30/2016 15:07 Southington LAS (form not used for annual assessment that year) LAS Links Pre-LAS LAS Links CORE Bedrock Pre-LAS Pre-Las Observation Phonological Screen (in House) Marie Clay Screening Oral Counting Number ID (NIM) Quantity Discrimination (QD) Missing Number Fluency (MN) Math Skills Checklist (In house) Las Links 2016-17 Pre LAS B 2017-2018 Pre LAS C Oral English Proficiency Interview, and Pre-LAS or LAS K-1 LAS Links SLP screening tools observational data benchmarks- reading and math 11/28/2016 10:02 Stafford Stamford Charter School 11/30/2016 14:49 for Excellence LAS Links 11/29/2016 10:42 Stonington preLas 292 CORE F+P LAS Placement Las Links forms A/B Observation LAS Links, STAR Assessments LAS (form not used for annual assessment that year) LAS Links F+P DRP LAS Placement Las Links forms A/B Observation LAS LINKS SLP screening benchmarks observational data benchmarks-reading and math Fontas and Pinell (F&P) MAP: Reading Common Core ELA/Math Las Links 2016-2017 LAS B 2017-2018 LAS C LAS, Oral English Proficiency Interview LAS Links SLP screening tools benchmarks observational data benchmarks-reading and math SBAC scores LAS Links LAS Links Placement K-1 LAS Links Placement 4-5, 6-8, 9- Fontas and Pinell (F&P) MAP: Primary Grades ELA/Math Las Links 2016-2017 LAS B 2017-2018 LAS C LAS, Oral English Proficiency Interview 11/23/2016 12:20 11/28/2016 14:41 11/23/2016 15:11 11/28/2016 6:26 Stratford Tolland Trailblazer academy Trailblazers Academy 11/30/2016 15:13 Trumbull 11/28/2016 6:13 Vernon 11/28/2016 7:08 Wallingford LAS (Pre-LAS being explored/ considered) Six and under = Pre LAS Pre-LAS Pre-LAS Intake Interview Pre-LAS 200 forms C&D Pre-LAS 2000 forms C and/or D. We use this for those students entering K or arriving during the K year. We do not use the academic part (although we screen for letter/number identification, counting, and colors for our own information, but do not factor it into the score). The LAS Links K-1 test is too academic and we feel that our English-speaking students would most likely PreLAS 11/23/2016 13:33 Waterbury Public Schools Pre-LAS Test 11/30/2016 16:13 Watertown Pre-Las 11/23/2016 12:21 West Hartford PreLAS 11/28/2016 8:47 West Hartford Intake Interview K-1 LAS Links placement test occasionally LAS Oral or pre-las LAS 7 and older LAS Links Form B Star reading, math, sbac 8-Jun Intake Interview Gr. 2-3, Gr. 4-5, Gr. 6-8, Gr. 9 -12 LAS Links placement test LAS Links form A & B if needed We use a combination of an informal conversational interview, screening of letters, numbers, colors, and the LAS Links placement test (formulated to match the Form A/B long form). We follow the recommendations on the placement test that if they score at a certain level, the long form is then administered. LAS Links We use an informal conversational interview and the LAS Links placement test - either the one formulated for the Form A/B if there are still copies available or the newer placement test formulated for the C long firm version. LAS Links The LAS Links Placement Test Pre-Las PreLAS Pre-LAS prior to January, LAS C after that. Pre-LAS 293 The LAS Links Placement Test Las Links LAS Links MAC II 11/28/2016 9:37 West Haven 11/28/2016 12:38 Westbrook 11/30/2016 14:33 Weston 11/28/2016 8:41 Wethersfield 11/27/2016 10:56 Wilton 12/1/2016 8:25 Wilton 11/28/2016 8:50 Winchester 11/29/2016 9:00 Winchester 11/23/2016 12:04 Windham 11/30/2016 9:10 Windsor Locks English Proficiency Interview Form PRELAS GRADES 2-6 English Proficiency Interview Form LAS ORAL 1 LAS READING & WRITING I (grades 2-3) LAS READING & WRITING II (grades 4-6) English Proficiency Interview Form LAS ORAL 1 GRADES 7-12 LAS Links Interview Writing assessment in native language (Spanish) LAS Links LAS Links Reading assessment in native Interview Interview language (Spanish) A language survey, interview with A language survey, interview with A language survey, interview family, & LASLinks family, & LASLinks with family, & LASLinks Sept/Jan/May Starting Jan and May Early Literacy STAR early literacy sight words sentence dictation DRA Star Reading Sentence dictation DRA DRA sight words district writing assessment district writing assessment LAS Links Placement test LAS Links Placement test LAS Links Placement test LAS Links Placement test LAS Links Placement test LAS Links Placement test Las links placement test K-1 Las links placement test and/or and/or Las links Form A or B las links Form A or B Pre-las LAS Links Placement Test for Kindergarten-Grade 1 and/or LAS Links Form A or B LAS Links Placement Test and/or Pre-LAS LAS Links Form A or B Pre-LAS in English and Spanish LAS LInks A/B LAS LInks A/B PreLas LAS Links Forms A or B LAS Links Forms A or B 294 11/29/2016 8:49 Windsor Public Schools 11/28/2016 13:39 Wolcott LAS Links PreLAS 11/23/2016 12:09 Woodbridge 295 LAS Links LAS Links Form A or B Entrance: LAS Links Placement Assessment/Test LAS Links LAS Links Form A or B Entrance: LAS Links Placement Assessment/Test Exit: LAS Links Exit: LAS Links CAPELL Update December 2, 2016 Megan Alubicki Flick, ESL/Bilingual Consultant Joe Di Garbo, ESL/Bilingual Consultant Michael Sabados, Education Consultant www.ct.gov/sde/EnglishLearne rs 1. Home Language Survey Materials Identification of English Learners Training Video Home Language Survey Guidelines 2. Connecticut English Language Proficiency (CELP) Standards The 2015-16 CELP Training Materials are available on the English Learners’ webpage CELP Video Trainings for Educators and Administrators 3. Bilingual Extension Form Request for Extension of Transitional Bilingual Services Beyond 30 Months [PDF] [DOC] 4. Title III ESSA Guidance from ED US Education Department published on November 29, 2016 the final regulations for the accountability provisions under the Every Student Succeeds Act. 5. State Mandated Exit Criteria The Exit Criteria for English Learners document posted on the Connecticut State Department of Education describes the English Learner Exit Criteria beginning in the 2014-15 school year. For students to exit EL services, the student must reach the state mandated requirements of a LAS Links Overall Score of 4 or 5 and Reading and Writing of a Score of 4 or higher. 6. English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS Links The testing window for LAS Links Form D is from January 3 to March 10, 2017. Accommodations In-Person Training ACES, Dec 14 and 15, Registration LAS Links Online Webinar for District IT Staff Register: 296 Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Accommodation Webinar: December 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Registration Coming Soon LAS Links Online Resources (Digital Library) 7. ESSA Survey This survey is designed to gather feedback from interested members of the public regarding key policy questions concerning Connecticut’s transition to the new federal law and enable us to better understand your priorities. Connecticut ESSA Stakeholder Survey Encuesta sobre la Ley Cada Estudiante Triunfa de Connecticut 297 8. ESSA Feedback Entrance Criteria includes a Home Language Survey and an ELP Assessment From the final regulations (page 283): Under proposed § 299.19(c)(3), an SEA’s standardized entrance and exit procedures must include valid, reliable, and objective criteria that are applied consistently across the State. We agree that it is important for an SEA to consistently apply both entrance and exit criteria and that the criteria that an SEA selects, in addition to results on an SEA’s ELP assessment, must be narrowly defined such that they can be consistently applied in LEAs across the State. However, we believe that final § 299.19(b)(4) sufficiently ensures these parameters around entrance and exit criteria. 298 Appendix E: Information Regarding Equitable Access to, and Participation in, the Programs Included in its Consolidated State Plan The Connecticut State Department of Education adheres to Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA). In carrying out its educational mission, the Connecticut State Department of Education will ensure to the fullest extent possible equitable access to, participation in, and appropriate educational opportunities for individuals served. Federally funded activities, programs, and services will be accessible to all teachers, students and program beneficiaries. The CSDE ensures equal access and participation to all persons regardless of their race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, citizenship status, disability, gender or sexual orientation in its education programs, services, and/or activities. For state-level activities as well as all other activities supported by federal assistance through our electronic grant application, CSDE will fully enforce all federal and state laws and regulations designed to ensure equitable access to all program beneficiaries and to overcome barriers to equitable participation. The CSDE will hold LEAs accountable for ensuring equal access and providing reasonable and appropriate accommodations to meet the needs of a diverse group of students, staff, community members and other participants. Steps taken to ensure equitable access may include, but are not limited to; developing and administering a pre-participation survey to all potential participants in order to identify special accommodation needs (i.e., wheelchair access, assistive technology, transportation assistance); holding program related sessions/activities in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible and compliant facilities; printing materials in multiple languages; offering multi-lingual services for participants and others as needed and appropriate; responsiveness to cultural differences; fostering a positive school climate through restorative practices; conducting outreach efforts and target marketing to those not likely to participate; making program materials available in braille or via audiotapes; providing assistive technology devices to translate/make accessible grant and program materials for participants requiring such accommodations; using technologies to convey content of program materials; using materials that include strategies for addressing the needs of all participants; pre-program gender and cultural awareness training for participants; 299 development and/or acquisition and dissemination of culturally relevant and sensitive curriculum and informational materials; use of transportation services that include handicapped accommodations; transportation vouchers or other forms of assistance, on an as needed basis, to members (including teachers, students and families) who must use public transportation to attend program activities. 300