Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act U.S. Department of Education Issued: March 2017 OMB Number: 1810-0576 Expiration Date: September 30, 2017 Introduction Section 8302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)1, requires the Secretary to establish procedures and criteria under which, after consultation with the Governor, a State educational agency (SEA) may submit a consolidated State plan designed to simplify the application requirements and reduce burden for SEAs. ESEA section 8302 also requires the Secretary to establish the descriptions, information, assurances, and other material required to be included in a consolidated State plan. Even though an SEA submits only the required information in its consolidated State plan, an SEA must still meet all ESEA requirements for each included program. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA may, but is not required to, include supplemental information such as its overall vision for improving outcomes for all students and its efforts to consult with and engage stakeholders when developing its consolidated State plan. Completing and Submitting a Consolidated State Plan Each SEA must address all of the requirements identified below for the programs that it chooses to include in its consolidated State plan. An SEA must use this template or a format that includes the required elements and that the State has developed working with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Each SEA must submit to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) its consolidated State plan by one of the following two deadlines of the SEA’s choice:  April 3, 2017; or  September 18, 2017. Any plan that is received after April 3, but on or before September 18, 2017, will be considered to be submitted on September 18, 2017. In order to ensure transparency consistent with ESEA section 1111(a)(5), the Department intends to post each State plan on the Department’s website. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the ESEA refer to the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. ii Alternative Template If an SEA does not use this template, it must: 1) Include the information on the Cover Sheet; 2) Include a table of contents or guide that clearly indicates where the SEA has addressed each requirement in its consolidated State plan; 3) Indicate that the SEA worked through CCSSO in developing its own template; and 4) Include 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 Appendix B. Individual Program State Plan An SEA may submit an individual program State plan that meets all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for any program that it chooses not to include in a consolidated State plan. If an SEA intends to submit an individual program plan for any program, the SEA must submit the individual program plan by one of the dates above, in concert with its consolidated State plan, if applicable. Consultation Under ESEA section 8540, each SEA must consult in a timely and meaningful manner with the Governor, or appropriate officials from the Governor’s office, including during the development and prior to submission of its consolidated State plan to the Department. A Governor shall have 30 days prior to the SEA submitting the consolidated State plan to the Secretary to sign the consolidated State plan. If the Governor has not signed the plan within 30 days of delivery by the SEA, the SEA shall submit the plan to the Department without such signature. Assurances In order to receive fiscal year (FY) 2017 ESEA funds on July 1, 2017, for the programs that may be included in a consolidated State plan, and consistent with ESEA section 8302, each SEA must also submit a comprehensive set of assurances to the Department at a date and time established by the Secretary. In the near future, the Department will publish an information collection request that details these assurances. For Further Information: If you have any questions, please contact your Program Officer at OSS.[State]@ed.gov (e.g., OSS.Alabama@ed.gov). iii Cover Page Contact Information and Signatures SEA Contact (Name and Position): Patty Norman Deputy Superintendent Telephone: 801-538-7515 Mailing Address: Utah State Board of Education 250 E 500 S PO Box 144200 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4200 Email Address: patty.norman@schools.utah.gov By signing this document, I assure that: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information and data included in this plan are true and correct. The SEA will submit a comprehensive set of assurances at a date and time established by the Secretary, including the assurances in ESEA section 8304. Consistent with ESEA section 8302(b)(3), the SEA will meet the requirements of ESEA sections 1117 and 8501 regarding the participation of private school children and teachers. Authorized SEA Representative (Printed Name) Mark Huntsman Board Chair Telephone: 801-538-7517 Signature of Authorized SEA Representative Date: February 14, 2018 Governor (Printed Name) Gary Herbert Governor of Utah Date SEA provided plan to the Governor under ESEA section 8540: August 11, 2017 Signature of Governor Date: iv 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 wishes to receive funds under the program(s), it must submit individual program plans for those programs that meet all statutory and regulatory 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 that the SEA includes in its consolidated State plan: □ Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies □ Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children □ Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk □ Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction □ Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement □ Title IV, Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants □ Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers □ Title V, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program □ Title VII, Subpart B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program (McKinney-Vento Act) Instructions Each SEA must provide descriptions and other information that address each requirement listed below for the programs included in its consolidated State plan. Consistent with ESEA section 8302, the Secretary has determined that the following requirements are absolutely necessary for consideration of a consolidated State plan. An SEA may add descriptions or other information, but may not omit any of the required descriptions or information for each included program. v Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................ii Completing and Submitting a Consolidated State Plan ...................................................................ii Alternative Template ..................................................................................................................iii Individual Program State Plan.....................................................................................................iii Consultation ................................................................................................................................iii Assurances ..................................................................................................................................iii Cover Page ......................................................................................................................................iv Contact Information and Signatures...........................................................................................iv Programs Included in the Consolidated State Plan .........................................................................v Instructions ......................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................vi Table of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................ viii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) ... 6 1. Challenging State Academic Standards and Assessments (ESEA section 1111(b)(1) and (2) and 34 CFR §§200.1−200.8.) ............................................................................................... 6 2. Eighth Grade Math Exception (ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C) and 34 CFR §200.5(b)(4)): ..... 6 3. Native Language Assessments (ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(F) and 34 CFR §200.6(f)(2)(ii)) and (f)(4): ............................................................................................................................ 7 4. Statewide Accountability System and School Support and Improvement Activities (ESEA section 1111(c) and (d)): ................................................................................................... 11 5. Disproportionate Rates of Access to Educators (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B)).................. 49 6. School Conditions (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(C))................................................................ 53 7. School Transitions (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(D)). .............................................................. 55 B. Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children .................................................................... 57 1. Supporting Needs of Migratory Children (ESEA section 1304(b)(1)) ................................ 57 2. Promote Coordination of Services (ESEA section 1304(b)(3)) .......................................... 61 3. Use of Funds (ESEA section 1304(b)(4)) ............................................................................ 61 C. Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk........................................................................................ 63 1. Transitions Between Correctional Facilities and Local Programs (ESEA section 1414(a)(1)(B)) .................................................................................................................... 63 vi 2. D. Program Objectives and Outcomes (ESEA section 1414(a)(2)(A)) .................................... 66 Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction ................................................................... 72 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(A) and (D)) .......................................................... 72 2. Use of Funds to Improve Equitable Access to Teachers in Title II, Part A Schools (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(E)) ....................................................................................................... 75 3. System of Certification and Licensing (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(B)) ................................. 76 4. Improving Skills of Educators (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(J)) .............................................. 76 5. Data and Consultation (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(K)) ........................................................ 77 6. Teacher Preparation (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(M)). ........................................................ 78 E. Title III, Part A, Subpart I: English Language Acquisition and Enhancement ........................ 80 1. Entrance and Exit Procedures (ESEA section 3113(b)(2)). ................................................ 80 2. SEA Support for English Learner Progress (ESEA section 3113(b)(6)) .............................. 85 3. Monitoring and Technical Assistance (ESEA section 3113(b)(8))...................................... 90 F. Title IV, Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants.................................... 94 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 4103(c)(2)(A)) ....................................................................... 94 2. Awarding Subgrants (ESEA section 4103(c)(2)(B)). ........................................................... 95 Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers ............................................... 100 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 4203(a)(2)) .......................................................................... 100 2. Awarding Subgrants (ESEA section 4203(a)(4)) .............................................................. 100 G. H. Title V, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program .................................... 105 1. Outcomes and Objectives (ESEA section 5223(b)(1)) ..................................................... 105 2. Technical Assistance (ESEA section 5223(b)(3)) .............................................................. 105 I. Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subtitle B ..................................................................................... 107 1. Student Identification (722(g)(1)(B) of the McKinney-Vento Act) ................................. 107 2. Dispute Resolution (722(g)(1)I of the McKinney-Vento Act) .......................................... 107 3. Support for School Personnel (722(g)(1)(D) of the McKinney-Vento Act) ..................... 108 4. Access to Services (722(g)(1)(F) of the McKinney-Vento Act) ........................................ 108 5. Strategies to Address Other Problems (722(g)(1)(H) of the McKinney-Vento Act) ........ 110 6. Policies to Remove Barriers (722(g)(1)(I) of the McKinney-Vento Act) .......................... 111 7. Assistance from Counselors (722)(g)(1)(K) ..................................................................... 112 Appendix A: Measurements of interim progress........................................................................ 114 A. Academic Achievement................................................................................................... 114 B. Graduation Rates ............................................................................................................ 116 vii C. Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency ....................................................... 118 Appendix B: Notice to Applicants ............................................................................................... 119 Notice to All Applicants........................................................................................................... 119 Table of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Native Languages Spoken by Participating (Tested) Students ....................................... 7 Exhibit 2: Percent of Participating Student Population whose Native Language is Spanish by Grade Level ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 3: English Language Arts Proficiency Goal by Student Group (Grades 3–10)................... 15 Exhibit 4: Mathematics Proficiency Goal by Student Group (Grades 3–10) ................................ 16 Exhibit 5: Utah’s Graduation Rate Goal by Student Group .......................................................... 18 Exhibit 6: Indexing of points for student growth indicator ......................................................... 23 Exhibit 7: Estimation of Point Distribution for Science Achievement (2015–16) ......................... 27 Exhibit 8: Estimation of Points Distribution for Readiness Coursework Metric for Utah High Schools (2015–2016) ..................................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 9: Estimation of Points Distribution for ACT metric (2015–2016) .................................... 29 Exhibit 10: Evidence of meaningfully differentiating schools performance through state’s accountability system (estimation using 2016 performance data) .............................................. 32 Exhibit 11: Weighting of Indicators............................................................................................... 38 Exhibit 12: Identifying Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools................................ 42 Exhibit 13: Rates of Access to Educators (2015) ........................................................................... 50 Exhibit 14: Secure Care Programming, School and Transition Outcomes. ................................... 68 Exhibit 15: Accountability Report—Program Activity and Outcomes .......................................... 69 Exhibit 16: Multi-Agency Statewide Transition Alignment Form ................................................. 71 Exhibit 17: Long-Term Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency ................ 86 Exhibit 18: Sample of Utah’s Progress Report .............................................................................. 87 Exhibit 19: Goals Based on WIDA Performance Definitions ......................................................... 87 Exhibit 20: Examples of Exceptions for Recently Arrived English Learners .................................. 89 Exhibit 21: English Language Arts ............................................................................................... 114 Exhibit 22: Mathematics ............................................................................................................. 115 Exhibit 23: Graduation Rates ...................................................................................................... 116 Exhibit 24: English Language Proficiency .................................................................................... 118 viii Executive Summary Overview The State of Utah has long been involved with continually improving its public schools—seeing that each student succeeds. Not only is success vital for each student, it is vital to the future of Utah as a whole. For this reason, many have been involved with this improvement process: the Governor’s Office, the State Legislature, Utah’s businesses large and small, non-governmental agencies and organizations (including state and local Parent Teacher Associations), and the public education community. The Utah State Board of Education has been at the forefront of this effort. The Board created its strategic plan, known as Education Elevated, with the help of its governing partners at the state and federal level as well as higher education, school districts and charter schools. Most importantly, school administrators, classroom teachers, counselors, and paraprofessionals also played a part in the strategic plan. The Board’s strategic plan focuses on three areas to create the greatest impact on student success. They are:  Education equity.  Quality learning.  System values. The Utah State Board of Education is pleased that the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) aligns with the existing tenants of Utah’s strategic plan for public education and that there is sufficient flexibility offered to Utah to use ESSA funding to achieve education equity, improve quality learning, and advance system values. More succinctly, ESSA funding will help Utah improve educational outcomes for its students. Much of Utah’s proposed uses for ESSA funding will focus on our top goal, education equity. ESSA funding is a vital component of improving equity for low-income students (Title I, Part A), migrant students (Title I, Part C), neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students (Title I, Part D), English language learner students (Title III), rural students (Title V), and homeless students (Title VII). Students who have come from disadvantaged circumstances did not begin life’s race at the same starting line as their more advantaged peers. ESSA funding uses, as outlined in this plan, can help Utah make a difference in serving these students to see that they get equitable resources for better success in life. Together, Utah’s strategic plan for education and ESSA come together to support better systems to produce better education for Utah’s public school students. Student success is not just vital in the classroom, it is vital for their—and our—future lives. 1 Highlights Title I Part A: School Accountability and School Improvement Purpose: To provide financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.  The ESSA State Plan provides Utah the opportunity to promote our existing strategic planning efforts to set ambitious long-term goals aiming to ensure each student graduates from high school prepared for success.  The school accountability system described in Utah’s ESSA State Plan is representative of a broad and concerted effort to align Utah’s system of accountability for schools into a single, coherent system.  During the 2016–2017 school year, approximately $90 million was provided to 326 Utah public schools to provide needed services to student populations who are at risk to assist them in meeting state-defined academic standards. Title I Part C: Education of Migratory Children Purpose: Identify the academic needs and barriers to achievement and provide supplemental supports so that highly mobile students whose families work in agriculture can achieve at the same level of proficiency as their fellow students and graduate from high school.  The first charge of the Migrant Education Program is to identify and recruit all eligible migratory students in the state.  During the 2016–2017 school year, USBE provided services to 20 districts and over 1,000 students.  Utah (lead State) has successfully won a competitive Migrant Education Consortium Incentive Grant since 1995. The current online system (http://www.migrantliteracynet.com) provides screening assessments, lessons, and system-guided student tutorials, which allow teachers to archive and track student progress regarding discrete reading skills.  Utah has participated in collaboration with the Interstate Migrant Education Council (IMEC) to provide a national symposium and subsequent white paper to address declining numbers of migratory families in the United States. The national symposium is titled “A National Symposium: ‘The ABC’s of Education: Moving Forward Under ESSA to Engage the Agriculture, Business, and Education Communities’ 2017” and will be held on October 19–20, 2017. Multiple education, business, political, and government agencies are involved as collaborative stakeholders. A subsequent white paper will be produced. 2 Title I Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk Purpose: Prevent youth who are at-risk from dropping out of school, provide those who have dropped out a system of support to continue their education, and provide services to youth who are transitioning from institutionalization to further schooling or employment.  During the 2016–2017 school year 1,379 programs were served and over 421 certificates were earned.  Supported regularly by stakeholder input, interagency (Department of Juvenile Justice System/DHS) collaboration, and external consultation, Neglected and Delinquent services complement the state Youth in Custody program and provide innovative leadership in areas such as short-term, certified, market-sensitive programs for incarcerated youth to increase their employability opportunities.  Neglected and Delinquent heuristic inter-agency collaboration specifics have reduced redundancies, increased productivity, and reduced aligned costs among state agencies and local school districts.  The federal Neglected and Delinquent program, in its original design, is not perfectly suited for Utah. Therefore, USBE obtained a federal statutory waiver to some of federal regulations in order to increase the relevancy of the law to meet the needs of Utah students. Title II Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction Purpose: Increase the academic achievement of all students by helping schools and districts improve teacher and principal quality.  Two new features included are support for teacher leaders and principals and revisions to USBE licensure policies and practices.  Additionally, the Title IIA plan supports the Board’s imperative of Educational Equity by supporting the existence of an effective teacher in every classroom. Title III Part A Subpart I: English Language Acquisition and Enhancement Purpose: Provide supplemental funding to increase students annual growth towards English Language Proficiency.  During the 2016–2017 school year, 37,010 students who are English Learners were served.  Individually specialized reports will provide an overview of what students can do at all levels of English Language Proficiency, with individualized targets for annual growth so teachers can better meet the instructional needs of each student. 3  A four-year monitoring plan for exited students now includes annual conferences with families and school teams to ensure increased access to challenging academic courses for post-secondary and career success. Title IV Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants Purpose: Provide a well-rounded education for all students, including all previous “core” areas and areas such as writing, engineering, music, technology, computer science, career and technical education, health, and physical education.  Improve school conditions for student learning, including student health and safety.  Improve the use of technology in order to improve academic achievement and digital literacy. Title IV Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers Purpose: Provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including tutorial services, to help students in high-poverty areas and those who attend low-performing schools meet state and local student performance standards in core academic subjects such as reading and mathematics.  Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities such as youth development activities; drug and violence prevention programs; counseling programs; art, music, recreation programs; and technology education programs; that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program.  Utah currently has over 100 individual school or community learning centers sites, serving over 25,000 participating students statewide.  Offer families of students served by community learning centers opportunities for literacy and related educational development. Title V Part B Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program Purpose: Help rural districts improve services for students attending rural schools serving high numbers of students living in poverty in order to meet the State’s academic standards.  During the 2016–2017 school year, 753 students received these additional services.  The flexibility of use of these funds assists rural districts in providing services where they are most needed.  Three districts were awarded this grant in FY16: South Sanpete, Grand, and San Juan. 4 Title VII Subpart B: Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Purpose: Serves to meet student academic needs and helps create educational stability for a student in a homeless situation.  During the 2016–2017 school year, 13,006 students were served in 10 LEAs. The total number of students eligible for funds was 16,563.  This funding source is the only statewide program serving the academic needs of homeless students.  Under ESSA, there is a stronger tie to working with community partners to ensure that we serve all the needs of homeless children and youth in a way that was not previously systemic.  USBE works very closely with Lt Gov. Spencer Cox in the Governor’s homeless coordinating committee, as well as with various other county and city homeless coordinating councils, to ensure that homeless students receive the proper supports for their future success. 5 A. Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 1. Challenging State Academic Standards and Assessments (ESEA section 1111(b)(1) and (2) and 34 CFR §§200.1−200.8.)2 2. Eighth Grade Math Exception (ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C) and 34 CFR §200.5(b)(4)): i. Does the State administer an end-of-course mathematics assessment to meet the requirements under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the ESEA?  Yes □ No ii. If a State responds “yes” to question 2(i), does the State wish to exempt an eighthgrade student who takes the high school mathematics course associated with the end-of-course assessment from the mathematics assessment typically administered in eighth grade under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa) of the ESEA and ensure that: a. The student instead takes the end-of-course mathematics assessment the State administers to high school students under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the ESEA; b. The student’s performance on the high school assessment is used in the year in which the student takes the assessment for purposes of measuring academic achievement under section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i) of the ESEA and participation in assessments under section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA; c. In high school: 1. The student takes a State-administered end-of-course assessment or nationally recognized high school academic assessment as defined in 34 CFR § 200.3(d) in mathematics that is more advanced than the assessment the State administers under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the ESEA; 2. The State provides for appropriate accommodations consistent with 34 CFR § 200.6(b) and (f); and 3. The student’s performance on the more advanced mathematics assessment is used for purposes of measuring academic achievement under section 2 The Secretary anticipates collecting relevant information consistent with the assessment peer review process in 34 CFR § 200.2(d). An SEA need not submit any information regarding challenging State academic standards and assessments at this time. 6 1111(c)(4)(B)(i) of the ESEA and participation in assessments under section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA.  Yes □ X No iii. If a State responds “yes” to question 2(ii), consistent with 34 CFR §200.5(b)(4), describe, with regard to this exception, its strategies to provide all students in the State the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics coursework in middle school. N/A Utah has worked to eliminate tracking in middle school, and has adopted an integrated approach to mathematics in K–12. All students in Utah have access to the rigorous standards of the Utah Core Standards for Mathematics at or above grade level. Students may work through the standards of each grade level either with their grade or in advance of their grade, so that all students are prepared for Secondary Math I by the ninth grade. It is this trajectory that results in high numbers of students taking Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Concurrent Enrollment coursework in eleventh and twelfth grades. 4.3. Native Language Assessments (ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(F) and 34 CFR §200.6(f)(2)(ii)) and (f)(4): i. Provide its 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. Utah defines “languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population” as any native language other than English spoken by five percent or more of the participating student population statewide (i.e., students enrolled in grades for which a statewide assessment is administered). Spanish is the only native language spoken by more than five percent of the participating student population. See Exhibit 1 for data on the five most common native languages spoken by participating students. Exhibit 1: Native Languages Spoken by Participating (Tested) Students Native Language English Spanish Navajo Vietnamese Arabic Participating Students Grades 3–12 (N=435,713) 90.10% 8.06% 0.25% 0.13% 0.11% Source: UTREx year-end submissions, Fall 2016 Data In addition to examining the native language data statewide, we also examined the data by local educational agency (LEA) to determine whether there are a significant number of LEAs 7 with more than five percent of their student population speaking a language other than Spanish. We found that just two LEAs have over five percent of their English learners speaking a language other than Spanish. Specifically, 25 percent (747 of 2,968) of San Juan School District’s students speak Navajo and 19 percent (41 of 215) of Utah International Charter School’s students speak Somali. Lastly, we examined the native language data by grade level for the grade levels in which a statewide assessment is administered. While Spanish is the only native language that exceeds the five percent threshold at the state level, the percent of students whose native language is Spanish only exceeds the five percent threshold in grades 3–5. See Exhibit 2 for the percent of the participating student population whose native language is Spanish by grade level. Exhibit 2: Percent of Participating Student Population whose Native Language is Spanish by Grade Level Grade Level Spanish (%) 3 9.5% 4 9.2% 5 7.9% 6 4.2% 7 4.5% 8 4.1% 9 3.9% 10 3.4% 11 3.2% 12 2.5% Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 ii. Identify any existing assessments in languages other than English, and specify for which grades and content areas those assessments are available. Utah does not currently administer any assessments in languages other than English. However, Utah’s Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) has an on-demand Spanish glossary translation for every subject. The SAGE is currently administered to students in grades 3–10. In addition, the SAGE is administered in braille and American Sign Language to address the needs of students with visual and hearing impairments. 8 iii. Indicate the languages identified in question 3(i) for which yearly student academic assessments are not available and are needed. Spanish is the language for which yearly student academic assessments are not available and may be needed, at least in grades 3–5, because it is a language other than English that is present to a significant extent in the participating student population. iv. Describe how it 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 including by providing: a. The State’s plan and timeline for developing such assessments, including a description of how it met the requirements of 34 CFR § 200.6(f)(4); b. 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 c. As applicable, an explanation of the reasons the State has not been able to complete the development of such assessments despite making every effort. Plan and timeline for developing assessments in languages other than English Grades 3–8. USBE has begun exploring the feasibility and development of assessments in Spanish, especially in grades 3–5, which are grades that meet the five percent threshold for native languages that are present to a significant extent in the student population (see Exhibit 2). The Spanish language versions of the SAGE assessments could involve both the translation and adaptation (i.e., transadaptation) of test items originally written in the source language and the replacement of items unfit for translation with items written in the target language (i.e., Spanish). In developing assessments in other languages, USBE will engage in a thoughtful process to produce valid results that are comparable to results for the English versions. Utah will make every effort to ensure that English learners are assessed in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on their knowledge and mastery of skills in academic content areas. Given that Utah presents all content in grades K–12 in English, with the exception of a few small programs, the ability of English learners to read and write in their native language, in addition to speaking their native language, must be considered. As with any assessment, USBE will include appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities in accordance with 34 CFR §200.6(f)(4) for the inclusion of all students with disabilities in all assessments. ACT is administered to all students in grade 11. According to the ACT website, the company will begin providing supports on the ACT to students who are English learners starting in the fall of 2017. The goal of the supports is to help ensure that the ACT scores earned by English learners accurately reflect what they have learned in school. Qualifying students who receive the 9 supports will earn college-reportable ACT scores. According to ACT, the supports for qualified English learners will include the following:  Additional time on the test (not to exceed time-and-a-half);  Use of an approved word-to-word bilingual glossary (containing no word definitions);  Test instructions provided in the student’s native language (including Spanish and a limited number of other languages initially); and  Testing in a non-distracting environment (i.e., in a separate room). According to the ACT website, the supports will be limited to students who meet the current definitions of an English learner under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Students must apply for the English learner supports through their high school counselors’ office. Process used to gather meaningful input on the need for assessments in languages other than English. As described in Section E of this document, the Title III ESSA Workgroup conducted a survey about the key features of ESSA, especially the accountability for English language acquisition. 85 percent (845 of 994) of the respondents agreed that developing assessments in languages other than English is a priority. Respondents to the survey included a wide range of stakeholders from every region of Utah, including both community-based organizations, government and business representation, secondary and elementary teachers, 143 parents, 132 teachers of English learners, and 185 school and LEA administrators. USBE will continue to gather stakeholder input on the development of assessments in languages other than English from USBE’s Technical Advisory Committee and Assessment and Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.3 Reasons the State has not been able to complete development of assessments in languages other than English. As a single state provider for the assessment in grades 3–8, Utah is presented with unique financial and technical assistance barriers regarding developing assessments in other languages. The 27 adaptive SAGE assessments have been under a rigorous development schedule since their 2014 inception. Currently, direct translation of these adaptive items into another language only partially captures the cognitive complexity of the item, and further exploration of best practices and forward looking trends in this area will be integral to developing successful transadaptations of assessments that will yield valid and reliable results. 3 Utah State Board Of Education Resolution No. 2016-2. Resolution Establishing The Assessment And Accountability Policy Advisory Committee. Retrieved from https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/750929c5c2a5-4e09-87e4-9d7ca10e4b76. 10 5.4. Statewide Accountability System and School Support and Improvement Activities (ESEA section 1111(c) and (d)): i. Subgroups (ESEA section 1111(c)(2)): a. List each major racial and ethnic group the State includes as a subgroup of students, consistent with ESEA section 1111(c)(2)(B). Utah’s accountability system disaggregates performance by the following major racial and ethnic groups: American Indian, African American, White, Pacific Islander, Asian, Hispanic, and Multiracial students). b. If applicable, describe any additional subgroups of students other than the statutorily required subgroups (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English learners) used in the Statewide accountability system. Utah includes no additional student groups beyond statutorily required student groups in its statewide accountability system. c. Does the State intend to include in the English learner subgroup the results of students previously identified as English learners on the State assessments required under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) for purposes of State accountability (ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(B))? Note that a student’s results may be included in the English learner subgroup for not more than four years after the student ceases to be identified as an English learner.  Yes □ No d. 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  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. Utah will assess recently arrived English learners in English language arts and mathematics beginning in their first year of enrollment. The exception Utah has selected under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii) allows a state, for the purposes of accountability, to: 1) Exclude recently arrived English learners from proficiency and growth calculations in the accountability system in first year of enrollment; 11 2) Include recently arrived English learners in growth calculations in second year of enrollment, and 3) Include recently arrived English learners in growth and proficiency calculations in the third year of enrollment and thereafter. ii. Minimum N-Size (ESEA section 1111(c)(3)(A)): a. Provide the minimum number of students that the State determines are necessary to be included to carry out the requirements of any provisions under Title I, Part A of the ESEA that require disaggregation of information by each subgroup of students for accountability purposes. Utah will continue to implement the practice, described in the Utah State Board of Education’s (USBE) Accountability Technical Manual, of using an n-size of 10 as the minimum number of students necessary to be included in an all-students group or individual student groups for accountability purposes. b. Describe how the minimum number of students is statistically sound. Utah plans to use an n-size of 10 for performance to ensure maximum student group visibility while protecting student privacy and maintaining reliability. The National Center for Educational Statistics indicates that a minimum n-size of 10 is acceptable when applying a population perspective to statistical soundness.4 As of 2010, the most common minimum n-size among states is a minimum n-size of 10.5 c. Describe how the minimum number of students was determined by the State, including how the State collaborated with teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders when determining such minimum number. USBE determined the minimum n-size by convening stakeholder groups (including educators, principals, and parents) to consider the tradeoffs between inclusion, privacy, and statistical soundness. USBE explored minimum n-sizes of 10 to 30. If USBE were to use a minimum n-size of 30, the number of indicators and student groups that could be reported on drops from 33 percent (using a minimum n-size of 10) to 25 percent. Ultimately, stakeholder groups and USBE selected a minimum n-size of 10 to maximize the number of schools and student groups included in accountability determinations and reporting while maintaining statistical soundness and protecting student privacy. 4 National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, December). SLDS Technical Brief. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011603.pdf. 5 Ibid. 12 d. Describe how the State ensures that the minimum number is sufficient to not reveal any personally identifiable information. Utah recognizes that protecting the privacy of students and their personally-identifiable information is of the utmost importance. Utah ensures the minimum number is sufficient to not reveal any personally-identifiable information by using a system of primary and complementary controls to protect the information. As defined by the National Center for Education Statistics, primary suppression “refers to the process of withholding data values in public reporting data that do not meet the threshold rule—in other words, removing data to protect the identity of individual students.6 Complementary suppression is used to prevent the reconstruction of the missing count or percentage by, for example, summing the counts in unsuppressed categories and subtracting that amount from the total. The primary and complementary controls that USBE applies to ensure student data privacy are described below. Primary controls 1) Underlying counts for group or student group totals are not reported. 2) If a reporting group has one or more groups with 10 or fewer students, the results of the group(s) with 10 or fewer students are recoded as “N<10” Complementary controls: 1) For groups with 300 or more students, apply the following suppression rules: a. Values of 99% to 100% are recoded to ≥99% b. Values of 0% to 1% are recoded to ≤1% 2) For groups with 100 or more than but less than 300 students, apply the following suppression rules: a. Values of 98% to 100% are recoded to ≥98% b. Values of 0% to 2% are recoded to ≤2% 3) For groups with 41 or more but less than 100 students, apply the following suppression rules: a. Values of 95% to 100% are recoded to ≥95% b. Values of 0% to 5% are recoded to ≤5% 6 National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Best Practices for Determining Subgroup Size in Accountability Systems While Protecting Personally Identifiable Student Information. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017147.pdf. 13 4) For groups with 21 or more but less than 40 students, apply the following suppression rules: a. Values of 90% to 100% are recoded to ≥90% b. Values of 0% to 10% are recoded to ≤10% 5) Recode the percentage in all remaining categories in all groups into intervals as follows (11–19,20–29, . . . 80–89) a. For groups with 11 or more but less than 20 students, apply the following suppression rules: i. Values of 80% to 100% are recoded to ≥80% i. Values of 0% to 20% are recoded to ≤20% ii. Recode the percentage in all remaining categories in all groups into intervals as follows (21–29,30–39, . . . 70–79) USBE will also ensure that personally identifiable information is protected by conducting a quality control check of the accountability reports, with data and privacy experts, prior to public release. e. If the State’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting is lower than the minimum number of students for accountability purposes, provide the State’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting. Utah’s minimum number of students for reporting is the same as the minimum number of students for accountability. iii. Establishment of Long-Term Goals (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A)): a. Academic Achievement. (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)(aa)) 1. Describe the long-term goals for improved academic achievement, as measured by proficiency on the annual statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments, for all students and for each subgroup of students, including: (i) baseline data; (ii) the timeline for meeting the longterm goals, for which the term must be the same multi-year length of time for all students and for each subgroup of students in the State; and (iii) how the long- term goals are ambitious. Utah has engaged with the Governor and the Legislature to set long-term goals for education in Utah. Utah’s long-term goals, described in USBE’s strategic plan and other joint strategic planning efforts, are a reflection of our expectations of excellence for each student and equity in educational outcomes. The goals are ambitious and they will require us to stretch beyond what we would predict based on current trends. We believe we can achieve these ambitious 14 goals if we make changes to current practice and implement strategies for improving student outcomes. Grades 3–8. Utah’s academic achievement goal for grades 3–8 is to cut by one-third the deficit between 100 percent and the state’s proficiency rate for all students and student groups by 2022. Utah’s English language arts proficiency rate in 2016 was 46 percent (rounded), which represents a proficiency deficit of 54 percent. Cutting the proficiency deficit by one-third would mean reaching a proficiency rate of 64 percent by 2022. Utah’s mathematics proficiency rate in 2016 was 489 percent (rounded), which represents a proficiency deficit of 521 percent. Cutting the proficiency deficit by one-third would mean reaching a mathematics proficiency rate of 656 percent by 2022. Utah’s long-term goals for science are not described in this document because ESSA does not require states to set long-term goals for improved academic achievement in science. Utah is incorporating the long-term goals for science into USBE’s strategic plan. See Exhibits 3 and 4 for the baseline and long-term English language arts and mathematics goals for grades 3–8 for all student groups (rates are extended to one decimal point for increased accuracy and transparency). Exhibit 3: English Language Arts Proficiency Goal by Student Group (Grades 3–810) All students 46.145.7 Long-term Goal (2022) (%) 64.163.8 Economically disadvantaged students 30.630.2 53.753.4 Students with disabilities 13.912.3 42.641.6 English learners 12.511.4 41.741.0 African American/Black 24.423.7 49.649.1 Asian 53.352.9 68.968.6 Hispanic/Latino 25.224.8 50.149.8 American Indian/Alaska Native 20.819.8 47.246.5 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 48.948.3 66.065.5 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 28.027.2 52.051.5 White 51.651.1 67.767.4 Student Group Baselineᵃ (2016) (%) ᵃ Extended to one decimal point. Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 15 Exhibit 4: Mathematics Proficiency Goal by Student Group (Grades 3–810) All students 49.448.2 Long-term Goal (2022) (%) 66.265.4 Economically disadvantaged students 33.832.3 55.954.9 Students with disabilities 18.816.9 45.944.6 English learners 16.615.1 44.443.3 African American/Black 24.522.6 49.748.4 Asian 57.456.7 71.671.1 Hispanic/Latino 26.324.7 50.849.8 American Indian/Alaska Native 21.720.1 47.846.7 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 49.548.4 66.365.6 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 29.927.9 53.352.0 White 55.554.3 70.369.5 Student Group Baselineb (2016) (%) b Extended to one decimal point. Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Cutting the proficiency deficit by one-third for all students and student groups by 2022 is ambitious. Based on 2015–2016 school year student performance on the English language arts assessment, a school with a 64 percent proficiency rate is in the 92nd percentile of schools. Therefore, to achieve our long-term goal for English language arts of 64 percent proficiency by 2022, we will need to increase our proficiency rate as a state to the level of performance that the school at the 92nd percentile is currently achieving. Or, put another way, 92 percent of schools will need to improve to achieve this goal whereas 8 percent of schools have demonstrated that this level of performance is possible. To achieve our long-term goal for mathematics of 656 percent proficiency by 2022, we will need to increase our proficiency rate as a state to the level of performance that the school at the 89th percentile is currently achieving. Strategic planning efforts in the state, including USBE’s Strategic Plan, will provide a theory of action to this end. High School Utah’s academic achievement goal for high schools is to cut by one-third the deficit between 100 percent and the percent of students achieving a composite score of at least 18 on the ACT by 2022. A composite score of 18 on the ACT was selected because it is recognized as the minimum score required for entrance by most two-year colleges or four-year universities. The current percent of students taking the ACT who achieve a composite score of at least 18 is 65 percent (rounded), which represents a deficit of 35 percent. Cutting the deficit by one-third would mean reaching a rate of 77 percent (rounded) by 2022. 16 See Exhibit 5 for the baseline and long-term goals for all student groups (rates are extended to one decimal point for increased accuracy and transparency). Exhibit 5: ACT Goal by Student Group (Percent Achieving at least an 18 Composite Score) All students 65.4 Long-term Goal (2022) (%) 76.8 Economically disadvantaged students 43.9 62.6 Students with disabilities 14.1 42.7 English learners 7.7 38.5 African American/Black 36.9 57.9 Asian 68.2 78.8 Hispanic/Latino 37.7 58.5 American Indian/Alaska Native 29.2 52.8 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 37.7 58.5 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 45.3 63.5 White 71.8 81.2 Student Group Baselinea (2016) (%) a Extended to one decimal point. Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Cutting the deficit between 100 percent and the percent of students achieving a composite score of at least 18 on the ACT by one-third for all students and student groups by 2022 is ambitious. Based on 2015–2016 school year student performance on the ACT, a school with 77 percent of the school’s students achieving a composite score of at least 18 was in the 85th percentile of schools. Therefore, to achieve our long-term goal for ACT of 77 percent of students achieving a composite score of at least 18 by 2022, we will need to increase our rate as a state to the level of performance that the school at the 85th percentile is currently achieving. Put another way, 85 percent of schools will need to improve to achieve this goal whereas 15 percent of schools have demonstrated that this level of performance is possible. Strategic planning efforts in the state, including USBE’s Strategic Plan, will provide a theory of action to this end. 58.2. Provide the measurements of interim progress toward meeting the long-term goals for academic achievement in Appendix A. 59.3. Describe how the long-term goals and measurements of interim progress toward the long- term goals for academic achievement take into account the improvement necessary to make significant progress in closing statewide proficiency gaps. 17 Cutting the deficit between 100 percent and the current rate by one-third for all students and student groups sets the same goal for all students but requires greater rates of improvement for student groups that reach proficiency at lower rates. For example, the deficit for English language arts proficiency between the all students group (46 percent proficient) and those students in the economically disadvantaged student group (301 percent proficient) was 164 percentage points in the 2015–2016 school year. If each group were to cut their proficiency deficit by one-third in six years, the resulting gap between the all-students group (64 percent proficient) and the economically-disadvantaged group (534 percent proficient) would then be 110 percentage points (one-third of the current gap). b. Graduation Rate. (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)(bb)) 1. Describe the long-term goals for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for all students and for each subgroup of students, including: (i) baseline data; (ii) the timeline for meeting the long-term goals, for which the term must be the same multi-year length of time for all students and for each subgroup of students in the State; and (iii) how the long-term goals are ambitious. Utah’s graduation rate goal is to cut by one-third the graduation deficit between 100 percent and the state’s graduation rate for all students and student groups by 2022. Utah’s graduation rate for the 2016 school year was 85 percent (rounded), which represents a graduation deficit of 15 percent (rounded). Cutting the graduation deficit by one-third would mean reaching a graduation rate of 90 percent by 2022. To reach a graduation rate of 90 percent, we will need to increase our graduation rate by approximately .8 percentage points each year. That is an increase of approximately 350 additional graduates each year. When this goal is reached, approximately 2,100 more students will have graduated. See Exhibit 6 for the baseline and long-term goals for graduation for all student groups (rates are extended to one decimal point for increased accuracy and transparency). Exhibit 5: Utah’s Graduation Rate Goal by Student Group All students 85.2 Long-term Goal (2022) (%) 90.1 Economically disadvantaged students 75.6 83.7 Students with disabilities 70.2 80.1 English learners 65.7 77.1 African American/Black 74.1 82.7 Asian 89.7 93.1 Hispanic/Latino 75.1 83.4 American Indian/Alaska Native 71.4 80.9 Student Group Baselinea (2016) (%) 18 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 81.5 Long-term Goal (2022) (%) 87.7 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 84.6 89.7 White 87.9 91.9 Student Group Baselinea (2016) (%) ᵃ Extended to one decimal point. Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 This goal is ambitious. If Utah were to achieve a state graduation rate of 90 percent, it would place Utah’s graduation rate in the top 5th percentile of states compared with 2015 nationwide state graduation rates. Moreover, current nationwide graduation trends show a slowing in the increase of graduation rates.7 If Utah were to follow this national trend, the 2022 graduation rate would be predicted to be in the range of 85.5 to 88.5 percent. Achieving a graduation rate of 90 percent will require USBE and local educational agencies to implement changes and initiatives that would increase the percentage of graduates above the current trajectory. Strategic planning efforts in the state, including USBE’s Strategic Plan, will provide a theory of action to this end. 2. If applicable, describe the long-term goals for each extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, including (i) baseline data; (ii) the timeline for meeting the long-term goals, for which the term must be the same multiyear length of time for all students and for each subgroup of students in the State; (iii) how the long-term goals are ambitious; and (iv) how the longterm goals are more rigorous than the long-term goal set for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. Several ESSA stakeholder working groups, including the Students with Disabilities Working Group, Accountability Working Group, and English Learner Working Group, recommended setting long-term goals for extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates. Those goals are not described here as ESSA does not require states to set long-term goals for extended-year cohort graduation rates. Extended-year graduation rate goals will be incorporated into USBE’s strategic plan if the Board chooses to establish them. 3. Provide the measurements of interim progress toward the long-term goals for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate in Appendix A. 4. Describe how the long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year 7 U.S. Department of Education. (2016, September). Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, by race/ethnicity and selected demographics for the United States, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2014-15.asp. 19 adjusted cohort graduation rate take into account the improvement necessary to make significant progress in closing statewide graduation rate gaps. Cutting the graduation deficit by one-third for all students and student groups sets the same goal for all students but requires greater rates of improvement for student groups that graduate from high school at lower rates. For example, the gap between the all-students group (approximately 85 percent graduation rate) and those students in the economically disadvantaged student group (approximately 76 percent graduation rate) was 9 percentage points in the 2015–2016 school year. If each group were to cut their graduation deficit by onethird in six years, the resulting gap between the all-students group (90 percent graduation rate) and the economically-disadvantaged group (84 percent graduation rate) would then be 6 percentage points (one-third of the current gap). c. English Language Proficiency. (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A)(ii)) 1. Describe the long-term goals for English learners for increases in the percentage of such students making progress in achieving English language proficiency, as measured by the statewide English language proficiency assessment including: (i) baseline data; (ii) the State- determined timeline for such students to achieve English language proficiency; and (iii) how the long-term goals are ambitious. Utah’s long-term English language proficiency goal is to increase the percentage of students who are making adequate progress toward English language proficiency to the level of performance of a school who is currently performing at the 75th percentile by 2022. Adequate progress toward English language proficiency is measured according to performance on the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) ACCESS for ELLs assessment and is defined as either achieving a score that is .4 proficiency levels higher than the previous year’s score or achieving a proficiency level of 5 or greater. Currently, 57 percent of elementary/middle school students (grades 3–8) are making adequate progress toward English language proficiency. In contrast, the current percentage of high school students (grades 9–12) making adequate progress toward English language proficiency is 31 percent. The long-term goal for elementary/middle schools is 73 percent. The long-term goal for high schools is 40 percent. Utah has set separate long-term goals for elementary/middle schools and high schools for two main reasons. First, the baseline for high schools is much lower than the baseline for elementary/middle schools and we are striving to set ambitious yet reasonable goals. Additionally, the state’s accountability system distinguishes these two types of schools. The state-determined timeline for students achieving English language proficiency is 5 to 7 years with 3 years as an ambitious goal for becoming English proficient, as determined by the WIDA. This timeline is based on multiple variables such as literacy in the first language, level of English proficiency at time of enrollment, interrupted formal education, and grade level. 20 2. Provide the measurements of interim progress toward the long-term goal for increases in the percentage of English learners making progress in achieving English language proficiency in Appendix A. See Appendix A. iv. Indicators (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(B)) a. Academic Achievement Indicator. Describe the Academic Achievement indicator, including a description of how the indicator (i) is based on the longterm goals; (ii) is measured by proficiency on the annual Statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments; (iii) annually measures academic achievement for all students and separately for each subgroup of students; and (iv) at the State’s discretion, for each public high school in the State, includes a measure of student growth, as measured by the annual Statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. Consistent with Utah’s long-term goals, Utah measures academic achievement according to proficiency on the state’s annual English language arts and mathematics assessments. Utah’s Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) is currently administered to students in grades 3 through 10 to measure academic achievement in the areas of English language arts and mathematics. Beginning in 2017–2018, in accordance with State law, the State will:  Continue to administer SAGE to students grades 3 through 8 (UCA Sections 53A-1-604);  Administer an assessment that is predictive of a student’s success on the ACT to students in grades 9 and 10 (UCA Section 53A-1-611.5); and  Administer the ACT to students in grade 11 (UCA Sections 53A-1-611). The achievement indicator will measure proficiency on the statewide assessments in English Language Arts and mathematics for students in grades 3–10 and will include all students and student groups who take the assessment. The achievement indicator measures a school’s performance against a certain standard of performance at one point in time. This indicator evaluates the performance of a school’s students relative to a certain standard of proficiency. In accordance with state law, points are allocated for this indicator in proportion to the percentage of students who score proficient or above on a statewide assessment (UCA Section 53E-5-20753A-1-1108, as in effect November 1, 2017). Proficiency levels for the SAGE assessment were established through a rigorous standard-setting process involving educators and stakeholders that represent the diversity of the state. For each public high school in the State, Utah includes a measure of student growth, as measured by annual statewide assessments using the same method as the Other Academic Indicator for non-high schools, described in Section A.4.iv.b of this document. 21 b. Indicator for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools that are Not High Schools (Other Academic Indicator). Describe the Other Academic indicator, including how it annually measures the performance for all students and separately for each subgroup of students. If the Other Academic indicator is not a measure of student growth, the description must include a demonstration that the indicator is a valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance. As the Other Academic Indicator, for elementary schools and secondary schools that are not high schools, Utah will continue the practice of including student growth in the state accountability system for all schools. As opposed to the proficiency measure described above, the student growth indicator measures a school’s performance against the amount of students’ academic progress between two points in time. This recognizes a school’s success in producing sizable performance gains with their students and encouraging schools to distribute their effort more broadly across the entire student body. To balance transparency and validity/reliability, and in accordance with state law, points will be indexed for this indicator based on:  Whether a student’s performance on statewide assessment is equal to or exceeds the student’s growth target; and  The amount of growth students make on a statewide assessment compared to their academic peers (UCA Section 53 2017E-5-207). The methodology for determining whether a student’s performance on a statewide assessment is equal to or exceeds the student’s growth target is the Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP) methodology. The AGP methodology involves setting targets toward proficiency for each student and a timeframe to reach those targets. Utah will calculate an AGP for each student based on a three-year timeline for students to catch up (i.e., reach academic proficiency) or keep up (i.e., maintain academic proficiency). AGP is converted to a student growth target (SGT), equivalent to a scale score on a statewide assessment, for reporting and to improve the ease of interpretation by educators, parents, and students. The methodology for determining the amount of growth students make on a statewide assessment compared to their academic peers is the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) methodology. The SGP describes how typical or atypical a student’s growth is by examining the students’ current achievement relative to the students’ academic peers—those students who had similar performance on statewide assessments in the previous year.8 This score is reported as a percentile on a scale from 1–99. 8 Betebenner, D.W. (2011). A technical overview of the student growth percentile methodology: student growth percentiles and percentile growth projections/trajectories. Retrieved from http://www.nj.gov/education/njsmart/performance/SGP_Technical_Overview.pdf. 22 Points for growth are indexed as outlined in Exhibit X. Exhibit 6: Indexing of points for student growth indicator Student SGP Student Met AGP Point Index Student Did not Meet AGP Point Index >65 1.00 .75 50-65 .75 .50 40-49 .50 .25 <40 .25 0 As is current practice, Utah’s Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) will be used to calculate growth for grades 4 through 108. Student performance on the growth indicator can be disaggregated and reported for each student group to the extent that 10 or more students in each student group participate in the assessment. Growth of the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive greater weight in the calculation of the growth indicator. Specifically, growth for students in of the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive a weight of 1.65 in the growth indicator. X for grades 3-8 and 1.X for high schools. d. Graduation Rate. Describe the Graduation Rate indicator, including a description of (i) how the indicator is based on the long-term goals; (ii) how the indicator annually measures graduation rate for all students and separately for each subgroup of students; (iii) how the indicator is based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; (iv) if the State, at its discretion, also includes one or more extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates, how the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is combined with that rate or rates within the indicator; and (v) if applicable, how the State includes in its four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates students with the most significant cognitive disabilities assessed using an alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(D) and awarded a State-defined alternate diploma under ESEA section 8101(23) and (25). Consistent with Utah’s long-term goals, Utah includes the four-year cohort graduation rate in the state’s accountability system. Our long-term graduation goal is to increase our graduation rate from 85 percent to 90 percent by 2022. By including graduation rates as an indicator in the accountability system, schools will be encouraged to increase their graduation rates. This in 23 turn will help to increase Utah’s overall graduation rate and thus to reach its long-term graduation goal, which is based on the same calculation method. Utah’s accountability system incorporates graduation rate for high schools as an indicator of student postsecondary readiness. Points are awarded in proportion to the percentage of students who graduate within four years. To recognize a school’s success in graduating students in five years, in accordance with state law, up to 10 percent of the points allocated for high school graduation (2.5 out of 25 points) may be awarded to a school for the school’s five-year cohort graduation rate.9 A school may not earn more than the total number of points possible for the graduation rate indicator. (4 year graduation rate % x 22.5) + (5 year graduation rate % x 2.5) In cases where the 5-year graduation rate is greater than the 4-year graduation rate, the additional 10% of points will be awarded for the 5-year graduation. The purpose of including 5year graduation rate in the accountability system is to incentivize schools to graduate student in their 5th year and not penalize them due to student factors such as mobility. Therefore, in cases where the 5-year rate is less than the 4-year rate, only the 4-year adjusted cohort rate will be used to calculate the percentage of 25 total points possible awarded for graduation. Graduation rates for each public high school in the state are calculated annually using the standard federal 4-year and 5-year adjusted cohort guidelines and up to 10% of the total points possible for the 5-year adjusted cohort rate when the 5-year adjusted cohort rate is greater than the 4-year adjusted cohort rate. . Using the a combination of the federal 4-year and 5year adjusted rate definitions for adjusted rate keeps the graduation rates consistent from year to year as well as from school to school.Using the federal four-year adjusted rate keeps the graduation rates consistent from year to year as well as from school to school. This ensures the reliability of the graduation rate. Validity is achieved through Board rules that outline the minimum standards for a student to be considered a graduate (Section R277-700). Graduation rates can be disaggregated for each student group to the extent that 10 or more students in each student group participate in the assessment. Calculations are consistent for all high schools throughout the state. Schools report final graduation rates for a given cohort in October of the following school year. For this reason, this indicator acts as a delayed or lagged indicator, and the graduation rate assigned for any given year is determined by the graduation rate from the prior year. For example, the accountability report for the 2017–2018 school year will reflect the graduation rate from the 2016–2017 school year. 9 State law authorizes USBE to award up to 10 percent of the points allocated for high school graduation to a school for the five-year cohort graduation rate (UCA Section 53E-5-20753A-1-1108, as in effect November 1, 2017). 24 e.c. Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency (ELP) Indicator. Describe the Progress in Achieving ELP indicator, including the State’s definition of ELP, as measured by the State ELP assessment. Utah’s accountability system includes progress in achieving English language proficiency (ELP) as an indicator across all schools in the state with at least 10 English learners consistent with the state-determined minimum n-size. Utah defines ELP as earning a proficiency level of five as measured by the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment, which is administered annually to all English learners in the state. This assessment measures academic language development in the domains of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In accordance with state law, points within the state accountability system for this indicator will be awarded to schools proportional to the percentage of students who make adequate progress toward ELP as measured by the WIDA ACCESS for ELLsS assessment (UCA Section 53E5-207, as in effect November 1, 2017). Consistent with Utah’s long-term goals for ELP described in Section 4.iii.c., adequate progress toward ELP is defined as either achieving a score that is .4 proficiency levels higher than the previous year’s score or achieving a proficiency level of 5 or greater. The methodology for determining the percentage of students who make adequate progress toward ELP is to:  Step 1—Determine the denominator by identifying for each school the number of English learners: with prior year and current year academic English assessment scores in the form of WIDA proficiency levels; and whose prior year score was below 5.0 (and were therefore not already considered fluent); and  Step 2—Determine the numerator by identifying for each school the number of students identified under Step 1 who attained: a current year score that is at least 0.4 proficiency levels higher than their prior year score; or at least a 5.0 proficiency level. f.d. School Quality or Student Success Indicator(s). Describe each School Quality or Student Success Indicator, including, for each such indicator: (i) how it allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance; (ii) that it is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide (for the grade span(s) to which it applies); and (iii) of how each such indicator annually measures performance for all students and separately for each subgroup of students. For any School Quality or Student Success indicator that does not apply to all grade spans, the description must include the grade spans to which it does apply. In addition to the school quality indicators described here, state law also provides schools the opportunity to select other indicators local communities value. to Such indicators will be highlighted on the school’s report card but not factored into accountability system calculations (UCA Section 53E-5-21153A-1-1112, as in effect November 1, 2017). School Quality and Student Success Equitable Educational Opportunity: Utah’s accountability system includes an equitable educational opportunity indicator as measured by growth of the lowest-performing 25 percent 25 of students in a school, according to scores on statewide assessments from the previous school year. Growth is calculated using the SGP methodology described in Section A.4.iv.b of this document. In accordance with state law, points will be allocated to a school based on how much student achievement increased as compared to other students with similar prior assessment scores (UCA Section 53A-1-1108 as in effect November 1, 2017). Although the lowest-performing 25 percent of students are included in the growth indicator described in Section A.4.iv.b of this document, growth among the lowest-performing students is included as a separate indicator to emphasize the importance of improving the performance of the school’s lowest-performing students. This indicator recognizes that even if a school is doing fairly well overall, there are likely students who would benefit from additional attention/interventions to perform comparably to their peers. Conversely, it allows poorerperforming schools to focus first (not exclusively) on those students most at risk for school failure and not dilute their efforts by trying to focus everywhere at once. Indicator allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance. The equitable educational opportunity indicator meaningfully differentiates schools by demonstrating varied results across schools in the system. Modeling the distribution of points earned for this indicator among elementary and middle schools indicates that school performance on this indicator ranges from 5 out of 25 points to 25 out of 25 points and does not simply represent a constant within the system (see Exhibit 7). Exhibit 7: Estimation of Point Distribution for Lowest Quartile Growth for Elementary and Middle Schools (2015–16) Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Indicator is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide. The equitable educational opportunity indicator is a valid and reliable measure of the learning gains of a student who is lowperforming compared to other students in a school. The equity indicator is comparable and statewide because all schools that enroll students in any of grades 4 through 11 have a student population who scored in the bottom 25 percent the previous school year. Other methods for defining low-performing, such as defining the group based on below proficient performance, do not apply to all schools in a uniform way because the percentage of students scoring below proficient varies widely among schools. 26 Indicator annually measures performance for all students and separately for each student group. The equitable educational opportunity indicator measures performance for all students to which the indicator applies and can be measured separately for each student group. Science Achievement Indicator and Growth: Utah’s accountability system includes science achievement and growth as measured by statewide assessments of science as an indicator of student success for all schools. For this indicator, points are awarded for science achievement proportional to the percentage of students who score proficient or above on annual state administered science assessments. This indicator is assigned a maximum weight of 18X points for all students, or a weight of or 12ercent percent for elementary and middle schools and 8 percent for high schools in the overall accountability system (See Section A.4.v.a) Science Growth Indicator: Utah’s accountability system includes growth as measured by statewide assessments of science as an indicator of student success for all schools. Points are awarded for growth in science assessments using the same method described in Section A.4.iv.b Other Academic Indicator for Non-High Schools. The indicator is assigned a weight of 18 points or 12X percent in the overall accountability system. (See Section A.4.v.a) Science Growth for all students willof the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive greater weight in the calculation of the science growth indicator. Specifically, growth of the lowest 25% in a school will receive an additional weight of .65 for grades 3-8 and .65 for high schools. Science Achievement and Growth Indicators allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance: The Science Achievement and Science Growth Iindicators isare applied to all schools in the state and is weighted equally to performance on English language arts and mathematics assessments. The Sscience Aachievement and Science Ggrowth Iindicators meaningfully differentiates schools by demonstrating varied results across schools in the system. Exhibit 7: Estimation of Point Distribution for Science Achievement and Growth (2015–16) Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Indicators is are valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide: Theis science achievement and science growth indicators isare applicable to all schools with students in any of grades 4 through 10 in the state. The same method for calculating achievement and growth in English language arts and mathematics is applied to the science achievement and growth indicator, described in section A.4.iv.b ensuring the indicator is valid and reliable. 27 Indicators annually measures performance for all students and separately for each student group: The science achievement indicator and science growth indicator measures performance for all students to which the indicators applyies and can be measured separately for each student group. Postsecondary Readiness: Utah’s accountability system includes a postsecondary readiness indicator as measured by readiness coursework completion, and ACT performance, and graduation rates, which is described in Section A.4.iv.c. The postsecondary readiness indicator is included to promote preparation for the transition from high school to the multiple pathways after graduation. Points are allocated for the readiness coursework metric in proportion to the percentage of students who complete at least one of the following:  A “C” grade or better in an Advanced Placement course;  A “C” grade or better in an International Baccalaureate course;  A “C” grade or better in a concurrent enrollment course; or  A career and technical education pathway. Points are allocated for the ACT metric in proportion to the percentage of students who achieve a composite score of 18 or higher. Indicator allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance. The postsecondary readiness indicator meaningfully differentiates schools by demonstrating varied results across schools in the system. Modeling the distribution of points earned for the readiness coursework metric show that schools’ performance on the readiness coursework metric ranges from 1.3 out of 25 to 25 out of 25 and does not simply represent a constant within the system (see Exhibit 9). 28 Exhibit 8: Estimation of Points Distribution for Readiness Coursework Metric for Utah High Schools (2015–2016) Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Similarly, modeling the distribution of points earned for the ACT metric show that schools’ performance on the ACT metric ranges from 2.5 out of 25 to 25 out of 25 and does not simply represent a constant within the system (see Exhibit 10). Exhibit 9: Estimation of Points Distribution for ACT metric (2015–2016) Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Indicator is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide. The postsecondary readiness indicator, including the ACT and readiness coursework metrics, is a valid measure of postsecondary readiness. A composite score of 18 on the ACT is a valid measure of college readiness because a composite score of 18 is recognized as the minimum score required for entrance by most twoyear colleges or four-year universities. Also, research indicates that students who took AP courses performed better academically in their first year in college and had higher probabilities of graduating college within 5 years when compared with students who did not take AP 29 courses.10 Research also indicates that students who take occupation-specific vocational courses for at least one-sixth of their courses in high school earned approximately 12 percent more one year after graduating from high school compared to those students who took less or no occupation-specific courses. This was found true for both students who did and did not pursue post-secondary education.11 This indicator is reliable as coursework data and ACT performance is reported to the state. This allows the state to validate and audit the data for consistency. Moreover, the state calculates the indicator the same for each school allowing for uniformity from school to school. The ACT is administered statewide, so the indicator is applicable for each high school with at least the minimum n-size of students. Indicator annually measures performance for all students and separately for each student group. The postsecondary readiness indicator measures performance for all students and can be measured separately for each student group. The readiness coursework metric is calculated using a cohort that has graduated to ensure that students included in the calculation have had four years of high school to complete the readiness coursework. As a result, the readiness coursework metric is lagged one year, similar to the graduation indicator. The ACT metric is also lagged to align with the readiness coursework metric and graduation metric. v. Annual Meaningful Differentiation (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(C)) a. Describe the State’s system of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools in the State, consistent with the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA, including a description of (i) how the system is based on all indicators in the State’s accountability system, (ii) for all students and for each subgroup of students. Note that each state must comply with the requirements in 1111(c)(5) of the ESEA with respect to accountability for charter schools. USBE will meaningfully differentiate all schools, including charter schools, using all the indicators in the State’s accountability system. Student performance on each of the indicators is aggregated at the school and district levels to determine school performance on each indicator. 10 Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006, February). The Relationship Between Advanced Placement and College Graduation. National Center for Educational Accountability. Retrieved from MSPnet. Ewing, M., & Howell, J. (2015). Is the Relationship Between AP Participation and Academic Performance Really Meaningful? Retrieved from research.collegeboard.org. Morgan, R., & Ramist, L. (1998). Advanced Placement Students in College: An investigation of Course Grades at 21 Colleges. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. 11 Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (2004). The impacts of career-technical education on high school labor market success. Economics of Education Review, 23, 381–402. 30 Each indicator is then multiplied by its appropriate weighting, then all indicators are added to determine a total. As part of the statewide school accountability system, in accordance with state law, the state assigns grades to schools (on an A to F scale) at both the elementary and secondary levels (UCA Section 53E-5-20453A-1-1105, as in effect November 1, 2017). The grade is based on the school’s total score across the indicators described in state law and Section A.4.iv of this document. The system was revised during the 2017 general legislative session (2017 General Session SB 220) and will go into effect for the 2017–2018 school year, although USBE is not required to assign letter grades until the 2018–2019 school year. In accordance with state law, USBE engaged in a criteria/standard setting process to establish the performance thresholds or cut scores for assigning letter grades (UCA 53A-1-1113.5). Over 50 stakeholders were involved in the process to establish a system for assigning a school a letter grade based on evaluating the school’s performance against specific criteria, as opposed to normative approaches reflecting how many schools policymakers believe should be eligible for each rating category. The criterion-based approach to establishing cut scores will enable the state to avoid changing the cut scores on a regular basis as school performance improves, which is critical to our stakeholders. The Board approved the recommendations resulting from the standard setting process at its August 2017 Board meeting.12 The criterion-based approach to establishing cut scores will enable the state to avoid changing the cut scores on a regular basis as school performance improves, which is critical to our stakeholders. We illustrate the revised system for elementary and middle schools in Exhibit 11 using 2016 performance data. The results demonstrate that schools are normally distributed (skewness = −.09; kurtosis = .25) with respect to their total scores. This suggests that the state’s accountability system produces not only meaningful but readily interpretable differentiation among schools. 12 The cut scores for each rating category are published on USBE’s website here: https://schools.utah.gov/File/66bb93b3-0019-4316-8f37-8b502203db59. 31 Exhibit 10: Evidence of meaningfully differentiating schools performance through state’s accountability system (estimation using 2016 performance data) Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 b. Describe the weighting of each indicator in the State’s system of annual meaningful differentiation, including how the Academic Achievement, Other Academic, Graduation Rate, and Progress in ELP indicators each receive substantial weight individually and, in the aggregate, much greater weight than the School Quality or Student Success indicator(s), in the aggregate. Utah assigns substantial weight to each indicator in its statewide school accountability system. The weightings described here are consistent with state law (UCA Title 53E53A, Chapter 51, Part 211, School Accountability System, as in effect November 1, 2017). Academic Achievement. As described in Section A.4.iv.a of this document, points are allocated to schools for academic achievement in proportion to the percentage of the school’s students who score at or above the proficient level on a statewide assessment of English language arts and mathematics. This percent is calculated out of all the school’s students participating in the assessment. The maximum number of total points possible for academic achievement is 37 points, which is 25 percent of the total points awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8). For high schools, the academic achievement indicator includes both academic achievement and growth. Points are allocated to schools for achievement proportionate to the percentage of the school’s students who score at or above the proficient level on statewide English language arts and mathematics assessments. Points are allocated for growth based on whether a student’s performance on statewide assessments is equal to or exceeds the student’s academic growth target and how much a student’s achievement increased over the course of the year as compared to other students within the state with similar prior assessment scores. The maximum number of total points possible for academic achievement and growth in English language arts and mathematics for high schools is 75 points, which is 33 percent of the total points awarded for high schools (grades 9–12). Other Academic Indicator for Non-High Schools: Growth. As described in Section A.4.iv.b of this document, points are allocated to elementary and middle schools for growth based on whether a student’s performance on a statewide assessment of English language arts or 32 mathematics is equal to or exceeds the student’s academic growth target and how much the student’s achievement increased in comparison to other students with similar, prior assessment scores. The maximum number of total points possible for academic growth in English language arts and mathematics is 38 38 points, which or is 25 25 percent of the total points awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8). Growth of the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive greater weight in the calculation of the growth indicator. Specifically, growth for students in the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive a weight of 1.65 (or an additional 25 points) in the growth indicator. School Quality / Student Success Indicators. The School Quality and/or Student Success indicator is defined by the state as: 1) Equitable Educational Opportunity as defined by growth of the lowest performing 25% of students within a school; 2)1) Science Achievement and 2) Science Growth; and 3) Postsecondary Readiness for high schools. Weighting of each of these indicators is described below. Equitable Educational Opportunity. As described in Section A.4.iv.e of this document, points for this indicator are allocated to a school based on how much a student in the lowest performing 25 percent grew compared to other students with similar, prior assessment scores. The maximum number of total points possible is 25 points, or 17 percent of the total points awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8) and 6 percent of the total points awarded for high schools (grades 9–10). Science Achievement and Growth. As described in section A.4.iv.e, points for this indicator are allocated to a school proportionate to the percent of students who score proficient on a science assessment. Also, points for this indicator are allocated to a school proportionate to the percent of students who demonstrate sufficient growth on statewide science assessments. The maximum number of total points possible for science achievement is 19, or 13 percent of the total points possible awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8) and 11 percent of the total points possible for high schools (grades 9–10). Science Growth. Also, pPoints for this indicator are allocated to a school proportionate to the percent of students who demonstrate sufficient growth on statewide science assessments. The maximum number of total points possible for science growth is 189, or 121 percent of the total points possible awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8) and 11 8 percent of the total points possible for high schools (grades 9–10). Science achievement and growth combined account for 24 percent of the total points possible for elementary and middle schools and 22 percent of the total points possible for high schools. Science Growth of the lowest performing 25% in a school will receive greater weight in the calculation of the science growth indicator. Specifically, growth of the lowest 25% in a school will receive an additional weight of .65 for grades 3-8 and .65 for high school. Progress toward English Language Proficiency. As described in Section A.4.iv.d of this document, points for this indicator are allocated proportional to the percentage of English learners making adequate progress toward fluency in English as measured by the annual assessment given to all English learners. The maximum number of points possible for this 33 indicator is 13 points, or 9 percent of the total points awarded for elementary and middle schools (grades 3–8) and 6 percent of the total points possible for high schools (grades 9–12). This indicator applies to all schools with 10 or more English learners. For schools with less than 10 English learners, these points are removed from the total number of points possible (denominator) resulting in the other indicators accounting for greater weight in the overall determination (see Exhibits 12 and 13). 34 Exhibit 12: Weighting of Indicators—Elementary and Middle Schools Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 35 Graduation Rate. High schools may earn points in the State accountability system for the four year cohort graduation rate. This indicator is assigned 25 points within the accountability system accounting for 11 percent of the total points possible for high schools. Up to 10 percent of the total points possible (2.5 points) may be awarded for 5-year graduation rate when the 5-year graduation rate is greater than the 4-year graduation rate on its own. Postsecondary Readiness. High schools may earn additional points in the State accountability system for postsecondary readiness based on three two metrics: 1) performance on a college readiness assessment (as described in Section A.4.iv.e of this document), 2) graduation rate (as described in Section A.4.iv.e of this document), and 23) performance in readiness coursework (as described in Section A.4.iv.e of this document). Each of the postsecondary readiness indicators are equally weighted, having 25 total points possible and accounting for 11 percent of the total points possible awarded for high schools. The combined maximum number of total points possible for postsecondary readiness is 7550 points, or 33 22 percent of the total points awardedpossible. 36 Exhibit 13: Weighting of Indicators—High Schools Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 37 Exhibit 11: Weighting of Indicators Elementary and Middle School Indicators Indicator Academic Achievement Other Academic - Growth Other Academic - Growth of 25% School Quality - Science Achievement School Quality - Science Growth EL Progress Total Points Percentage 38 25.33% 38 25.33% 25 16.67% 18 12.00% 18 12.00% 13 8.67% 150 100.00% High School Indicators Indicator Academic Achievement Academic Growth Academic Growth of the Lowest 25% School Quality - Science Achievement School Quality - Science Growth School Quality - ACT School Quality - Coursework EL Progress Graduation Total Points Percentage 38 16.89% 38 16.89% 25 11.11% 18 8.00% 18 8.00% 25 11.11% 25 11.11% 13 5.78% 25 11.11% 225 100.00% 38 c. If the State uses a different methodology or methodologies for annual meaningful differentiation than the one described in 4.v.a. above for schools for which an accountability determination cannot be made (e.g., P-2 schools), describe the different methodology or methodologies, indicating the type(s) of schools to which it applies. State law requires USBE to include all public schools in the state in the accountability system. To appropriately assess the educational impact of a school that serves a special student population state law authorizes the Board to use other indicators or different weightings than the weightings described in Section A.4.v.b. (UCA Section 53A-1-1104, as in effect November 1, 2017). Currently, USBE uses different indicators and weightings for schools that are classified as alternative schools or schools who primarily serve students with disabilities. USBE will determine whether to continue the current alternative system or modify it in light of recent accountability system changes. All public schools will be included in the school accountability system. Schools for which an accountability determination cannot be made will be reviewed on an individual basis to determine if a comprehensive or targeted school improvement designation is appropriate. Schools that meet this criteria consist of schools who do not meet the minimum n-size for one or more indicators. For example, schools that serve primarily eleventh and twelfth grades often do not meet the minimum n-size to calculate proficiency and growth, because the statewide assessment is generally not administered to students in eleventh and twelfth grades. These indicators account for half of the overall accountability score, and therefore any rating assigned is not truly comparable to all schools statewide. For any school that does not meet the minimum n-size for one or more indicators, the points for the indicator(s) will be removed from the denominator in the overall score calculation. The school will be flagged as having fewer than all points possible in the denominator, but the school will still be rank ordered among all schools in the state. If a flagged school falls within the range for identification for comprehensive or targeted improvement, USBE will examine additional points of data to evaluate school performance, including local assessment performance, attendance, credits earned, successful completion of program (e.g. GED, transfer to post-secondary setting, transfer from a special school to a general education setting), school climate survey results, or other criteria. In accordance with state law (U.C.A. Section 53E-5-203), newly opened schools are not included in the state’s accountability system until the school has completed the school’s first year of operation (for elementary schools) or second year of operation (for high schools). High schools are provided two years to enable the state to include the graduation rate and readiness coursework indicators, which are lagged. Schools serving high school grades, together with grade 7 or lower (e.g., 7-12 or K-12 schools) will receive two accountability ratings, one for high schools, which includes all high school indicators, and one for non-high schools. vi. Identification of Schools (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)) a. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the State’s methodology for identifying not less than the lowest-performing five percent 39 of all schools receiving Title I, Part A funds in the State for comprehensive support and improvement, including the year in which the State will first identify such schools. The following principles, developed based on stakeholder input, guided Utah’s decisions regarding identification and exit criteria for low performing schools: 1) There should be one accountability and school improvement system for the state. 2) Identification for improvement status should align with the ratings in the state’s accountability system. 3) Expectations for identification and exiting improvement status should be clear, easy for schools to understand, and transparent. 4) Exit criteria should be based on the reason for which a school was identified. 5) To the extent possible, exit criteria should reflect actual, sustained improvement, not normative criteria comparing a school with other schools’ performance. State law requires USBE to annually identify a school for improvement if the school falls into the lowest-performing 3 percent for two consecutive school years, regardless of whether the school is a Title I school (UCA Title 53E53A, Chapter 51, Part 312, School Turnaround and Leadership Development Act). State law also requires USBE to assign schools a rating of, A, B, C, D, or F based on the school’s performance on the indicators in the state’s accountability system (UCA Section 53A-1-1105). Utah’s proposal for identification of schools for improvement status attempts to align with current efforts within the state, namely State Turnaround. Beginning in the 2018-19 school year, Utah will annually identify for comprehensive support and improvement any school that performed in the lowest 3 percent of all schools for two consecutive years. Once every three years, Utah will also identify for comprehensive support and improvement any school that:  performed in the lowest 5% of Title I schools for three school years, on average; and  is not already identified as a comprehensive support and improvement school. In accordance with state law, USBE engaged in a criteria/standard setting process to establish the performance thresholds or cut scores for assigning ratings. Over 50 stakeholders were involved in the process to establish a system for assigning a school a rating based on evaluating the school’s performance against specific criteria, as opposed to normative approaches reflecting how many schools policymakers believe should be eligible for each rating category. The criterion-based approach to establishing cut scores for ratings creates stability in the State’s school rating system, thereby avoiding frequent fluctuation in cut scores as school performance improves across the state. This criterion-based approach achieves the priority of clear and transparent expectations for identification and exiting improvement status, which is critical to stakeholders. 40 To promote alignment with the state’s accountability system, any school that is assigned the lowest rating in the state’s accountability system (currently an “F” letter grade, defined as “critical needs” schools) for two consecutive years will be identified for comprehensive support and improvement. This method provides a criterion-based measure for identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement. This definition includes but is not limited to Title I schools. If less than 5 percent of schools are identified using the criterion-based measure in any given year, Utah will move to a relative measure to identify schools for improvement, identifying schools that are in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools for two consecutive years.13 Utah will identify schools according to this methodology on an annual basis beginning with the 2018–2019 school year. Utah identifies a school for comprehensive support and improvement if the school consistently meets the identification criteria for two consecutive years. This enables the state to target critical resources for schools that consistently demonstrate the need for comprehensive intervention (i.e., schools that are assigned an “F” rating and are therefore schools with critical needs). This methodology also allows the state to alert schools in the first year of meeting this criterion so that they may initiate school improvement efforts on their own. Using this methodology does not ensure that identification of the lowest 5 percent in any given year. However, modeling using past performance data indicates that cumulatively over the course of three years, this method will reliably identify approximately 6 percent of schools. f.b. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the State’s methodology for identifying all public high schools in the State failing to graduate one third or more of their students for comprehensive support and improvement, including the year in which the State will first identify such schools. Utah will identify all public high schools for comprehensive support and improvement by identifying any public high schools with a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of less than or equal to 67 percent for two consecutivethree school years, on average. Utah will identify schools with graduation rates at or below 67 percent for comprehensive support and improvementfor this category once every two three years beginning in school year 2018–19. g.c. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the methodology by which the State identifies public schools in the State receiving Title I, Part A funds that have received additional targeted support under ESEA section 1111(d)(2)(C) (based on identification as a school in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to identification under ESEA 13 Utah may need to pursue a legislative change to enable the state to provide adequate funding to identify non-Title I schools that are assigned the lowest rating in the state’s accountability system or that fall into the lowest 5 percent of all schools. If it is not possible to identify all schools that meet the criteria regardless of Title I status, Utah will identify at least the lowest 5 percent of all Title I schools over the course of three years. 41 section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I) using the State’s methodology under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)) and that have not satisfied the statewide exit criteria for such schools within a State- determined number of years, including the year in which the State will first identify such schools. Title I schools that have received additional targeted support under ESEA Section 1111(d)(2)(C) (i.e., schools that are identified as having low performing student groups) that have not satisfied the statewide exit criteria described below in Section A.4.viii.b within four years will be identified for comprehensive support and improvement. USBE will identify such schools once every yearannually beginning in school year 2022–2023. h.d. Frequency of Identification. Provide, for each type of school identified for comprehensive support and improvement, the frequency with which the State will, thereafter, identify such schools. Note that these schools must be identified at least once every three years. Utah will identify the lowest performing schools in the state using the methodology described in Section A.4.vi.a beginning in school year 2018–2019 and annually thereafter. USBE will identify all public high schools with a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate at or below 67 percent every two years beginning with school year 2018–2019. Identification of additional targeted support schools with chronically low performing student groups will begin in 2022– 2023 and annually thereafter. Exhibit 62: Timeline for Identifying Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools Types of Schools Lowest-Performing (All Schools) Lowest-Performing (Title I Schools) Description Timeline forFrequency of Identification Any school assigned the lowest ratingperforming in the lowest 3 percent of all schools in the state’s Annually accountability system for two consecutive years (or at least the lowest 5 percent of Title I schools). Any Title I school performing in the lowest 5 percent of Title I schools for three years, on Once every average, that is not three years already identified for comprehensive support and improvement. Initial year of identification 2018–2019 2018-2019 42 Types of Schools Low High School Graduation Rate Chronically LowPerforming Student Group Description Any high school in the State with a 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate at or below 67 percent for two consecutive yearsthree years, on average. Any Title I school with a consistently underperforming student group that does not improve within four years. Timeline forFrequency of Identification Initial year of identification Once every two three years 2018–2019 Once every three yearsAnnually 2022–2023 Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Timeline for Identification and Implementation of CSI Schools September–October 2018  Lowest performing schools will be identified.  Notification to local education agencies (LEA).  USBE holds meeting with LEAs and schools to discuss school improvement process and requirements.  LEAs and schools notify parents regarding the school’s improvement status. November 2018–March 2019  Comprehensive needs assessment and root cause analysis completed for each school.  Needs assessment and root cause analysis are used to develop a school improvement plan with input from all stakeholder groups that includes evidence-based interventions. April–May 2019  LEAs submit school improvement plans to USBE.  USBE convenes a cross-department team to review and approve plans and provide specific feedback to LEAs. May–August 2019  LEAs and schools plan and prepare for implementation. 43 August 2019–June 2021  Schools implement improvement plans.  USBE and external consultants engage schools in quarterly progress checks and provide technical assistance.  School performance is reviewed by USBE annually toward progress in meeting exit criteria. i.e. Targeted Support and Improvement. Describe the State’s methodology for annually identifying any school with one or more “consistently underperforming” subgroups of students, based on all indicators in the statewide system of annual meaningful differentiation, including the definition used by the State to determine consistent underperformance. (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii)) Utah’s strategic plan includes a commitment to ensuring equitable educational opportunities for each student. Identifying schools with one or more consistently underperforming student groups will encourage the state, local educational agencies, and schools to focus more attention on underserved populations and will help the state meet its education goals for each student. A school will be identified as one with a “consistently underperforming” student group if, for two consecutive years, any of its student groups falls below the percentage of points (cut score) associated with the lowest rating performing 3 percent of schools in the state’s accountability system for two consecutive years (i.e., currently less than 38 percent for high schools and less than 35.5 percent for elementary and middle schools). Student groups include economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, students who are English Learners, and students by major racial and ethnic groups (i.e., American Indian, African American, White, Pacific Islander, Asian, Hispanic, and Multiracial students). This identification occurs annually beginning school year 2018–2019. Schools already identified for comprehensive support and intervention will not be identified for targeted support and improvement. j.f. Additional Targeted Support. Describe the State’s methodology, for identifying schools in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to identification under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I) using the State’s methodology under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D), including the year in which the State will first identify such schools and the frequency with which the State will, thereafter, identify such schools. (ESEA section 1111(d)(2)(C)-(D)) Utah’s methodology for identifying targeted support and improvement schools described in Section A.4.vi.e. identifies schools in which any student group, on its own, would lead to identification as a comprehensive support and improvement school by using the cut score 44 percentage of points associated with the lowest rating performing 3 percent of schools in the state’s accountability system. k.g.Additional Statewide Categories of Schools. If the State chooses, at its discretion, to include additional statewide categories of schools, describe those categories. Utah is not choosing to include additional statewide categories of schools. vii. Annual Measurement of Achievement (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(iii)): Describe how the State factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments into the statewide accountability system. In accordance with state law, beginning in the 2017–2018 school year, Utah will factor the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide assessments into the accountability system by publishing the school’s participation rate on a school’s report card (UCA Section 53E-5-21153A-1-1112 as in effect November 1, 2017). The participation rate calculated for reporting purposes will include students who do not participate in an assessment due to parent opt-out provisions prescribed in state law (UCA Section 53G-6-80353A-15-1403). Please see the USBE Accountability Technical Manual for a description of Utah’s methodology for calculating participation rates.14 As authorized by Section 8401(a)(3) of ESEA, Utah is seeking a waiver from ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i), which requires that, for the purpose of measuring, calculating, and reporting on the achievement indicator, a state education agency must include in the denominator the greater of: • the number of students participating in the assessments, or 95 percent of all such students in the student group, as the case may be; or • the number equal to 95 percent of all students. The waiver request, if granted, would enable the state to maintain one coherent accountability system, allow Utah to more accurately identify schools in need of improvement, and avoid undermining the transparency of our accountability system, including the ability of policymakers, educators, parents, and students to make informed decisions. viii.Continued Support for School and LEA Improvement (ESEA section 1111(d)(3)(A)) a. Exit Criteria for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the statewide exit criteria, established by the State, for schools identified for 14 USBE. (2016). Accountability Technical Manual. Retrieved from https://schools.utah.gov/file/19e84b4cdd12-4453-a3b4-1e46f5a6f3da. 45 comprehensive support and improvement, including the number of years (not to exceed four) over which schools are expected to meet such criteria. To exit improvement status, schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement will be required to demonstrate that the school no longer meets the criteria for which the school was identified for the second and third years, consecutively, after which the school was identified. meet the following conditions within four years to exit improvement status:   Earn higher than the lowest rating in the state’s accountability system for two consecutive years; and Perform above the lowest performing 5 percent of schools for two consecutive years. This two-part methodology provides clear targets for schools to set goals for improvement and aligns exit criteria with how schools are identified. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of clear, achievable expectations as a key to building trust, which is a necessary condition for successful school improvement. The first criterion-based measure (earn higher than the lowest rating) provides a clear target for schools to reach that is based on the school’s performance in the state’s accountability system and the clearly-defined cut scores for ratings, and not based solely on the school’s performance relative to other schools. The secondary criteria, requiring the school to also meet a relative measure for exit (not in the bottom 5 percent), is necessary to provide exit criteria for a school that was not identified based on the criterion-based measure. b. Exit Criteria for Schools Receiving Additional Targeted Support. Describe the statewide exit criteria, established by the State, for schools receiving additional targeted support under ESEA section 1111(d)(2)(C), including the number of years over which schools are expected to meet such criteria. Schools identified for additional targeted support and improvement will exit when, for two consecutive years, the school no longer has student groups performing below the cut score (percentage of points) associated with the lowest rating performing 3 percent of schools in the state’s accountability system. Schools are expected to make the necessary improvements to exit within four years. This timeline for exiting targeted support and improvement status is intended to allow schools at least two years to implement changes in practice and two years to demonstrate two consecutive years of improvement. Any Title I school that does not meet the exit criteria will be identified for comprehensive support and improvement. 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)(I) of the ESEA. Utah will employ a diverse set of school improvement strategies in schools that do not meet exit criteria within four yearsdescribed in Section A.4.viii.a. State law requires the USBE to establish implications for State Turnaround Schools that do not meet exit criteria (UCA Section 53E-5-30653A-1-1207). As described in Section 4.vi.g, moving forward, the state will have one accountability and school improvement system to avoid confusion in overlapping, often 46 conflicting requirements and initiatives. Therefore, USBE will align exit criteria and implications for not meeting exit criteria for both programs. If a State Turnaround School does not meet exit criteria, state law authorizes USBE to intervene by:  Restructuring a district school, which may include contract management, conversion to a charter school, or state takeover;  Restructuring a charter school by terminating a school’s charter, closing the school, or transferring operation and control of the charter school; or  Other appropriate action as determined by USBE (UCA Section 53E-5-30653A-1-1207). USBE is in the process of makinghas adopted rules to establishestablishing implications and more rigorous interventions for schools that do not meet the state’s exit criteria (R277-920). USBE expects to complete this process by December 2017. USBE will prescribe more rigorous interventions for such schools based on a root cause analysis of the school’s persistent underperformance to determine the strongest path to successful intervention in each context. USBE is developing a systematic approach to identifying the most effective and evidence-based strategies for each school based on the specific needs of each school.recommendations from a state review panel, composed of experts in various fields, and the local school board, with input from the community. The state review panel is required to evaluate the root causes of the school’s persistent underperformance and recommend a strategy for improvement based on the specific needs of the school. d. Resource Allocation Review. Describe how the State will periodically review resource allocation to support school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. To support local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in achieving excellence for each student, USBE staff will conduct a systematic and collaborative resource allocation review for any LEA that serves significant numbers or percentages of schools that are identified for improvement. Because LEA size varies considerably across the state, the definition of “significant numbers or percentages of schools” will be based on the percentage or the total number of all schools in the specific LEA. For example, in a small rural LEA with four schools, a significant number may be one school, whereas in a larger district with 30 or more schools, a significant number may be 10 percent (or three schools). State law requires USBE to study the feasibility of reporting school-level expenditures on the USBE website (UCA Section 53A-1-414). Accordingly, the USBE is developing a school level expenditures report that will be used to review resource allocation in support of school improvement. The school level expenditures report will include school-level information on perpupil expenditures, a breakdown of expenditures by category (e.g. instruction, administration, transportation) and average staff salaries. Additionally, USBE, in collaboration with stakeholders, will explore the feasibility of assigning centralized and support service costs such as transportation, food services, and other district-level supports that cannot be practically or directly assigned to an individual school. This report will be available annually for use in the 47 adopted resource allocation review to support school improvement in each LEA that has a significant number of identified schools. The USBE is developing a procedure to evaluate and address potential inequities identified through these reviews. Resource allocation reviews will not be limited to only the amount of financial support the LEA provides to schools in improvement status. As described in the following Section A.4.viii.e of this document, USBE will also conduct an LEA-level comprehensive needs assessment for LEAs serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. e. Technical Assistance. Describe the technical assistance the State will provide to each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. USBE will conduct a comprehensive needs assessment at the LEA level for LEAs serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement. Needs assessments will include feedback from a wide range of stakeholders including parents, community partners, teachers, school and LEA administrators, and students. USBE will differentiate support and technical assistance provided to LEAs based on the results of the comprehensive needs assessment, which will include an LEA’s capacity to implement and sustain change, commitment to improvement efforts, and whether the LEA has a clear and compelling vision and strategy for prioritizing the levels of local support for schools in improvement status. USBE will determine how and by whom (i.e., internal staff or approved consultants) the LEA-level comprehensive needs assessments will be conducted. In the past, external organizations conducted LEA-level comprehensive needs assessments on behalf of the state for a cost of approximately $17,000 per LEA. The LEA-level comprehensive needs assessment will include:  A review of the distribution of effective teachers and leaders;  Identification and suggested removal of potential LEA-level policies or procedures that create barriers to school improvement in identified schools, including: o Priority for teacher recruitment and retention, hiring, and staffing; o Flexibility in determining school schedules, including the provision of extended school days and/or school year; o Flexibility to determine professional learning opportunities for teachers and staff that are directly related to identified school-specific needs; o Access to technology and adequate infrastructure to support it; o Flexibility in budgeting at the school level to meet students’ needs as identified by a school-level comprehensive needs assessment and root cause analysis; 48 o Lack of coaching for teachers and leaders; and o Lack of consistent and frequent onsite support from LEA-level content specialists and administrators; and  How the LEA is leveraging and braiding all available funding streams to support school improvement goals. Additionally, USBE provides various supports to all LEAs with any number of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. USBE provides professional learning opportunities for LEA leaders on data-driven instruction, leadership, instructional coaching, coteaching, content-area specific professional learning, and evidence-based meaningful parent engagement strategies. Also, LEAs and schools will be provided technical assistance in the selection of evidence-based practices that meet specific needs identified through the comprehensive needs assessment and root cause analysis during the development of required school improvement plans. Based on stakeholder feedback, a cross-department collaborative team has been created within USBE to align state school improvement efforts, and one of their tasks is to gather information and vet resources on evidence-based practices for inclusion in an online repository that all LEAs and schools can readily access during the school improvement planning and implementation process. f. Additional Optional Action. If applicable, describe the action the State will take to initiate additional improvement in any LEA with a significant number or percentage of schools that are consistently identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement and are not meeting exit criteria established by the State or in any LEA with a significant number or percentage of schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans. Not Applicable. 6.5. Disproportionate Rates of Access to Educators (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B)): Describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools assisted under Title I, Part A are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers, and the measures the SEA will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the SEA with respect to such description.15 As shown in Exhibit 15, statewide there are differences in the proportion of early career teachers (i.e., first year teachers and teachers with less than three years of teaching experience) teaching in Title I schools as compared to non-Title I schools. However, there is not 15 Consistent with ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B), this description should not be construed as requiring a State to develop or implement a teacher, principal or other school leader evaluation system. 49 an observable difference in the proportion of teachers who are qualified in field between Title I schools and non-Title I schools. Utah recognizes that access to an effective teacher is a critical element in assuring success for every student. Furthermore, experienced teachers teaching within their field are more likely to impact student learning in positive ways. Utah has high percentages of teachers qualified in their field and typical percentages of new and inexperienced teachers. As shown in Exhibit 15, statewide there are not large differences between the rate at which low-income students or minority students are taught by out-of-field teachers. There are small differences in the rates at which low-income and minority students are taught by inexperienced teachers. There are significant differences in the rates at which students in charter schools taught by out-of-field or inexperienced teachers. Exhibit 13: Rates of Access to Educators (2015) Student Groups Students who are lowincome (high poverty quartile) Rate at which students are taught by an out-of-field teacher Differences between rates 4% Rate at which students are taught by an inexperienced teacher Differences between rates 21% -1% 2% Students who are not lowincome (low poverty quartile) 5% 19% Students who are minority (high minority quartile) 5% 22% 0% Students who are not minority (low minority quartile) 5% Non-Charter Schools 5% 4% 18% 19% 10% Charter Schools 15% 23% 42% 50 Number of Schools First Year Teaching Less Than 3 Years Teaching First Year at the School Less than 3 Years at the School Qualified in Fieldᵃ State 938 8.2% 21.3% 19% 40% 93.7% Non-Title I School 629 7.1% 18.8% 17% 37% 93.7% Title I School 305 10.5% 26.7% 22% 47% 93.8% 230 8.1% 21.2% 18% 39% 96.3% 75 17.6% 43.3% 32% 69% 86.2% Non-Ruralᵇ 848 8.5% 22.1% 19% 40% 94.4% Ruralᵇ 90 5.7% 15.2% 14% 34% 87.6% District School 843 7.2% 19.1% 17% 37% 94.7% Charter School 95 16.6% 41.5% 32% 67% 85.2% School Type District Title I School Charter Title I School Source: Utah State Board of Education (2015). Utah’s Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators. Retrieved from: https://schools.utah.gov/file/3533998f-3358-4708-8ec8-a236ccdc9acf ᵃ Qualified in field is defined as an educator who is fully licensed and endorsed to teach. ᵇ The Necessarily Existent Small Schools program, a program that assists school districts in operating schools in remote areas of the State with low student populations, was used as a proxy for rural. USBE will support LEAs in disaggregating their unique data to examine the distribution of their teachers. USBE will gather LEAs with demographically similar student populations to facilitate discussions to study the information, analyze findings, and implement plans to ensure that lowincome and minority students are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-offield, or inexperienced teachers. USBE will make data on educator distribution and equity available to LEAs within their annual stakeholder reports. Utah’s definition of ineffective educators is based on educator performance on the Utah Effective Educator Standards as evaluated by trained administrative evaluators at the local level. These data are collected from districts in the aggregate at the state level. Since fewer than 25 (0.1 percent) teachers statewide have been deemed ineffective by the Utah evaluation system, and only seven of those are in Title I schools. Because there are no more than four ineffective teachers in any one district, Utah has determined that minority and lowincome children are not served at disproportionate rates. USBE is concerned that the low number might indicate an unwillingness to identify ineffective teachers at the local level so USBE will develop a plan for ongoing monitoring of effectiveness data and equitable distribution to ensure equitable access to effective teachers for all students. Charter Schools are required to evaluate teachers but are not required to comply with state law governing the educator evaluation system (Title 53G, Chapter 11, Part 5, School District 51 and Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Employee Requirements). This means that charter schools may have different scales and requirements for rating teachers. Nevertheless, charter schools currently report numbers of ineffective teachers as part of their Title IIA application in the consolidated plan. Considering that inequitable access to experienced teachers has already been identified as an issue in charter schools, Utah wishes to ensure that this is not also true for ineffective teachers. Therefore, USBE will consider requiring charter schools to report the numbers of ineffective teachers through the statewide CACTSU system beginning in Spring 2018 to better analyze data for equitable distribution within and among the charter schools.. USBE will support LEAs in disaggregating their unique data to examine the distribution of their teachers within LEAs where access differences are most common. USBE will make data on educator distribution and equity available to LEAs within their annual stakeholder reports. Furthermore, equitable distribution data will be included as part of the state report card and the report card for each LEA. These report cards are available to the public through the Utah Data Gateway. Other State-Funded Initiatives. The State Legislature has recently passed legislation addressing teacher recruitment and retention in high poverty schools. During the 2016 General Session, the Utah State Legislature passed S.B. 14 American Indian and Alaskan Native Amendments, which created a five-year pilot program to provide funding for teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development in high-poverty schools that serve high percentages of American Indian and/or Alaskan Native students. The first round of funding is serving a rural K–8 school in the eastern part of the state that serves American Indian students from the Ute-Ouray Reservation. Funding provided through the initiative allowed the district to recruit teachers from other areas of the district and from outside the district. Part of the funding has enabled the district to provide transportation for teachers to and from the school. Initial feedback from the teachers, principal, and district administrators indicates that teacher retention for the 2017–2018 school year has increased substantially, with 100 percent of teachers planning to return in 2017–2018. This had never occurred previously. Additional funding was provided during the 2017 General Session through H.B. 43 to initiate a similar pilot program in other remote, very high poverty rural schools located on the Navajo Reservation in the southeastern region of the state. Also, HB 212 from theIn 2017, General Session the Utah State Legislature established the Incentive for Effective Teachers in High Poverty Schools. The program authorizes USBE to will provide teachers award salary bonuses to eligible teachers who are deemed highly effective as demonstrated by student growth on the State’s assessments with bonuses if they currently teach or move to teach in one of the State’s highest-poverty schools. On January 25, 2018, the Utah Education Policy Center released a report entitled “Why do Teachers Choose Teaching and Remain in Teaching?” which illuminates several actionable reasons that teachers remain in teaching. USBE intends to use this report to work with stakeholders to identify specific actions that can be taken to improve teacher retention in all 52 fields and in all locations, thus improving the overall access to excellent teachers for all students. 7.6. School Conditions (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(C)): Describe how the SEA agency will support LEAs receiving assistance under Title I, Part A to improve school conditions for student learning, including through reducing: (i) incidences of bullying and harassment; (ii) the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom; and (iii) the use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety. State law, board rules, and USBE policies reflect Utah’s belief that every student in public schools should have the opportunity to learn in an environment that is safe, conducive to the learning process, and free from unnecessary disruption. USBE will support LEAs in improving school conditions for student learning by providing technical assistance and implementing and monitoring Board rule, state laws and legislative initiatives. Utah’s Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions (LRBI) policy states that efforts to improve school climate, safety, and learning are integrated endeavors. These efforts must be designed, funded, and implemented as a comprehensive school-wide approach that facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration and builds on a multi-tiered system of supports. The LRBI summarizes the state and federal laws and USBE rules and policies for discipline- and behaviorrelated issues that apply to all students in public schools in Utah. It also provides a comprehensive set of best practices and provides information on several comprehensive approaches to achieving safe and successful schools for Utah students. Reducing incidences of bullying, hazing and harassment. State law and Board rule require LEA policies to address bullying conduct, including cyber-bullying, harassment, hazing, and retaliation (UCA Title 53G, Chapter 9, Part 653A, Chapter 11a and R277-613). The policies must include strong responsive action against retaliation, and describe the imposition of disciplinary sanctions and ongoing staff training. State law requires parental notification of incidences of bullying (UCA Section 53G-8-20453A-11-903). State law also requires LEAs to conduct a yearly parent seminar regarding bullying, mental health, depression, suicide awareness and prevention, and substance abuse (UCA Section 53G-9-70353A-15-1302). Also, state law requires licensed educators to receive a two hour suicide prevention training at re-licensure (UCA Section 53G-9-70453A-15-1304). USBE currently provides training and model policies to LEAs on reducing incidences of bullying, hazing and harassment, and supports LEAs to provide annual parent seminars and required trainings. USBE is working to improve the fidelity of statewide data collection on bullying incidences. Also, USBE is collaborating with community partnerships to implement the SafeUT app, a statewide service that provide real-time crisis intervention to youth through text or phone call and a confidential tip program. Reducing overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom. State law and Board rule require each LEA to establish conduct and discipline policies (UCA Section 53G-820253A-11-901 and Section R277-609), and policies and alternatives to suspension or expulsion (UCA Section 53G-8-20753A-11-906). 53 USBE currently provides training in Least Restrictive Behavioral Interventions (LRBI) to create successful behavioral systems and supports within Utah’s public schools. Utah’s LRBI policy outlines the purpose and appropriate uses of suspension from school, which are to protect other students and school staff and to impose an individual disciplinary consequence on a student in an attempt to reduce problem behaviors in the future. The LRBI policy provides recommended practices and technical assistance to LEAs related to state and federal requirements with the specific purpose of emphasizing prevention of behavior and conduct problems and provides a continuum of least-restrictive behavior interventions. Evidence-based practices for establishing safe and successful schools, implementation of multi-tiered systems of support, positive behavior support and interventions, effective classroom management, and functional behavior assessment are all included in the LRBI as effective practices that prevent the overuse of discipline procedures that remove students from the classroom. USBE is also working to align Utah Transcript and Record Exchange (UTREx) discipline data from LEAs to USBE. USBE also intends to update rules and model policies in the areas of discipline with the Board addressing the grievance procedure for students and parents/guardians. Reducing the use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety. State law limits the use of physical restraint to only when reasonable and necessary in intervening with students posing a danger to themselves or others, and prohibits the use of physical restraint when a student willfully defaces or otherwise damages property without posing risk to physical safety (UCA Section 53G-8-20353A-11-902). To protect the safety of students and staff, Board rule limits the use of physical restraint and seclusionary time out to those situations in which a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger to the student or others (Section R277-609). USBE currently provides training on USBE’s LRBI policy. The LRBI policy specifies that seclusionary time out and physical restraint are not teaching procedures, nor are they behavioral interventions; thus, they are outside of the scope of a tiered intervention system. These types of interventions are considered highly intrusive, and may only be used in emergency situations; they should not be used as a punishment or for any non-dangerous or non-emergency reasons, such as noncompliance, disrespect, disobedience, misuse or destruction of property, or disruption. USBE is also partnering with Refugee Community Advocates to deliver student supports and increase awareness of civil rights within the school setting regarding discrimination based on disability (including PTSD), race/ethnicity, country of origin, and sex. LRBI regional training assists educators in restorative practice and trauma informed practices. A restorative practice school culture that welcomes students is essential for a foundation of restorative practices. Trauma-informed schools establish a positive school culture through clearly-defined and effectively communicated discipline policies. USBE has hired new staff to provide support to LEAs who provide training and program supports on behalf of student success. These initiative support 2017 General Session HCR 10, Encouraging Identification and Support of Traumatic Childhood Experiences Survivors. 54 Other trauma-informed supports to LEAs include monthly school-based mental health webinars, newsletters, conferences, summits, and email blasts to school counselors, administrators, and LEA leadership. USBE staff collaborate with other state agencies and community partners to provide supports to schools on trauma-informed practices. These collaborative efforts have resulted in statewide suicide prevention plans, research evaluation on prevention programs, structural models for student success, Trauma Informed Collaborative (TLC) and a statewide safety and crisis tip line for students K–12. 8.7. School Transitions (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(D)): Describe how the State will support LEAs receiving assistance under Title I, Part A in meeting the needs of students at all levels of schooling (particularly students in the middle grades and high school), including how the State will work with such LEAs to provide effective transitions of students to middle grades and high school to decrease the risk of students dropping out. USBE recognizes the importance of effective transitions at all levels of schooling. To meet the needs of Utah’s students and families, USBE will support LEAs in providing effective transitions by implementing and monitoring Board rule, state laws, and legislative initiatives, and providing technical assistance. Board rule requires LEAs to conduct individualized education and career planning meetings with students and parents at least once in grade 7 or grade 8, once in grade 9 or 10, and once in grade 11 or 12 (Section R277-462-4). These meetings facilitate transitions and reduce the risk of students dropping out. USBE will assist LEAs in implementing the state’s Partnerships for Student Success Grant ProgramAct (UCA Title 53F53A, Chapter 54, Part 43). Four grants were awarded to eligible partnerships in 2016–2017 aimed at improving educational outcomes for low-income students through the formation of cross-sector partnerships that use data to align and improve efforts focused on student success. The partnerships must include a school feeder pattern. School feeder patterns designate the schools that students follow as they graduate from one level to the next. One of the goals of organizing schools into school feeder patterns and partnering with community partners is to assist in transitions between elementary to middle school and middle school to high school. Partners are required to establish shared goals, outcomes, and measurement practices across several domains, including grade 3 reading, grade 8 mathematics, high school graduation, and postsecondary education attainment. State law requires LEAs to provide dropout prevention and recovery services to students who have dropped out or are at risk of dropping out (UCA Section 53G-9-80253A-15-1903). If an LEA does not meet key improvement metrics each year, the LEA is required to contract with a thirdparty provider to provide dropout prevention and recovery services. USBE will monitor and assist LEAs in implementing these requirements. Recent legislation requires USBE to enhance Utah’s online data reporting tool, the Data Gateway, to provide functionality as an early warning system. Early warning systems enable 55 states, LEAs, and schools to identify students at-risk of failing to meet key educational milestones such as reading at grade level, on-time graduation, or college readiness and college persistence. By identifying students early, educators can target interventions and supports to help students to achieve readiness and success. The legislation also requires USBE to contract with a provider to create a program enabling LEAs to pilot the early warning system. USBE will continue to train McKinney-Vento LEA liaisons to ensure homeless students in transition are supported. This will include transitions that occur from school to school, elementary to secondary, and junior high to high school. USBE will continue to work with the Utah Higher Education Authority to expand that support into post-secondary education and career paths for homeless students. USBE also makes use of Check & Connect, an evidenced-based comprehensive intervention designed to enhance student engagement at school and with learning for marginalized, disengaged students in K–12, through relationship building and persistence. Check & Connect mentors work one-on-one with students and families, checking school data, implementing timely interventions, and engaging with families. In Utah, Check & Connect has been implemented for all students who are in foster care and those who are involved in the juvenile justice system if the students are in a mainstream school environment. Utah will be expanding Check & Connect for students with disabilities who are at risk for dropping out of school as determined through transition planning. A goal of Check & Connect is to foster school completion with academic and social competence. Finally, transition support is a critical and integral part of the services offered to K–12 students who are in the care of Juvenile Justice Services and Division of Human Services. In addition to supporting the services provided through Title ID, USBE has undertaken the efforts to facilitate transitions for students in the care of Juvenile Justice Services and the Division of Human Services. Led by USBE staff and supported by Juvenile Justice Services staff, short-term, marketsensitive, easily-acquired, credential-creating classes are offered to students who are in the care of Juvenile Justice Services longer-term. The goal of these offerings is to enable each exiting student to acquire positive skill sets that will aid the student in acquiring employment and money-earning capacities beyond custody. To decrease the risk of students dropping out, the USBE is developing, using mostly Title 1D funds, an online course consisting of 12 modules that result in three credit hours from Southern Utah University. This course, designed for school administrators and teaching staff, addresses the characteristics and needs of nontraditional students, including students who are in foster care, students who are refugees, adult students, or students with other risk factors. This course will provide professional development credits for licensed educators. 56 B. Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children 1. Supporting Needs of Migratory Children (ESEA section 1304(b)(1)): Describe how, in planning, implementing, and evaluating programs and projects assisted under Title I, Part C, the State and its local operating agencies will ensure that the unique educational needs of migratory children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school, are identified and addressed through: i. The full range of services that are available for migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal educational programs; The full range of services that are available for migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal educational programs use data to determine specific areas of academic low performance to determine barriers to students’ achievement in the identified areas of academic low performance. The data includes Utah’s Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) test scores, teacher-rating cut scores based on standards taught, surveys (parent, teacher, and student), focus groups, and interviews. Entities consider what programs currently exist to support the Migrant Education Program and match those programs up with the needs of the students to ensure that eligible migrant students have access. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment (https://schools.utah.gov/file/745b543d-3dcc-4546-8b684f80de350361) is inclusive of preschool migratory students and migratory students who have dropped out of school. Each local educational agency (LEA)/Migrant Education Program conducts its own Comprehensive Needs Assessment to determine the specific unique educational needs of the migratory students in its program. Subsequent to the completion of the State Comprehensive Needs Assessment, and under the guidance of Utah Migrant Education Program Stakeholder Committee and Utah Migrant Education Program Parent Advisory Council, the State completes a comprehensive Service Delivery Plan (https://schools.utah.gov/file/781d6413-2594-49d0-9c3b-e38018d8912a) for all eligible migratory students residing in the State. The Service Delivery Plan includes the following components: performance targets, needs assessment, measurable program outcomes, service delivery strategies, and an evaluation plan that describes Migrant Education Program effectiveness in relation to the performance targets and measurable outcomes. The unique needs of preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school are included in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Service Delivery Plan, and Evaluation. The Utah Migrant Education Program Parent Advisory Council and a committee of stakeholders, including relevant local, State, and Federal educational programs serving migratory children, and language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A., review the Service Delivery Plan annually. LEAs that receive Migrant Education Program subgrants will be required to give parents and guardians notice of services it is currently providing as delineated in the Service Delivery Plan. Notice to parents will be given regarding how to work with the LEA’s Migrant Education Program Identification and Recruitment specialist to address options for any additional needed services that may fall outside the targeted services as delineated in the Service Delivery Plan. Additionally, a parent/guardian conversation guide will be developed to facilitate understanding provided services and to help parents/guardians 57 advocate for their student’s access to those services. The conversation guide will also facilitate how to work with the LEA Migrant Education Program Identification and Recruitment specialist to address additional needed services that may fall outside the targeted services as delineated in the Service Delivery Plan. The guide will provide a glossary of terms, timelines, etc. These materials will be made available in a language and format understandable to migrant parents and guardians. The Service Delivery Plan process’s purpose is to ensure that migratory students have access to existing programs and services to eliminate barriers to academic achievement. In the event that programs and services do not exist, the Migrant Education Program may refer to other agencies or design and implement a program or service to address that identified need. Again, the full range of services that are available for migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal educational programs are dependent upon the results of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment and the implementation of the Service Delivery Plan to access existing programs and services or to design programs and services. The process is specific to addressing an identified barrier to an identified academic need at the local level. For example, a needs assessment that identifies language acquisition as a barrier to migrant students, is then provided funding to enhance access for migrant students to the existing LEA language acquisition services. Another example would be utilizing the needs assessment to identify health services such as supporting a student who needs eyeglasses to access the classroom content. These examples represent the range of supported services. ii. Joint planning among local, State, and Federal educational programs serving migratory children, including language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A; The Utah Migrant Education Program conducts a Comprehensive Needs Assessment every three years. This is completed with direction from the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Migrant Education, the Migrant Education Parent Advisory Council, and in joint planning with a Utah Migrant Education Program committee of appropriate stakeholders (i.e., local, State, and Federal educational programs serving migratory children, including language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A). In addition, a Utah Migrant Education Program committee of appropriate stakeholders and Migrant Education Parent Advisory Council reviews the Comprehensive Needs Assessment every program year. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment determines areas of concern from state assessment results, teacher ratings of student performance on state standards, and survey responses from students, parents, teachers, administrators, and community stakeholders. Additionally collected are responses for determining concern statements from focus group interviews with students, parents, teachers, administrators and community stakeholders (i.e., local, State, and Federal education program representatives serving migratory children, including language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A). Under the current Comprehensive Needs Assessment, the concern statements are the following: 1) Currently, the identified highest needs in language arts for migrant students were Standard 8: Evaluate the argument and claims in text; Standard 7: Integrate and evaluate content in text; Standard 6: Assess point of view and purpose in text; and 58 Standard 9: Analyze two or more texts and compare. USBE is concerned that instruction for migrant students in language arts may not be effectively targeting the foundational skills necessary to facilitate success at the appropriate grade levels to ensure that students are acquiring the basic building blocks necessary to master reading and writing. 2) Currently, the identified highest needs in mathematics for migrant students were Standard 3: Construct viable math arguments; Standard 2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively; Standard 6: Calculate accurately and efficiently; and Standard 4: Model math in everyday life. USBE is concerned that instruction for migrant students in mathematics may not be effectively targeting the foundational skills necessary to facilitate success at the appropriate grade levels to ensure that students are acquiring the basic building blocks necessary to master mathematics. 3) Under the current Comprehensive Needs Assessment, for English Learner migrant students the identified highest areas of need in language arts and math are similar to the skill areas for students at-risk academically. USBE is concerned that English instruction for migrant students may not link students’ native language in a way that supports English language acquisition or considers students’ skill levels in reading, writing, and mathematics in their native language. In planning, implementing, and evaluating programs and projects assisted under Title I, Part C, the USBE will address the unique educational needs of migratory children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school. The Utah Migrant Education Program will implement a Comprehensive Needs Assessment, a Service Delivery Plan, and a Program Evaluation (https://schools.utah.gov/file/4760d1ff-d222-476e-bf406ff191c03aee). The full range of services that are available to Utah migrant students is dependent upon the Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Service Delivery Plan, and Utah Migrant Education Program Evaluation process (ESSA Title I, Part C, Sections 1304(b) and 1306(a), 34 CFR §200.83). iii. The integration of services available under Title I, Part C with services provided by those other programs; The services available under Title I, Part C, including the integration of services provided by other programs (i.e., language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A) are determined under the guidance of a committee of appropriate Utah Migrant Education Program stakeholders and the Utah Migrant Education Program Parent Advisory Council. The current Utah Migrant Education Program performance targets are the following:  Performance Target #1—Language Arts Achievement: By the 2019–2020 academic year 76 percent of all migrant students enrolled in Utah migrant programs for at least 3 years will score at the proficient level (rubric score of 3 or higher) in language arts based on teacher ratings or state assessment scores.  Performance Target #2—Math Achievement: By the 2019–2020 academic year 73 percent of all migrant students enrolled in Utah migrant programs for at least 3 years will score at the proficient level (rubric score 3 or higher) in math based on teacher ratings or available state assessment scores. 59  Performance Target #3—English Language Acquisition: By the 2019–2020 academic year, 80 percent of all migrant students enrolled in Utah migrant programs for at least 1 year will increase from an initial baseline on the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment by at least .5 toward English language fluency. iv. Measurable program objectives and outcomes. The current measurable program objectives and outcomes for the Utah Migrant Education Program as identified in the current Service Delivery Plan are the following:  Measurable Outcome #1—Evaluate Claims in Text: 67 percent of all students targeted for reading instruction will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah State Content Standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings of student performance.  Measurable Outcome #2—Integrate and Evaluate Content in Text: 67 percent of all students targeted for reading instruction will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah State Content Standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings of student performance.  Measurable Outcome #3—Assess Point of View in Text: 67 percent of all students targeted for reading instruction will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah State Content Standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings of student performance.  Measurable Outcome #4—Construct Viable Math Arguments: 63 percent of all students targeted for math instruction in Utah migrant programs will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah content standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings.  Measurable Outcome #5—Reason Abstractly and Quantifiably: 63 percent of all students targeted for math instruction in Utah migrant programs will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah content standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings.  Measurable Outcome #6—Calculate Accurately and Efficiently: 63 percent of all students targeted for math instruction in Utah migrant programs will demonstrate proficiency in this Utah content standard based on assessment scores and/or teacher ratings.  Measurable Outcome #7—English Language Acquisition Staff Development: Based on a staff development survey, at least 80 percent of Migrant Education Program staff will report that staff development has helped them to more effectively meet the needs of limited English proficient students using research-based English Learner strategies to facilitate reading and math achievement and progress toward high school graduation.  Measurable Outcome #8—English Language Acquisition: 80 percent of all migrant students enrolled in Utah migrant programs for at least 1 year will increase from an 60 initial baseline on the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment by at least .5 toward English language fluency. 2. Promote Coordination of Services (ESEA section 1304(b)(3)): Describe how the State will use Title I, Part C funds received under this part to promote interstate and intrastate coordination of services for migratory children, including how the State will provide for educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school records, including information on health, when children move from one school to another, whether or not such move occurs during the regular school year. Section 1304(b)(3) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires State Education Agencies (SEAs) to promote interstate and intrastate coordination of Migrant Education Program services by providing for educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school records (including health information) when children move from one school to another. In addition, Section 1308(b)(1) requires that States provide for the electronic transfer of those migrant student records. The Utah Migrant Education Program utilizes Utah’s unique Migrant Education Program database, Migrant Assessment Performance System (MAPS), for the timely transfer of pertinent migrant student records for intrastate moves. For interstate moves, the Utah Migrant Education Program facilitates the transfer of pertinent migrant student records through the national Migrant Education Program data system, or the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX). Concerning both the Utah Migrant Education Program data system (MAPS) and the national Migrant Education Program data system (MSIX), student data disclosure is only to authorized representatives of State and local educational agencies for purposes of the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements, which relate to the Migrant Education Program (See 34 CFR §99.35). Additionally, eligibility for the Migrant Education Program is documented on the National Certificate of Eligibility (COE). The Certificate of Eligibility is signed by the migrant students’ parents/guardians agreeing to the following statement: “I understand that my student’s information may be shared with other Migrant Education Programs.” 3. Use of Funds (ESEA section 1304(b)(4)): Describe the State’s priorities for the use of Title I, Part C funds, and how such priorities relate to the State’s assessment of needs for services in the State. At least every three years, a committee is coordinated of appropriate Utah Migrant Education Program stakeholders (i.e., local, State, and Federal educational programs serving migratory children, including language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A) and a Utah Migrant Education Program Parent Advisory Council. The committee’s purpose is to review data from the Comprehensive Needs Assessment and provide recommendations to be considered as priorities for the use of Title I, Part C funds and to serve as the basis of Migrant Education Program service delivery. The goal is to produce the corresponding Measurable Program Outcomes and the assessment of needs as delineated above in Question #1. The following are the committee’s most current Migrant Education Program recommendations for priority for use of funds: 61  Priority 1: Incorporate tutoring and small group instruction in reading and math for migrant students into regular academic year classrooms, summer programs, afterschool or before-school programs, or in services provided to Out of School Youth.  Priority 2: Utilize instructional materials and online tutorials specifically designed for migrant students (e.g. materials from the Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant website at www.migrantliteracynet.com).  Priority 3: Develop individual learning plans for all priority for service migrant students (e.g. materials from the Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant website at www.migrantliteracynet.com).  Priority 4: Utilize bilingual and bicultural staff whenever possible for instruction.  Priority 5: Target reading instruction in Standard 8: Evaluate the argument and claims in text; Standard 7: Integrate and evaluate content in text; and Standard 6: Assess point of view and purpose in text for priority for service migrant students  Priority 6: Target math instruction in Standard 3: Construct viable math arguments; Standard 2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively; and Standard 6: Calculate accurately and efficiently for priority for service migrant students.  Priority 7: Create programs and ensure opportunities for parents to become engaged in the academic achievement of their children (e.g. Academic Parent Teacher Teams, Parent Literacy Nights, and Take Home Book Bags, utilizing the parent resources in English & Spanish from the Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant website at www.migrantliteracynet.com).  Priority 8: Implement ESL and cultural awareness training for all teachers and staff working with migrant students. 62 C. Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk 1. Transitions Between Correctional Facilities and Local Programs (ESEA section 1414(a)(1)(B)): Provide a plan for assisting in the transition of children and youth between correctional facilities and locally operated programs. Background Utah has a vastly different approach (compared to other states) for using Title I, Part D funds due to Utah’s significant usage of state Youth In Custody (YIC) funds that, for approximately 30 years, annually provide nine months of regular public education to youth who are in state custody and in state care. YIC-supported schools, all independently accredited by AdvancED, offer most of the rigorous school academic and some career and technical education (CTE) credit-bearing programs that students would expect to find in any high quality “regular” schools. The opportunities include a complement of music and art as well as inter-YIC-schools’ competitive sporting and academic/knowledge “bowls.” State YIC funding, supported by Title I, Part D funding during Summer School, provides students access to concurrent enrollment to students who are advanced enough to pursue academic rigor at that level. Additionally, state YIC funds provide for additional post high school classes for those who have graduated from high school and/or received high equivalency credentials. State YIC funds provide no transition services; rather, transition services are funded by Title I, Part D. (See USBE Rule R277-709 at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-709.htm for more YIC information.) In addition, Title I, Part D funds provide supplementary supports at selected, eligible sites with the Division of Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) and the Department of Human Services (DHS) in the following three main ways: 1) Annually, a 25-to-35-day extended, academic school year (Summer School) is offered, which is a continuation of the services offered by state YIC funds during the regular 9month school year; 2) A 12-month, rich mix of short-term, market-sensitive, easily-acquired, credentialcreating CTE classes that are not offered by YIC funding; and 3) Ongoing leadership, support, and advocacy for education transition and career advocacy services that are not offered by YIC funding. Utah Transition Services In the revised regulations, between implies and requires reporting on bi-directional transition services. This was confirmed by ED at the national Title I, Part D conference in June 2017. From Custody/Care to Non-custodial care Education transition services to eligible Utah youth in care/custody are primarily provided through federal Title I, Part D funds. To achieve this service, the USBE contracts with LEAs to 63 hire staff who provide education transition and career advocacy services to eligible students found in LEAs. The staff positions are called Education Transition and Career Advocates (ETCAs). As described in the Multiagency Statewide Transition Alignment document (Exhibit 18), education-related transition roles and services align with Division of Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) staff roles and services who include, but are not limited to, DJJS Transition Services Specialists (TSS), DJJS Case Managers, Clinicians, etc. Usage of this document, jointly created and “owned” by all levels of DJJS and Education staff, predictably stabilizes the quality and impact of services regardless of who is serving in the various levels of staff positions. Starting in November 2015, through state-level and grass-roots staff input in face-to-face, statewide, strategic planning meetings, the main goals and roles associated with successful transitioning of students into and out of state care are clearly outlined, collaboratively implemented, systematically reported, and regularly evaluated by DJJS and Education senior-tolocal level staff in meetings that are held semi-annually. The matrix in Exhibit 18 distributes all of the key transition services among relevant Utah agencies, thereby eliminating redundancies and service gaps while creating self-regulating, cross-agencies’ accountability processes, and systematized transition services to eligible students. In the matrix, a number “1” symbolizes which position and agency has primary responsibility for a particular transition function for students and a “2” symbolizes who has secondary responsibility while “X” symbolizes a persons’ supportive roles. The Utah model is similar in intent, content, and context as the model presented at the June 2017 Neglected and Delinquent (ND) Coordinators conference held at the American Institutes of Research (AIR). Area of Improvement Currently, under the guidance and limitations of access rules set by DJJS, the LEA-level ETCAs are able to work with parents/guardians of incarcerated youth in such settings as student/staff/parent conferences, in court settings, and so forth. With matters changing inside of DJJS due to HB 239, etc., USBE and LEAs will again discuss in October 2017 various allowable ways to increase access to parents/guardians. In the Multi-Agency Statewide Transition Alignment matrix (Exhibit 18), an anticipated listing in the last column of the matrix is the hopeful expanded roles that parents might be able to play provided DJJS agrees. In a Fall 2017 strategic planning meeting, DJJS, USBE, and LEAs will explore ways to facilitate parents’/guardians’ opportunities to work with the ETCAs that could include options including (a) the above-listed matrix and (b) a parental conversation guide that provides a glossary of terms, timelines, services, student progress and achievements, portfolios, specific student plans, networks, employment options, etc. As required by civil rights regulations, these materials will be made available in the parent’s native language. 64 Summative Reporting Additionally, the Utah State Board of Education requires LEAs to support students and to report on individual transition outcomes that include all variables of the CSPR as well as the following: 1) Enrollment in public school two weeks after release from state custody/care (since, by our observations, the first two weeks to a month of students’ post release choices determine the students’ life trajectories more than any other time period); 2) Follow-up on each student 90 days and 180 days post release (where permitted) that report the CSPR data and the following data: a. Academic credit earned (split out from CTE credits earned), b. Number of earned skill/employability certificates earned, and c. If current released student employment is related to a skill certificate(s) a student gained while in state care/custody. Between “Non-Custodial Care and State Custody/Care” The Utah State Board of Education is the sole provider of public education in this state through LEAs. Inside Utah’s (student information and) Record Exchange (UTREx) system, student transcripts are updated by, available to, and exchanged among all LEAs daily. Schools, including all YIC and Title I, Part D-funded schools, update daily and have full access to these transcripts and other relevant student information pieces. In short, records seamlessly move between YIC/Title I, Part D-accredited schools and other public accredited schools. The benefits of UTREx include, among others, relevant records of what each student is currently studying, what each student has for accumulative subject-by-subject credits—regardless of which school (including YIC/ND schools in LEAs) helped students to gain credits. Between public non-custodial and custodial care schools, records are constantly updated, accurate and shared. Statutory Waiver On June 22, 2017, the USBE received a statutory waiver to exempt the state from the ratio for spending academic and transition funds—70 percent to 30 percent respectively—to be at yearly levels that meet the state’s strategic goals. This favorable federal waiver enables the state to create plans for additional outreach to eligible youth who are currently not receiving transition services. At the time of writing this state plan, the specificity of plans related to the waiver are not available, but should be between September and October 2017 once USBE has finished conducting strategic planning with its internal, educational and external, governmental partners. The Ounce of Prevention Finally, In March 2017, the State Legislature past an unfunded, but forward-thinking House Bill, HB 239, to reduce the number of youth who might enter state custody by requiring LEAs to 65 service challenging youth in ways other than referring them to state custody. Preventing students from entering state custody and solving behavioral and other matters in non-custodial settings should create other resolution options. 2. Program Objectives and Outcomes (ESEA section 1414(a)(2)(A)): Describe the program objectives and outcomes established by the state that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the Title I, Part D program in improving the academic, career, and technical skills of children in the program. As explained above, Title I, Part D funds represent a small part of and function as a supplement to State funds for YIC. However, the program as a whole is outlined below. Program Objectives To meet the listed program objectives and outcomes, USBE is using and will continue to use the following:  Dual agency, state-level strategic planning and guidance;  Student outcomes data collection;  External analysis and consultation; and  Onsite monitoring. Dual-Agency, State-Level Strategic Planning and Guidance Utah has the good fortune of agencies being willing to work in collaborative relationships. Along with designated local-level educators and DJJJS staff, the state’s senior staff from YIC, federal Title I, Part D and DJJS Director, Deputy Director and senior staff meet in person annually for strategic planning (most recently on August 8, 2017) and then, in person, monthly to address progress, alignment, training, outcomes, etc. Since YIC and Title I, Part D staff hired by LEAs must work well together in JJS sites, the two agencies have and continue to work hard to assure that educators and DJJS local-level staff know each other’s vocabulary, key goals, aspirations, weak spots, strengths, challenges, measurables, etc., and work collaboratively to assure the success of achieving each other’s desired outcomes. With this dualistic approach of unified vision, a single mission statement for all entities has been developed and guides them; combined oversight and regular review of goals’ measurable progress lead the way; ongoing sharing of goals, roles, procedures, struggles and successes occurs; and monitored alignments and adjustments are regularly employed, with the combined efforts improving all outcomes, including academic, career and technical measurables. Student Outcomes Data Collection First, individual student-level, education data are collected via UTREx. Second, though other states that use Title I, Part D funds can measure gains, since most of their funds are used in regular, 9-month education programs, in Utah due to how Title I, Part D funds may be legally permitted to be used, it is difficult to attribute and/or measure cause-and-effect usage of Title I, 66 Part D funds in the academic areas. Title I, Part D academic funds primarily support 25-to- 35day summer LEA programs; this length of time is too short to implement valid pre/post testing. Each LEA does set goals for each student, including that each student will earn at least some credit during Summer Schools towards high school graduation, summer school may include: 1) A “finishing” school in which students have been given the gift of extended days to complete subjects that they did not complete during the 9 months of YIC-supported classes; 2) An “early start” school to give students an early start on some subjects that interest them; 3) A “tutoring” school to “beef up” skills that have challenged them; 4) A “credit recovery” school, in some circumstances, to aid students to catch up on classes and credits that have eluded them. Third, as part of the dual agency efforts to achieve academic, career and technical goals, Utah seeks to have every student leave custody with positive marketable skills in area(s) that may interest each student and is feasible to be offered to each student. Therefore, the two agencies measure (by using a two-agency, online, student-by- student, LEA-by-LEA, live document) the number of short-term, market-sensitive, skill certificates that each student earns, among other variables. Please see Exhibit 16, Secure Care Programming, School and Transition Outcomes, below. For the report, Columns A, B, and C are completed by the Division of Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS), columns 1–13 are completed by LEA ETCAs, and the balance are completed mostly by DJJS with some ETCA support. 67 Exhibit 14: Secure Care Programming, School and Transition Outcomes. Source: Utah State Board of Education, 2017 68 Fourth, annually, as one method to assess program effectiveness, the state requires LEAs to report all and more variables required by the federal Department of Education in the annual consolidated report (CSPR). Please see Exhibit 17 below. Exhibit 15: Accountability Report—Program Activity and Outcomes Source: Utah State Board of Education, 2017 69 Fifth, student portfolios and transcripts are given to each student in hard copy and electronic copy. Additionally, the LEAs keep a back up copy for each student for the times when former custodial students require replacement copies. External Analysis and Consultation The USBE formerly retained the services of the University of Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) and then the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to aid the Educators and DJJS staff to maximize their collaborative student services in all areas—academic instruction and support, full scope of transition services, and CTE and career development matters. Continued consultation has resulted in, is resulting in, and will continue to result in measurable outcomes. Additionally, USBE YIC/Title I, Part D staff, DJJS state leadership, and local leadership are building internal staff and systemic capacities (including but not limited to local-level “trained staff training staff”) to support and build upon what has been learned so far and to implement future strategic goals. Onsite Monitoring Onsite at DJJS facilities that house YIC/Title I, Part D schools, USBE YIC and Title I, Part D staff conduct thorough reviews of selected programs annually. These reviews examine pedagogy, all aspects of finance, collaboration with other agencies, program implementation, teacher qualifications/licensures, cross agency supports, quality of instruction, transition services, etc. In addition, special education service delivery and results are monitored by USBE staff, and reported to each facility/school district providing the services. See the details of the monitoring by referring to Exhibit 28. 70 Exhibit 16: Multi-Agency Statewide Transition Alignment Form Source: Utah State Board of Education, 2017 71 D. Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(A) and (D)): Describe how the State educational agency will use Title II, Part A funds received under Title II, Part A for State-level activities described in section 2101(c), including how the activities are expected to improve student achievement. In alignment with the Utah State Board of Education’s (USBE) strategic plan, Excellence for Each Student (https://schools.utah.gov/file/ad20b490-4581-4029-8898-43a87741ccff), USBE currently provides state-level activities for LEA and school administrators and educators as opportunities to improve student achievement. We will use Title II, Part A funds to complement current initiatives and provide system-wide opportunities for administrators and teacher leaders to achieve educational excellence as evidenced by increases in student performance. In the following sections, an outline of current state-supported opportunities is provided, followed by the proposed activities to augment and leverage the current supports available. Administrators Current Offerings Over the course of the past few years, several opportunities have been provided to central office leaders and school-level administrators to support professional learning. These opportunities have been designed to improve student outcomes through evidence-based practices, strategies, and organizational systems. These opportunities offer administrators content specific instructional practices to support educators in providing effective instruction. Some notable options include:  Principals Literacy Institute: Extend administrator knowledge and skills with respect to K–8 literacy instructional practices and strategies for core instruction, as well as intervention.  STEM Academy: Engage K–8 administrators in understanding best instructional practices associated with mathematics, science, engineering, and technology.  Leadership in Blended and Digital Learning Program: Build experience and expertise in digital and personalized learning, including evaluation and instructional best practices related to 21st century classrooms.  LEA-Level Administrator Collaboration Meetings: LEA administrators join their colleagues and USBE staff in professional learning opportunities three to four times a year to share successes and challenges, to keep current with shifts in policy, and to address student achievement concerns. Each year these offerings are evaluated in a needs assessment and may be revised to meet current issues. 72 Expected Student Achievement Outcomes Effective leadership is critical in the teaching and learning process. A meta-analysis of 35 years of research indicates that school leadership has a significant effect on student achievement.16 The cycle of continuous improvement benefits seasoned and newly appointed administrators. The average correlation between principal leadership (independent variable) and student achievement (dependent variable) is .025. In other words, increasing leadership effectiveness one standard deviation is associated with a 10 percentile gain in student achievement. Therefore, providing meaningful professional learning for school leaders will increase student achievement. Data Driven Professional Learning Opportunities To understand the perceived needs of Utah’s administrators, a needs analysis was conducted in March of 2017. The analysis consisted of an online survey sent to all building-level administrators. The survey provided some possible areas of need along with an open-ended space to permit principals to self-identify additional needs. The results of the survey indicated several areas of concentration:  Recruiting and retaining teachers;  Formative teacher observations for continuous growth;  Distributive leadership;  Using data to determine and select professional learning;  Balancing workload and life;  Communicating in difficult circumstances;  Implementing and maintaining professional learning communities (PLCs); and  Engaging families and community. State-Level Activities to Address Identified Needs Utah intends to use the three percent set aside to offer a multi-year program for school-level administrators to address the needs identified in the section above and others as needs emerge. This program will offer regional principal summits, developing a cohort of principals in each region, followed by implementation supports in the form of professional learning, setting goals, and cohort visits to schools and classrooms. Principals will gather data and other evidence through a school year to analyze, interpret, and implement changes necessary to 16 Learning From Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. Publication. St. Paul: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota, 2010. 73 increase student achievement. The final step is to have these cohorts of leaders present their experience and learning at the next annual regional principal summits, while positioning them to be peer mentors for subsequent school year cohorts. Teacher Leaders Current Offerings The Utah State Board of Education provides learning opportunities for teacher leaders to grow in their professional capacity to increase student achievement. Sample professional learning opportunities include measuring student achievement in terms of formative assessment, classroom management, technology integration, core content, and training for mentors. State-Level Activities to Address Identified Needs Utah recognizes the importance of teacher leaders and has started the process of identifying the resources necessary for statewide integration. Utah will use Title II, Part A funds to create a pilot grant opportunity for LEAs to develop a teacher leader program in collaboration with local teachers. Grant projects will be required to include a description of strategic plans to:  Demonstrate commitment of the LEA to build leadership capacity of teachers;  Involve teachers in the development of an LEA Teacher Leader Program;   Provide professional learning for principals for ways to identify, work with, and provide transparency with school staff to understand teacher leader roles;  Design job-embedded professional learning;  Craft inventive opportunities for teacher leaders to make contributions that do not require leaving the classroom full time;  Create opportunities for collaboration among teacher leaders;  Propose innovative funding strategies for sustainability beyond the grant;  Establish a program evaluation process that includes impact on school culture, teachers’ continuous growth, and student learning; and  Develop a communication plan to publicize the LEA’s teacher leader program, process, and outcomes. USBE will bring together a study group to become familiar with the latest research; discuss the constructive influences a teacher leader can have on peers and students; and begin to develop, in part, the pilot guidelines, format, application, communication plan, determine expected outcomes, and monitoring. 74 2. Use of Funds to Improve Equitable Access to Teachers in Title II, Part A Schools (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(E)): If an SEA plans to use Title II, Part A funds to improve equitable access to effective teachers, consistent with ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B), describe how such funds will be used for this purpose. The USBE will use Title II, Part A funds to improve equitable access to effective teachers. The USBE is very concerned that each student has access to high quality instruction from an excellent teacher. In 2015, Utah engaged in an analysis of equity gaps in access to effective teachers (Utah’s Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators, https://schools.utah.gov/file/3533998f-33584708-8ec8-a236ccdc9acf). Utah’s analysis of equity gaps for poverty, minority, and students with disabilities did not reveal any gaps for students with disabilities or students in poverty at a statistically significant level when viewed from a statewide perspective. In fact, the analysis shows that students from low-income households are taught by qualified teachers at a higher rate than their peers, and that students with disabilities are taught by more experienced teachers overall than other groups. There is a small gap (4 percent) for minority students, who have higher levels of inexperienced teachers than their peers, but as there is no corresponding gap in qualified teachers, it does not appear that minority students have less access to excellent educators. Utah will use a portion of Title II, Part A funds for additional data analyses of equitable access of English Learners and other students who are traditionally tracked using data that was not available in 2015 when the analysis was completed. State-Level Activities to Address Identified Needs The information, data, action plan, and root-cause analysis used to develop Utah’s Equity Plan will guide the USBE’s work to support equitable access to effective teachers. A timeline created in response to the report’s findings indicate the following efforts may receive funding and resources:  Teacher preparation improvements;  Statewide professional learning improvements;  State systemic improvement plan to increase student achievement in middle school mathematics;  Effective use of evaluation systems;  Administrative licensure improvements;  Principals’ academies;  Professional learning for talent management;  Teacher recruitment and retention; 75  Enhancing cultural competence, awareness, and perception;  Targeted assistance for LEAs to reduce inequities in their system;  Perceptions campaign to highlight outperforming highly impacted schools. Another strategy is to increase equitable distribution of excellent teachers by supporting struggling teachers. This will be achieved through specifically designed professional learning to build knowledge and skills to better support students with diverse needs. 3. System of Certification and Licensing (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(B)): Describe the State’s system of certification and licensing of teachers, principals, or other school leaders. The Utah State Board of Education is responsible for setting the qualifications for educator licenses. A Utah educator’s license may be obtained through traditional university preparation programs, or through alternative routes as defined in statute and rule. The USBE Licensing Task Force is currently looking at the state’s licensing framework, processes, and expectations with the goal of reviewing and revising educator licensure. Goals include helping educators meet state requirements by demonstrating competency. The Licensing Task Force expects to turn recommendations into rule for implementation by July 2018. 4. Improving Skills of Educators (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(J)): Describe how the SEA will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders in order to enable them to identify students with specific learning needs, particularly children with disabilities, English learners, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, and provide instruction based on the needs of such students. Current Status Utah has identified Effective Teaching and Educational Leadership Standards.. Educational Leadership Standards. Both of these documents specifically address the expectations associated with teaching diverse student populations. These professional standards form the basis of the Utah Educator Evaluation System. Therefore, all teachers and leaders follow these requirements and are rated according to their performance of these standards. USBE offers continuous professional learning opportunities for teachers, principals, and other local education leaders regarding the standards. State-Level Activities to Address Identified Needs In order to improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders, enabling them to identify and meet the needs of students with specific learning needs, particularly students with disabilities, students who are English Learners, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, additional improved professional learning is offered targeting mathematics and English language arts, and specifically designed to meet the needs of students at risk. 76 Utah has invested time and resources in developing a robust multi-tiered system of support (UMTSS) and uses these structures to meet the needs of all students. Utah Professional Learning Standards Utah’s Professional Learning Standards outline the characteristics of evidence-based professional learning that lead to effective teaching practices, supportive leadership, and improved student results. These standards are the framework for ensuring and implementing evidence-based professional learning that supports teachers and leaders in identifying and meeting the needs of each student.  Learning Communities . . . commit to continuous improvement, individual and collective responsibility, and goal alignment.  Skillful Leaders . . . develop capacity, create support systems, and advocate for professional learning.  Resources . . . support educator learning through prioritization, monitoring, and coordination.  Outcomes . . . align board-required performance standards for teachers and leaders with the Utah Core Standards for student performance.  Learning Designs . . . integrate theories, research, and models of human learning to achieve intended outcomes.  Implementation . . . applies research about change and sustains support for implementation of professional learning for long-term change.  Data . . . provides a variety of sources and types of student, educator, and system information to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning.  Technology . . . includes targeted professional learning for the use of technology to enhance the learning environment and to integrate technology into content delivery. 5. Data and Consultation (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(K)): Describe how the State will use data and ongoing consultation as described in ESEA section 2101(d)(3) to continually update and improve the activities supported under Title II, Part A. Current Status The USBE tracks the trend data of percentages of state-qualified teachers and student achievement. If an LEA’s percentages are decreasing in either area or both, the USBE consults with the LEA and encourages the LEA to use funds to increase the number of state-qualified teachers and improve student achievement. 77 State-Level Activities to Address Identified Needs Consultation is a critical part of ensuring that Title II, Part A funds are used effectively and decisions about resource allocation are fully informed. Below are intended strategies to be used by the SEA to update and improve Title II, Part A activities.  Conduct outreach to and solicit input from relevant stakeholders during the design and development of plans for Title II, Part A funds, ensuring that there is a diverse representation of educators from across the State or LEA, especially those who work in high-need schools and in early education.  Be flexible when consulting with stakeholders, especially educators, by holding meetings or conferences outside the hours of the school day or by using a variety of communications tools, such as electronic surveys.  Seek out diverse perspectives within stakeholder groups, when possible, and ensure that consultation is representative of the State or LEA as much as possible.  Make stakeholders aware of past and current uses of Title II, Part A funds, and research or analysis of the effectiveness of those uses, if available, as well as research or analysis of proposed new uses of funds, in order to consider the best uses for schools and districts to support teacher and school leader development.  Consider the concerns identified during consultation, and revise uses of Title II, Part A funds when appropriate. 6. Teacher Preparation (ESEA section 2101(d)(2)(M)): Describe the actions the State may take to improve preparation programs and strengthen support for teachers, principals, or other school leaders based on the needs of the State, as identified by the SEA. Current Status Utah NTEP team In 2015 the USBE, in collaboration with the Utah System of Higher Education, joined in partnership with the Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (NTEP) sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers. The Utah NTEP team set six goals to ensure a learnerready teacher in every classroom and a school-ready leader in every school. 1) Require multiple performance-based measures of knowledge and demonstrated skill for initial licensure, generating data that can be used by the candidates for improvement. 2) Improve the tiered licensure system by designing multiple licensure pathways with various levels of responsibility, that continue throughout an educator’s career in PK–12 schools. 78 3) Require preparation programs and LEAs to collaborate in order to engage teaching candidates in continuous, contextualized, and carefully-structured school-based clinical experiences. 4) Require preparation programs to provide evidence (including performance-based evidence) that programs are designed to prepare initial certification candidates to effectively teach all students, with particular attention to special needs and English language learners (where there is evidence there are difficulties). 5) Improve the coordination and utilization of data systems to inform policy and strengthen teacher preparation, recruitment, retention, and effectiveness. 6) Gather stakeholder input and communicate changes in licensure in clear and consistent ways so that changes in teacher licensure can be manifest in systemic change. NTEP and the USBE Licensing Task Force are collaborating to revise and reform teacher licensing in Utah, and have recently completed a series of statewide focus groups providing input on licensing changes that are being considered. The Licensing Task Force will complete their work and provide recommendations to the full Board in September 2017, at which point staff will begin to seek legislative support for providing flexibility to the Board in statute. 79 E. Title III, Part A, Subpart I: English Language Acquisition and Enhancement 1. Entrance and Exit Procedures (ESEA section 3113(b)(2)): Describe how the SEA will establish and implement, with timely and meaningful consultation with LEAs representing the geographic diversity of the State, standardized, statewide entrance and exit procedures, including an assurance that all students who may be English learners are assessed for such status within 30 days of enrollment in a school in the State. Consultation for Utah’s Title III state plan and input into its development was elicited from every LEA during meetings for Alternative Language Services (ALS) Directors held on September 1, 2016; October 12, 2016; November 9, 2016; and February 17, 2017. An ESSA Workgroup for Title III convened in September 2016 with representation from rural, urban and suburban regions along with teachers, university professors, and resettlement agencies (Catholic Community Services, International Rescue Committee, and Asian Association of Utah). Biweekly webinars began in August 2016 to update all stakeholders on ESSA and the best practices implemented in LEAs that would affect the development of the state plan. All meetings and webinars were live-streamed and recorded with support materials on the media channel designated for Student Advocacy Services and Title III communications across the state. The Title III ESSA Workgroup developed a survey about the key features of ESSA, especially the accountability for Title III as included in Title I. There were 994 responses to the survey, which included a wide range of stakeholders from every region of Utah, including both communitybased organizations, government and business representation, secondary and elementary teachers, 143 parents, 132 teachers of English Learners (ELs), and 185 school and LEA administrators. Over 72–80 percent of survey respondents agreed to the following:  Statewide standardized entrance and exit procedures for ELs;  Assessments in non-English languages that will most likely yield accurate information of what students already know and can do;  Development of long-term goals and interim performance measures for all student groups, including ELs and ELs with special needs, to track increases in the percentage of ELs making annual progress in achieving English Language Proficiency (ELP) as measured by the state ELP assessment, academic achievement as measured by proficiency on state academic assessments, and high school graduation;  A statewide procedure for attainment of English Language Proficiency within a period of time that takes into consideration (at time of the student’s identification): 1) student’s ELP level; 2) student’s grade level; 3) amount of time in language education programs; 4) primary language literacy; and 5) background of ELs, whether refugee, immigrant, unaccompanied minor, students whose parents have been deported, or students with limited or interrupted formal education (SIFE). Based on the survey data described above and regular consultation with LEAs, both of which represent the geographic diversity of Utah, the following procedures are applied statewide and 80 aligned to the strategic priorities of the Utah State Board of Education: 1) Educational Equity; 2) Quality Learning; and, 3) Systems Values as well as supports by the Board’s commitment to advocacy for educational excellence for each student in the core document: Education Elevated which includes goals to be achieved by 2022. The educational rights and equitable educational opportunities of “national origin-minority children” are established in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352), Section 601 and by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) which requires states to ensure that an education agency “take(s) appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs” (Sec. 1703(f)). ESSA defines an “English learner” as an individual whose native language is not English and has difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language that may be sufficient to deny him or her the ability to meet challenging state academic standards. Entrance Procedures At registration, Utah uses a standard form of the Home Language Survey (HLS) that identifies a student with a native language other than English, or who comes from an environment where a non-English language either is dominant or may have affected a student’s English-language proficiency. Key questions to target the most relevant information include the following:  Which language does your child most frequently speak at home?  Which language do adults in your home most frequently use when speaking with your child?  Which language(s) does your child currently understand or speak?  Does your family come from a refugee background? The HLS does not identify the student as an EL. Rather, its purpose is to identify those students who may be potentially designated as ELs so that each student can be assessed in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing through the state-adopted English Language Proficiency instrument (currently WIDA Screener). The assessment is what determines if, in fact, the student is an EL and in need of specialized language and academic support services to which they are entitled. To ensure that students are not wrongly identified as potential ELs, technical assistance is provided by the USBE. Technical assistance to LEAs is provided by the USBE through an annual August webinar to ensure the purpose of the HLS is clearly understood by those who will administer it and those who will complete it. This survey cannot be used to confirm citizenship status or predetermine educational services. Consequently, to obtain accurate information, LEAs shall inform parents and families that the information provided by them will not be used to determine legal status or for any immigration purpose. The standardized Utah HLS is translated into the top five languages for the enrollment process. Students must be identified and assessed for services within 30 days of enrollment. For those 81 students who have not been identified at the beginning of the school year, they must be assessed during the first two weeks and parent or guardians notified of placement in a language instruction education program. Classify (confirm/disconfirm) a Student as an English Learner Utah is a member of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment consortium (WIDA) and as a member uses the initial ELP screener/assessment (WIDA Screener) to confirm EL Status (students who score a composite of ELP level 1–4). Those who do not quality for language services receive a composite score of 5 on the WIDA Screener. Individuals who administer the WIDA Screener receive training on administering and scoring the screener/assessment. The composite score of level 5 is used for first through twelfth grade to determine fluency. The beginning kindergarten assessment is based on a 1–30 point range and students who score 29 or 30 points are considered fluent at the kindergarten level. Assessment results are accessible to the ALS Directors and Special Education Directors as well as school administrators through a secure system, and are monitored by each LEA’s Assessment Director. Parents are notified by LEAs of a student’s ELP status within 30 days of enrollment in school through a standard statewide letter provided in multiple languages by the USBE on the Utah Title III website. Through this letter, parents are informed that even if their child qualifies for EL services, they have the right to decline such services. However, the school is still responsible to ensure that students learn English in every educational setting, which includes after school, summer school, or other opportunities for evidence-based interventions, which are discussed with ALS Directors at quarterly meetings and in monthly webinars. Reclassify: Exit Procedures In Utah the reclassification or exit criteria is based on the following two elements: 1) ELs receive a composite score of 5 on the annual WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment based on the increased rigor of the revised WIDA ACCESS for ELLs 2.0; and, 2) a teacher-student-parent conference is initiated to discuss the necessary support for the student’s ability to make continuous progress within 30 days of receiving the WIDA ACESS for ELLsS scores. An Exit Rubric, developed with stakeholder input, will be is being developed with stakeholder input and will be used by the team to develop written recommendations for continued support on the following four indicators: The student: 1) Maintains progress as related to the increasing challenges of academic language in the content; 2) Accomplishes learning tasks appropriate to grade level content standards, through both productive and receptive language functions that is speaking, writing and listening, reading); 82 3) Develops persistence as well as intra- and interpersonal skills to support self-regulation and prosocial behaviors; and 4) Performs well in a range of educational opportunities, including courses such as Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), designated honor courses, and/or programs designated as Gifted and Talented. Source: Joint guidance from Division of Civil Rights, Department of Justice; and Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education—September 3, 2016: Lau Requirements At the May 2017 meeting, the ALS Directors, in consultation with the USBE, developed a Conversation Guide for the parent meeting when students exit from EL services. The expectation is that the team, on the behalf of and with the student, will ensure that these questions and topics are directly answered, addressed, and included in the written recommendations: 1) For the parents/guardian/family: a. What supports will be available to my student to maintain progress? b. What supports will be available to my student to accomplish learning tasks appropriate to grade level content standards? 2) For the teacher/school team/parent and student: a. Goal setting together to ensure continued progress toward grade level content standards. b. What follow-up is necessary to support the student in meeting these goals? 3) For teacher/school team/parent and student; a. Explaining the range of educational opportunities available at the school/district. b. In what opportunities has your student already participated? c. How can we ensure that your student can access these opportunities? Monitoring of Exited English Learners The Exit Rubric with the Conversation Guide’s notations and recommendations will be kept in the English Learner Documentation Folder and reviewed at the annual teacher-student-parent conference in the beginning of each year for the following four years of monitoring. A critical component of the annual team meeting will focus on the student’s increased abilities to do challenging academic work as aligned with the Utah State Board’s strategic imperative of Educational Equity and access to early college coursework. 83 After the annual WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment, the four-year monitoring process for exited English Learners begins when the ALS Director sends the standard parent notification letter verifying that an individual student has been exited from the language instruction educational program (LIEP). Reclassification as English proficient is based on performance on the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment, and is not based on reaching proficiency on the academic end-oflevel state assessment. School-based monitoring is documented for each EL through the EL Documentation Folder that includes: 1) Copy of the Parent Notification Letter with initial WIDA Screener data for entrance into services; 2) All assessment data, which includes the Individual Student Report for longitudinal data and yearly goals for growth in English Language Proficiency as well as end-of-level academic reports in English language arts, mathematics, and science; 3) Copy of standard written parent refusal of services (if applicable); 4) Individualized Language Development and Instructional Plan; 5) Copy of parent notification of exit from services with an amended Individualized Instructional Plan; 6) Monitoring data that includes both grade reports and annual proficiency scores on academic content assessments as well as any interim progress reports or parent notifications that are updated annually for four years; and the Exit Rubric with written recommendations for continuous support for English Learners who have exited the language instruction educational program (LIEP). When feasible, a counselor will be a member of the school team to ensure that English learners are provided access to educational opportunities offered to peers and have access to grade level content. Language Assistance Services Programs Language assistance services and programs must be provided to qualifying students unless parents opt out of such identified programs. Special education services must also be provided to English Learners with identified and qualifying disabilities through the school’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team and as articulated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the USBE Special Education Rules. Appropriate EL services allow students to access curriculum in English within a reasonable period, generally from 5 to 7 years based on multiple variables such as initial ELP level at entrance, grade level, age, literacy in the native language, and interrupted formal education. Programs are chosen based on educational theory recognized by experts in the field, and are administered by individuals who are trained to use the program(s) effectively. Evidence is 84 reviewed to determine the program(s) results in students overcoming language barriers within a reasonable amount of time, and allows the student to participate equally in the schools’ curricular and extracurricular programs as outlined in the joint guidance from the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U. S. Department of Justice. The 2016 Fact Sheet reaffirms the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states: “Public schools must ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs.” 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); Utah annually assesses ELs through the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 in four domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to identify each student’s English proficiency level as defined by the WIDA performance definitions: Entering (Level 1); Beginning (Level 2); Developing (Level 3); Expanding (Level 4); Bridging (Level 5); Reaching (Level 6). Utah’s long-term goals for growth in English language proficiency are aligned to the goals set in the USBE’s Education Elevated plan, which supports the state’s accountability system. Time frames to reach English proficiency are based on several factors, including initial English proficiency as assessed by the WIDA Screener; age and grade upon entry, primary language literacy level, background of English learner students whether refugee or immigrant and/or students with interrupted formal education (SIFE). Based on these variables, an ambitious goal would be the attainment of English language proficiency in three years. However, given the variety of factors that influence time to attain English proficiency, the Data and Statistics department at USBE has set annual growth targets developed with the guidance from WIDA and agreed upon by Assessment and Accountability, Data and Statistics, and Federal Programs. The annual series of targets for: 1) Calculating and rank ordering the unweighted percentages of students who met the criterion for the eligible LEAs, using 2015–2016 data; 2) Setting the 2017 and 2024 targets equal to the values at the 20th and 75th percentiles of the ordered set of percentages; and 3) Interpolating the targets for 2016 through 2026: 85 a. EL students with both prior-year and current-year academic English assessment scores in the form of WIDA ACCESS for ELLs proficiency levels are considered eligible and counted in the denominator. b. The subset of students whose current year score is at least 0.4 scale points greater than their prior year score are considered to have made (adequate) progress toward proficiency and counted in the numerator. The goals for percentage of EL students who make a gain of at least 0.4 WIDA ACCESS for ELLs proficiency levels from one year to the next, are based on 2015 and 2016 data and schools at the 20th and 75th percentiles—the baseline and long term goal, respectively. Thus, the dataset of necessity includes only students with scores in both 2015 and 2016, but excludes students whose 2015 score was equal to or greater than 5.0. Schools that were split for the school grading accountability system in 2016 or had insufficient data (EL student N < 10) and their associated students are also excluded. Exhibit 17: Long-Term Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency School Type Baseline (2017) (%) Long-term (2022)Goal (%) School Elementary/Middle 40.0 72.7 School High School 16.9 39.8 State Elementary/Middle 57.4 72.7 State High School 29.0 39.8 Level of Analysis Source: Utah State Board of Education, 2017 Measurements of Interim Progress (Section 1111(b)(2)(G). Utah’s Title III and Data and Statistics departments, in consultation with and incorporating feedback from all LEAs, have developed annual progress reports which are provided to each LEA by school, grade, and teacher through the USBE Data Gateway. Exhibit 23 is a sample progress report. Currently these individual student reports show: 1) Overall Composite Scaled Scores for Expected Annual Growth at each English Proficiency Level; 2) WIDA Performance Definitions for what each student is in the process of developing (Example: Expanded sentences in oral interactions or written paragraphs); 3) A graph for yearly progress based on the scale score with a target score projected for the next year; 4) Proficiency levels for each of the fours language domains (Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing); 86 5) The Can Do Descriptors under each domain to be used by teachers for planning instruction; and, 6) A longitudinal chart showing the following data: Exhibit 18: Sample of Utah’s Progress Report Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Exhibit 21 shows a sample of the progress chart that teachers can use with students and families to graph yearly progress in setting goals based on the next year’s WIDA Performance Definitions. Exhibit 19: Goals Based on WIDA Performance Definitions Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 The recently developed LEA reports show whether each student, by school and grade, has met the annual growth goal by ELP level. Consequently, each LEA can identify schools and/or grades that have been successful with students at each ELP level. The rationale is to provide LEAs with the kind of information that can support both recognition and dissemination of effective instructional practices across schools. Reports were developed with input from ALS Directors to support LEAs in their Annual Improvement planning process to: 1) Meet the needs of individual schools, 87 2) Allocate resources more effectively to those schools showing the greatest need; and, 3) Recognize effective practices in schools that show growth with students at different ELP levels. ii. The challenging State academic standards. Growth targets toward increased academic proficiency on Utah’s standards-based content assessments are calculated by each school’s Median Growth Percentile (MGP) by student groups for English language arts, mathematics, and science in Utah’s Data Gateway. These data are requested in each LEA’s application for Title III funding. Utah’s academic content standards as assessed by Utah’s assessment system (Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) in English language arts, mathematics, and science) are aligned to Utah’s English language proficiency standards (WIDA) and the requirements set by the ESEA in Section 1111(b)(1)(F). The USBE has provided technical assistance to all LEAs through live streamed, recorded and archived meetings for Title III coordinators and Alternative Language Services Directors as well as district- school-wide professional development to support educators, teachers and principals, to: 1) Align the individual student WIDA reports with the Key Uses in the WIDA standards; 2) Align Key Uses to the content literacy standards (spiraled from the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards) and the assessment blueprints (Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels) to support instructional decisions in each grade level, prekindergarten to grade twelve. Exception for Recently Arrived English Learners Exhibit 25 provides example scenarios of exception for recently arrived English Learners in accountability determinations in Title I on annual standards-based content assessments (Exception for Recently Arrived English Learners Section 1111 (L)(3)(A)(II)(aa–cc)): 88 Exhibit 20: Examples of Exceptions for Recently Arrived English Learners Year of Enrollment Statewide Academic Assessment Required Consideration in Accountability Recently arrived: Enroll during current school year, on or after April 15 None N/A Recently Arrived: Enroll during current school year, before April 15 ELA, Math, Science Excluded from accountability determination Year 1–2: Enrolled in the previous school year, on or after April 15 ELA, Math, Science Excluded from accountability determination; counted in participation Year 1–2: Enrolled in previous school year, before April 15 ELA, Math, Science Included in growth calculations only; counted in participation Year 2: Student enrolled in school anytime during the school year two years ago ELA, Math, Science Included in growth and proficiency accountability calculations; counted in participation Source: Utah State Board of Education, Spring 2017 Examples in Exhibit 25 are interpreted to mean:  Row 1—Student has recently arrived in the U.S.; Enrolled in school April 28 of the current school year  Row 2—Student has recently arrived in the U.S.; Enrolled in school November 17 of the current school year  Row 3—Student enrolled in school May 7 in the previous school year  Row 4—Student enrolled in school December 9 in the previous school year  Row 5—Student enrolled in school April 26 two years ago Additional Transition Support for Recently Arrived English Learners In response to feedback from the 30-day public comment period, Utah will develop a transition plan for recently arrived English learners (RAEL) who enter high school and are at risk of not 89 graduating or successfully transitioning into post-secondary education, including a career pathway or job training. The Refugee Youth Services Collaborative (RYSC) at the Utah State Board of Education includes representation from the three resettlement agencies: Asian Association of Utah, Catholic Community Services of Utah, and the International Rescue Committee; the Refugee Services Office at the Department of Workforce Services, as well as representation across the department of Student Advocacy Services, which includes School Counseling and Title III in Federal Programs. Over that last year, the current work of the Collaborative has focused on supporting effective transition and enrollment procedures for recently-arrived English learners into Utah’s schools, as well as problem solving based on the Utah State Board’s priority of educational equity in Utah’s strategic plan. The goal for 2018– 2019 is to re-focus efforts to develop a transition plan and include representation from Adult Education and Career and Technical Education at USBE, the Utah Refugee Education and Training Center, and Salt Lake Community College. 3. Monitoring and Technical Assistance (ESEA section 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 USBE will monitor the progress of each eligible entity receiving a Title III, Part A Subgrant in helping ELs achieve English proficiency with all LEAs at the September ALS Directors meeting. This annual meeting begins the cycle of continuous improvement with scheduled onsite visits by both the fiscal compliance officer and the Title III Specialist. During this meeting, each eligible entity, in teams and across LEAs, will review relevant data provided by the Data and Statistics department from the USBE. The data review will include the following: 1) The number and percentage of ELs who have not attained English Language proficiency within 5 years of initial classification as an EL and first enrollment in the local educational agency; 2) The number and percentage of ELS in the programs and activities who are making progress toward achieving English language proficiency as described in section 1111(c)(4)(9)(A)(ii), in the aggregate and disaggregated, at a minimum, by ELs with a disability; 3) The number and percentage of ELs in the programs and activities attaining English language proficiency based on the English Language proficiency standards as described in section 1111(b)(1)(G) by the end of each school year, as determined by the State’s English language proficiency assessment under section 1111(b)(2)(G); 4) The number and percentage of ELs exiting the language instruction educational programs based on their attainment of English Language proficiency; 5) The number and percentage of ELs meeting challenging State academic standards each of the 4 years after such children are no longer receiving the services under this part, in the aggregate and disaggregated, at a minimum, by ELs with a disability; and, 90 6) The number and percentage of exited or re-designated ELs, based on course taking patterns, who have successfully taken college preparatory courses like AP, Concurrent courses, and IB. At the beginning of the academic year, each LEA revises and submits an Annual Improvement Plan, currently on a web-based platform, Desktop Monitoring Instrument (DMI). This plan includes the following: 1) A needs assessment based on the English Learner Indicator in the accountability system and aligned to budget allocations as requested in the Utah Consolidated Application, due November 1; 2) The Monitoring Self-Assessment Tool used as an electronic portfolio with supporting evidence, based on the ESSA statute and Utah’s state plan; 3) The indicators enumerated in the English Learners Fact Sheet, “Ensuring English Learner Students Can Participate Meaningfully and Equally in Educational Programs,” issues jointly by the Civil Rights Division of U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights by the U.S. Department of Education; and, 4) The number of students awarded the Bi-literacy Seal as supported by the Utah State Board of Education Rule, R277-499 (October 2016). Utah’s plan for increased academic achievement for ELs is to provide systemic online professional development to better support educators in both understanding the research on the importance of literacy in a student’s first language and the relevant strategies and practices for schools. This plan includes an increased focus on literacy in a student’s first language; especially the top three languages in Utah: Spanish, Navajo and Arabic. The K–12 Navajo curriculum is being used as a model for the other tribal languages: Goshute, Ute, Piute, and Shoshone. The plan increases support from Utah’s refugee communities, the Title III section at USBE in collaboration with the World Language Department, the Refugee Services Offices in the Utah Department of Workforce Services and the Utah System of High Education (USHE) is in the beginning stages of developing a Multi-Literacy Seal and a career pathway for Translation Services Certification. The steps the USBE will take to further assist eligible entities if the strategies funded under Title III, Part A are not effective include providing technical assistance and modifying such strategies. The purpose of the USBE’s process is twofold: 1) Ensuring educational equity by providing access and participation in educational opportunities through quality instruction by qualified teachers for success in college and career; and, 91 2) Supporting LEAs in evaluating the effectiveness of their language instruction educational program (LIEP) and adjusting the use of supplemental funds in the Annual Improvement Plan (AIP) to better meet the goals of the Title III Subgrant. LEAs at a meeting on February 17, 2017 agreed that the Title III LEA Self-Assessment Tool has been will be revised to align with ESSA and used in all future USBE program reviews which will be conducted on site as well as documented in each LEA’s electronic portfolio, evaluated by December 15October 30 of each year (ESEA section 3113(b)(8)). The USBE, through monthly interactive webinars, which are then recorded and archived, provides ongoing Technical Assistance. These webinars focus on both policy and processes for LEAs to monitor the effectiveness of their LIEP, outlined in the Non-regulatory Guidance of September 16, 2016, as well as ensuring the Title III funds are used effectively to supplement state and local funds (SEC. 3115(g)). Providing Technical Assistance and Modifying Ineffective Strategies When LEAs do not meet growth goals as indicated by the data from the LEA’s plan, the USBE provides the following support: 1) An official letter communicating the results with the growth targets for the next year; 2) Model practices from other LEAs through quarterly ALS Directors’ Meetings with an emphasis on policies, procedures and strategies to more effectively use resources for increasing student growth toward English Language proficiency; 3) Online professional learning modules and/or courses, through Southern Utah University and Title III at the USBE, focusing on evidence-based practices in high need topics. Each topic (example: Language acquisition) will be differentiated according to the data for each ELP level as identified in the annual improvement plans for funding through the Utah Consolidated Plan for Title III and the Desktop Monitoring Instrument (DMI). 4) Dissemination of online resources with the Utah Education Network to showcase exceptional programs, including online ESL Endorsement courses, modules for educators and administrators on models of mentoring refugee students, Middle School Advocacy/Advisory programs that create effective transition to high schools, and diverse partnerships across organizations and stakeholders, including the newly created Center for Research on Migration and Refugee Integration at the College of Social Work at the University of Utah as well as the arts community and all the re-settlement agencies in Salt Lake City, and; 5) Revision of Annual Improvement Plan, electronically monitored in the SEA Grants Management System, supports the use of student data for program evaluation and the effective allocation of resources for increased student growth in meeting annual targets for English language proficiency and Utah’s challenging academic standards in Mathematics, English Language Arts, and Science; 92 6) Technical Assistance, through monitoring visits that include content specialists from the SEA in Mathematics, English Language Arts and Science, to provide supports for quality instruction in meeting the state’s grade level academic content standards and; 7) Monitoring Visits, priority scheduling based on LEAs not meeting annual growth targets in English language proficiency and the end of level academic assessments for challenging state standards, that include the following timelines: a. Commendations and Findings/Recommendations submitted to the LEA within a week of the visit. 5)b. Response to Findings/Recommendations: The LEA will have 30 days to respond to each specific Finding with concrete actions integrated into their Annual Improvement Plan and submitted to the Title III Specialist at USBE. including a needs assessment that is electronically monitored through the Desktop Monitoring Instrument. Monitoring Fiscal Compliance An important aspect to this process is monitoring fiscal compliance related to allowable expenditures to ensure the allocation of funds to LEAs is used to support the purposes as delineated (ESSA, Section 3102 (20 U.S.C. 6812)): 1) To help ensure that ELs, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency and develop high levels or academic achievement in English so that all ELs meet the same challenging academic standards that all children are expected to meet (1)(2); 2) To assist teachers (including preschool teachers), principals and other school leaders, State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools in establishing, implementing, and sustaining effective language instruction educational programs designed to prepare ELs, including immigrant children and youth, to enter all-English instructional settings (3)(4); and, 3) To promote parental, family, and community participation in language instruction educational programs for parents, families, and communities of ELs. Fiscal compliance to support LEAs in financial decisions for allowable expenditures is the subject for Directors’ Meetings and webinars. Random audits of LEAs are initiated by the Federal Programs Fiscal Compliance Analyst, in conjunction with the Title III Program Specialist, when LEA reimbursement requests are submitted. When discrepancies occur, the request for supporting documentation is reviewed by both the Compliance Analyst and the Program Specialist. Ongoing issues with any LEA is referred to the Assistant Superintendent of Finance and, in conjunction with the USBE Leadership Team, recommendations for further action are determined. 93 F. Title IV, Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 4103(c)(2)(A)): Describe how the SEA will use funds received under Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 for State-level activities. Utah’s Title IV, Part A is aligned with the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) Strategic Plan (Elevation Elevated) that highlights the priorities of educational equity and system values and developed through consultation with multiple stakeholders. LEA Subgrants As stated in section 4101, the USBE will award subgrants to LEAs for the purpose of: 1) Providing a well-rounded education for all students; 2) Improving school conditions for student learning; and, 3) Improving the use of technology in order to improve academic achievement and digital literacy. The term ‘well-rounded education’ means courses, activities, and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography, computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience. State Level Activities The current USBE programs that support well-rounded educational opportunities include the Mathematics Science Partnership (MSP), Dual Language Immersion, Beverly-Taylor Sorenson Arts Learning Program, and the Early College Coursework Program (Advanced Placement, Concurrent Enrollment, and International Baccalaureate programs). The current USBE programs that support safe and healthy students include school-based mental health, collaboration with community-based services, elementary and secondary counseling, trauma-informed practices, substance Abuse Intervention, and Suicide Prevention. Additionally, Utah’s Digital Teaching and Learning Program is entirely focused on implementing and supporting school-wide and LEA approaches for using technology to inform instruction, support teacher collaboration, and personalized learning. The USBE sections of Teaching and Learning, Student Advocacy Services, and Special Education, in conjunction with the Data and Statistics section, will use disaggregated data focusing on underserved populations to reveal course-taking patterns that are incongruent to student college and career readiness goals and provide technical assistance to LEAs for ongoing evaluation and improvement. USBE will leverage current personnel and existing programs to support LEAs in providing programs and activities that offer well-rounded educational experiences to all students as 94 described in section 4107; foster safe, healthy, supportive and drug free environments as described in section 4108; and increase access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences supported by technology. Feedback from the statewide survey will also be incorporated into the subgrant application. USBE will assemble a team of qualified grant reviewers and provide technical assistance to ensure understanding related to the purposes of the grant and consistency in scoring. After having reviewed the applications, USBE will reconvene this team of grant reviewers to determine final funding recommendations. Once the grants are awarded, USBE will provide technical assistance based on the specific needs of each LEA. Additionally, USBE will monitor each subgrantee for fiscal compliance. 2. Awarding Subgrants (ESEA section 4103(c)(2)(B)): Describe how the SEA will ensure that awards made to LEAs under Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 are in amounts that are consistent with ESEA section 4105(a)(2). USBE will ensure that awards made to LEAs are consistent with ESEA section 4105(a)(2) through a competitive grant application process. In order to receive an award, LEAs will submit proposals through a consolidated grants management system, which will include the following components:  Comprehensive Needs Assessment as described in section 4106 (d)(1).  Update the annual Comprehensive Needs Assessment to ensure progress toward meeting the purpose of the grant.  Evidence of consultation with stakeholders as described in section 4106 (c)(1).  Description of activities and programming that the LEA will carry out as described in section 4106(e)(1).  Description of how LEAs prioritize the distribution of funds to schools based on most recent update to Comprehensive Needs Assessment.  Assurances as described in 4106(e)(2).  Budget demonstrating that not less than 20 percent of funds received will be used to support activities authorized under section 4107; that not less than 20 percent of funds received will be used to support activities authorized under section 4108; and that a portion of funds will be used in section 4109(b) to meet the goals of this section. 95 G. Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers 1. Use of Funds (ESEA section 4203(a)(2)): Describe how the SEA will use funds received under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, including funds reserved for State-level activities. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) Program is a competitive federal grant for LEAs and Community or Faith-Based Organizations (CFBOs) to serve students and their families attending schools with poverty levels of 40 percent or higher outside of regular school hours. The use of funds under this program are specifically allocated to:  Provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students (particularly students in high-poverty areas and those who attend lowperforming schools) meet State and local student performance standards in core academic subjects such as reading and mathematics;  Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities such as youth development activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology education programs, and character education programs, that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students; and  Offer families of students served by community learning centers opportunities for literacy and related educational development. Currently, Utah has over thirty 21st CCLC grants, serving over 100 individual school or community sites and over 25,000 students statewide. The process of awarding subgrants and additional detail on how funds are used to meet the program objectives is provided below. 2. Awarding Subgrants (ESEA section 4203(a)(4)): Describe the procedures and criteria the SEA will use for reviewing applications and awarding 21st Century Community Learning Centers funds to eligible entities on a competitive basis, which shall include procedures and criteria that take into consideration the likelihood that a proposed community learning center will help participating students meet the challenging State academic standards and any local academic standards. All 21st CCLC applicants must propose to serve students attending schools with at least 40% or higher free/reduced lunch in order to be eligible for the grant funds. 21st CCLC subgrants are awarded using the competitive priorities listed below:  Proposed program will serve students attending a Federal Comprehensive, Targeted, and/or State Turnaround school identified by the USBE;  The program serves middle or junior high school students from schools eligible under the absolute priority; 100  The program services high school students from schools eligible under the absolute priority;  The proposed program serves Pre-Kindergarten and/or Kindergarten students from schools eligible under the absolute priority;  The LEA or organization proposing for 21st CCLC funds has not received 21st CCLC funds in the last five years. Each of the competitive priorities listed above address programming for students from preschool through grade twelve, as allowable with the 21st CCLC grant. They also support schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities as well as schools identified by the USBE or LEA as being in need of intervention and support. Applicants receive additional point values during the application scoring process based on each of the competitive priorities listed above. Once the applications are completed and submitted into the online system by the deadline, the USBE arranges for a team of independent peer reviewers to read and score the application and make official funding recommendations. USBE will recruit grant reviewers who are familiar with the 21st CCLC grant and have experience with grant applications. Potential reviewers may include the following: 1) Grant Directors not applying for a new 21st CCLC grant 2) Principals from schools serving as existing 21st CCLC sites 3) LEA Title I Directors 4) Charter School Leaders 5) Site Coordinators from existing 21st CCLC sites 6) Other qualified individuals All approved reviewers will sign a Conflict of Interest Agreement, indicating that there is no opportunity for personal or financial gain. Technical assistance is provided to all grant reviewers in the form of a workshop during which sample grants are read and scored to ensure calibration to the scoring rubric. Participation in a technical assistance workshop and a post-scoring reviewers’ meeting is mandatory for all grant reviewers. The detailed scoring rubric is designed to ensure that applicants that are recommended for funding demonstrate a likelihood that a proposed center will meet challenging state and local academic standards. In the event of a tie score among 21st CCLC grant applicants, USBE and the peer review team will consider the poverty levels of the program sites proposed in each of the applications. The applicant proposing to serve the sites with the highest poverty levels will be awarded the grant. If the applicants are proposing to serve sites with the same poverty level, the applicants from the state’s region with fewer 21st CCLC award will be awarded the grant. 101 USBE will assemble a peer review team for continuation applications in grant years two through five based on the same guidelines listed above to review continuation applications with regard to the following information: 1) Local program evaluation, 2) Efforts to align program activities based on changing community needs and student achievement; and, 3) History of fiscal compliance. After reviewing the above information, the peer review team will provide recommendations to USBE to determine the appropriateness of a continuation award. This will be an annual process to ensure that program operations, participant outcomes, and fiscal management are benchmarked and measured for consideration of a continuation award. During the 21st CCLC grant competition, applicants and peer reviewers are trained on the funding for 21st CCLC. Utah’s 21st CCLC program requires applicants to request at least $100,000 in initial funding. The 21st CCLC is a five year grant, and grantees will receive the same amount of funding for the first three years of the grant, with a 75% reduction in funds in year four and a 50% reduction in year five. Grantees are encouraged to begin planning for reductions in funding as soon as the grant in awarded. Applicant and peer reviewer training also includes discussions of essential components of high quality programs designed to help participating students meet state and local academic achievement standards. USBE’s measurement of high-quality 21st CCLC programs includes the tools and components of the monitoring process described below. The USBE utilizes all components of the grant process for monitoring sub grantees. This includes the initial application review, grantee orientation, data collection and review to inform programmatic change, ongoing training and technical assistance, and regular program evaluation. The USBE utilizes the formal compliance monitoring plan to address the following components:  Proposed program will serve students attending a Federal Comprehensive, Targeted, and/or State Turnaround school identified by Utah State Board of Education.  21st CCLC Application (new and continuation applications). The applications include detailed goals and objectives determined by the grant applicants. These applications will be reviewed each year as USBE works with the grantees to determine progress made towards the achievement of the project goals.  21APR (21st CCLC federal database) data submitted each year. Data will be reviewed by USBE upon certification for each reporting period. Prior to onsite monitoring visits, the 21APR data will be reviewed in more detail and discussed with program staff during onsite monitoring visits.  Utah Afterschool Program Quality Assessment and Improvement Tool site visits conducted by Utah Afterschool Network specialists. 102  Grantee meetings held at USBE. These meetings provide technical assistance on compliance issues, the monitoring process, and other topics that are deemed helpful and/or necessary based on feedback from the grantees and trends observed during onsite monitoring visits including feedback received from stakeholders.  21st CCLC grantees receive onsite compliance monitoring visits in years two and four of the grant. Visits during year two will serve as a follow-up visit to the initial UAN mentor visit during the first year of the grant. Visits during year four will provide time to verify any corrective action(s) and provide feedback to grantees planning to reapply for another round of funding.  The 21st CCLC Compliance Monitoring Tool is utilized to ensure the sub grantees are in compliance meeting the statutory requirements.  USBE convened an advisory committee to establish goals and indicators for the State 21st CCLC evaluation. The committee agreed upon the following goals and performance indicators that are discussed in the Bidders Workshop with the potential applicants as well as reviewed with all subgrantees during monitoring visits. Participants in Utah 21st CCLC programs will demonstrate educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral change. Goal 1: Academic Achievement Outcomes. Regular program participants will demonstrate growth towards meeting state and local academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics. 1.1: Behavior Outcomes. Regular program participants will demonstrate improvements on measures such as school attendance, classroom performance, and decreased disciplinary actions. 1.2: Utah 21st CCLC programs will offer a broad array of additional services designed to complement the regular academic program based on the needs and interests of program participants. Goal 2: Core Educational Services. All centers will offer high quality services in at least one core academic area, e.g., reading and literacy, mathematics, and science. 2.1: Enrichment and Support Activities. All centers will offer enrichment and support activities such as nutrition and health, art, music, technology, and recreation. 2.2: Community Involvement. All centers will establish and maintain partnerships within the community to enhance program success and provide services based on the input and needs of its stakeholders. 2.3: Implementation of Program Design. All centers provide educational, enrichment, and support services in accordance with the approved plan. 103 Goal 3: Utah 21st CCLC programs will offer families of participating students opportunities for educational development in high need communities. 3.1: Services to Families of Participating Students. All centers will offer educational and related services to families of participating students. 3.2: Services to Families in Need. All centers service students and families from school attendance areas with at least 40 percent poverty. 104 H. Title V, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program 1. Outcomes and Objectives (ESEA section 5223(b)(1)): Provide information on program objectives and outcomes for activities under Title V, Part B, Subpart 2, including how the SEA will use funds to help all students meet the challenging State academic standards. The U. S. Department of Education (USED) identifies LEAs in the State that are eligible to receive Rural and Low-Income School Program (RLISP) funds. USED awards funds to Utah each year, which are sub-granted to LEAs identified by USED on a formula basis. Utah has a limited number of rural districts that qualify in this category. The federal eligibility criteria: (1) 20 percent or more of children ages 5–17 served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line, and (2) all schools served by the LEA are designated by USED rural designation codes. Funds awarded to LEAs for RLISP must carry out initiatives designed to improve student achievement on the State’s rigorous grade-level academic standards. LEAs that receive these funds may use the funds to carry out a variety of allowable activities in Title I-A, Title II-A, Title III-A, or Title IV-A, based on specific local needs. Activities may include but are not limited to: teacher recruitment and retention through the use of signing bonuses or incentives for teaching in schools in remote areas or in very high-poverty schools; teacher professional development and mentoring; instructional coaching; afterschool enrichment programs; additional support for students who are English learners, immigrants, refugees, or other students in need of English language acquisition; bullying prevention; and parent and family engagement. Monitoring is based on use of the funds to provide additional services to help students improve academic proficiency and growth as measured by the State’s accountability system. State assessment data is reviewed to show educational gains made at schools served with RLISP funds. Data from LEAs that receive RLISP funds is reported to USED annually as part of the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). If a USED-identified LEA (information on eligibility is on the USED Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) is eligible for both the Small, Rural, School Achievement (SRSA) funds (LEAs must apply directly to USED for SRSA funds), and the RLIS funds. The LEA can apply for only one of the two grants. If the LEA applies for and receives SRSA funding from USED, the LEA is ineligible to receive RLISP funds from the State’s award. 2. Technical Assistance (ESEA section 5223(b)(3)): Describe how the SEA will provide technical assistance to eligible LEAs to help such agencies implement the activities described in ESEA section 5222. LEAs that are eligible to receive RLISP funds will be required to complete a section in their annual consolidated program plans based on current needs. The LEA consolidated plan (which contains a needs assessment and goals) identifies which specific goals and other program funds the LEA is supplementing with its RLISP funds. LEA needs assessments, goals, and spending plans are part of the annual grants management system. The USBE program staff review program plans and budgets annually to approve their yearly plan. LEAs will budget the funds in the State’s online grant management system. 105 USBE provides annual technical assistance sessions on the use of the online grants management system. These trainings are provided at multiple sites across the state. In addition, training modules are available online. Program staff are available to LEAs on a continuous basis in person, by phone, and through email. USBE maintains a Help Desk to respond to LEAs questions and concerns. USBE technical assistance and monitoring of the LEAs that receive RLISP funding has been adjusted in response to stakeholder feedback. Monitoring will more closely look at the academic achievements of the students served with these funds in addition to fiscal compliance. The SEA Title I Fiscal Compliance Specialist regularly monitors and audits RLIS reimbursement requests received from LEAs to ensure expenditures are allowable and supplanting has not occurred. Both desktop and onsite monitoring and technical assistance is provided throughout the year. 106 I. Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subtitle B 1. 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. Utah’s Strategic Plan outlines a commitment to educational equity for each student. Essential to this commitment is the ability to identify, conduct a needs assessment and provide supports for Utah’s homeless population. The guidelines for the identification of homeless youth under the McKinney-Vento recognizes a student as being homeless if they “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” (US Legislature, 2017). Utah is committed to providing school entrance and supports for our students who experience homelessness. Multiple procedures are used to identify students experiencing homelessness, in order to ensure that students are not missed. Homelessness can happen at any time throughout the year, therefore multiple attempts in the identification process need to be conducted. The most common forms of identification are: 1) enrollment forms during the registration process, 2) informal identification such as information from a peer , 3) self-identification, and 4) community partner referrals (state housing, social services, faith-based organizations, etc.). LEAs also place information about homeless identification and available services at schools to ensure access to pertinent information. Once a student has been identified, the local homeless liaison will meet with the student/parent/guardian in order to let them know their rights (in written form) as McKinneyVento-identified students. The liaison will also identify themselves as the student’s advocate in case of any issues to immediate enrollment, or further services that may be required but that are met with barriers. Once a student has been identified, a needs assessment is conducted. Currently there is not a common needs assessment, but starting with the 2017–2018 school year, Utah will develop a needs assessment form to ensure consistency within LEAs and across the state. USBE will work with multiple entities in creating the assessment (e.g., Runaway and Homeless Youth Act providers; USBE Special Education Services; English learner services; foster care agencies; juvenile justice facilities; parent groups; business, faith-based, community, and civic groups that volunteer money, staff, facilities, and services to serve youth; Indian and Native American programs; Migrant programs; youth shelter directors; Teen parent and child care facilities; workforce development boards; Utah Higher Education Assistance Authority; local public libraries; and College and University registrar staff). 2. Dispute Resolution (722(g)(1)I of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe procedures for the prompt resolution of disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless children and youth. USBE supports the established procedure for the prompt resolution of disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless children and youth. If a dispute arises over school selection or enrollment in a school, the following will apply: 107 1) The child or youth shall be immediately admitted to the school in which enrollment is sought, pending resolution of the dispute (SEC 722(g)(3)(i)). The school placement choice is made regardless of whether the child or youth lives with the homeless parents or has been temporarily placed elsewhere; 2) The parent or guardian of the child or youth shall be provided with a written explanation of the school’s decision regarding school selection or enrollment, including the rights of the parent, guardian, or youth to appeal the decision (SEC 722(g)(3)(ii)); 3) The child, youth, parent, or guardian shall be referred to the LEA liaison designated under paragraph (SEC 722(1)(J)(ii), who shall carry out the dispute resolution process as described in paragraph (1)I as expeditiously as possible after receiving notice of the dispute (SEC 722(g)(3)(iii))); 4) In the case of an unaccompanied youth, the homeless liaison shall ensure that the youth is immediately enrolled in school pending resolution of the dispute (SEC 722(g)(3)(iv))); and 5) The determination made by the USBE specialist is the final decision on such matters and documentation regarding all sides of the dispute will be documented in a report (SEC 722(g)(3)(v))). 3. 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. Professional Development for McKinney-Vento LEA liaisons will happen at an annual USBE inperson meeting held each spring. Materials regarding best practice, practical implementation, services available, identification of best practice, and updates on legislation and requirements will be presented to the liaisons. Participants will be instructed on how to disseminate knowledge to Principals, LEA staff (e.g., Special Education staff, English learner staff, Title I staff, Head Start), school staff (including school registration staff, attendance officers, teachers and specialized instructional staff, Special Education staff, EL staff). The USBE will provide these materials on the USBE website and will coordinate with other departments to ensure that the presentation of materials is disseminated and training is provided to various stakeholders throughout the state (see I.1 for the list of stakeholders). This communication will be ongoing and allow for better services and consistent identification of homeless students and their needs. This is the model currently being used and it will continue to be improved as needs arise. 4. Access to Services (722(g)(1)(F) of the McKinney-Vento Act): Describe procedures that ensure that: 108 i. Homeless children have access to public preschool programs, administered by the SEA or LEA, as provided to other children in the State; The procedure the USBE will use to ensure access of homeless children to preschool is that the USBE will work with Early Childhood Education partners, both LEA- and community-based, to ensure that families with Pre-K students are aware of their rights under the McKinney-Vento Act and ESSA requirements for early education to ensure that space is available to children in homeless situations. The McKinney-Vento specialist will also ensure that appropriate collaboration and coordination happens within the USBE and the Department of Workforce Services Office of Child Care and the Utah Department of Health to ensure that Teaching and Learning, Special Education, Title I, Title III, Head Start, and all other departments and agencies are not only aware of the requirements under the law, but that they are also training and discussing this with their stakeholders. This will be an ongoing collaboration across departments and agencies. ii. 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 LEA liaisons have a vital role in helping students be identified as homeless and ensuring that barriers are removed from their immediate enrollment. There are various forms of this taking place. For students who are starting the year as homeless, registration staff are trained to look for specific signs of homelessness on their enrollment forms. Addresses being left blank, as an example, serves as a red flag for LEA personnel to dig deeper into the homeless status of a student. Once the student is determined homeless then immediate enrollment without barriers is expected and appropriate follow-up services will be considered to help support the student. These additional services may include, special education services, mental health services, English language development services, academic supports, etc. iii. 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. As recipients of Federal financial assistance and as public entities, LEAs must not discriminate against homeless children in their educational programs, extracurricular activities, summer school, career and technical education, advanced placement, online learning, and charter school programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The U. S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on:  Race, color, or national origin, including discrimination based on a person’s limited English proficiency or English learner status or discrimination based on a person’s actual 109 or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);  Sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy or parental status, sex stereotypes (such as treating persons differently because they do not conform to sex-role expectations or because they are attracted to or are in relationships with persons of the same sex), and gender identity or transgender status (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972);  Age (Age Discrimination Act of 1975); and  Disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as applied to recipients of Federal financial assistance, and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as applied to public educational entities, regardless of Federal funds). The USBE will implement procedures that include liaisons advocating for their respective homeless students. 5. Strategies to Address Other Problems (722(g)(1)(H) of the McKinney-Vento 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. LEA liaisons are provided ongoing professional development to ensure that once a student is identified as homeless, then all barriers regarding (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 are minimized. The following strategies may be used: identifying and collaborating with the agency that can provide the needed documentation to obtain the necessary documentation; ensuring LEA staff are informed of the rights of homeless students without a guardian (see March 2017 Guidance on Education of Homeless children and Youth), instruct liaisons on appropriate use of McKinney-Vento funds (purchasing uniforms for students). The LEA Liaison is the student advocate within the LEA who will remain with the student during the process of enrollment until all enrollment issues are addressed to ensure barriers do not exist. McKinney-Vento LEA liaisons work with trained school staff to participate in the enrollment process for homeless students to resolve issues that may arise during the enrollment process. The USBE will provide annual in-person professional learning, technical 110 assistance as needed, and online support to minimize enrollment questions. Through desktop monitoring (annually), site monitoring (every three years for McKinney-Vento sub-grant recipients) and over the course of regular monitoring of LEAs statewide, the USBE will ensure proper enrollment procedures are a part of each LEA’s McKinney-Vento plan. The USBE will create Board Rule in order to ensure that it is clear that students who lack immunization records, don’t meet residency requirements (if applicable), lack birth certificates, have guardianship issues or can’t meet uniform or dress code requirements are waived for the initial enrollment of the student with proper follow up to ensure that these things can either be found or created to ensure the student is properly enrolled and continue in their education uninterrupted. 6. 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 due to outstanding fees or fines, or absences. The USBE will ensure that LEAs in the state have developed, reviewed and revised current policies to remove barriers to the identification of homeless children and youth by conducting a needs assessment. The results of the needs assessment will be used to prepare proper documentation for a recommendation to the Utah State Board of Education, which will then create board rule/policy. It will include, but will not be limited to, recommendations on the following:  Proper identification of homeless students;  Ensuring appropriate access to academic and extra-curricular activities for homeless students;  Identify homeless student needs (e.g., English learner needs, Special Education needs, mental health needs, etc.);  Ensuring homeless students receive appropriate services to their needs;  The proper procedures for an immediate enrollment without barriers to school;  The proper way to refer homeless students to appropriate community services  Procedures for removing policies and practices that create barriers for homeless students;  Ensuring smooth and efficient transitions for student between schools in the same academic year as well as: from elementary to secondary, junior high to high school, and high school to post-secondary studies and career paths. 111 Once defined by the Board, the USBE staff will provide training and technical support to ensure that LEAs add this to their local plans and procedures as well as including it in their McKinneyVento LEA plans. 7. Assistance from Counselors (722)(g)(1)(K): A description of how youths described in section 752(2) will receive assistance from counselors to advise such youths, and prepare and improve the readiness of such youths for college. USBE works with school counselors to receive ongoing direction from the McKinney-Vento services to support and connect homeless students. They also assist in coordinating services with WIOA and other community resources in order to access funding and additional developmental supports students will need that are preparatory for college and careers. The Utah State College and Career Readiness School Counseling Program Model (2017) structures a school counseling program to support the college and career readiness of every student. The school counselor is an essential member of the school leadership team and works with the administration, faculty members, and other stakeholders to establish rigorous, academic standards and develop long- and short-range goals to improve student learning for every student in the school population. This is not limited to closing achievement gaps, but reveals disparities in outcomes in student groups, and guaranteeing equitable access through the removal of barriers for underserved populations by using data to effect desired changes. School counselors provide the leadership to assess school learning using disaggregated data, identify student needs (Systemic Needs Assessment), and collaborate with others to develop priority interventions (Data Projects) to help achieve desired student outcomes (Mindsets & Competencies). School counselors are taught to use data to identify academic and social deficiencies through examination of access, attainment and achievement data, which can hinder student success. A systemic approach allows schools counselors to examine each level of support in identifying existing barriers impeding student success. Such barriers could exist within school systems and at home. The removal of organizational barriers provides a system wide structure that promotes student engagement, which is vital to dropout prevention. The use of data allows school counselors to create equitable services and provide social justice to every student. School counselors are advocates for students striving to prepare for the transition to college and career. Through their roles as school leaders and collaborators, school counselors are positioned to provide interventions and promote systemic change. Through systemic school counseling practices, counselors advocate for equitable educational access, achievement for student success, and attainment necessary for college and career readiness for all students. The Plan for College and Career Readiness process is a systemic approach to individual student planning in which school counselors coordinate ongoing activities to help students establish personal goals and develop future plans, including selecting college and career pathways and establishing career literacy. By gathering information on student interests, identifying strengths, and helping students overcome barriers, school counselors help students plan for their future goals. Utah State Board Rule R277-462 outlines school counseling programs. 112 Section 4 gives direction for the Plan for College and Career meetings. During the individual or group planning meetings students, parents and counselors work to create the student’s individualized four-year plan, to begin in eighth grade and support their educational experience through college. Homeless youth and youth separated from public schools are identified, and accorded equal access to, appropriate secondary education and support services. This includes identifying and removing barriers that prevent youth from immediate enrollment and appropriate access to academic opportunities and growth. 113 Appendix A: Measurements of interim progress Instructions: Each SEA must include the measurements of interim progress toward meeting the long-term goals for academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language proficiency, set forth in the State’s response to Title I, Part A question 4.iii, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students, including those listed in response to question 4.i.a. of this document. For academic achievement and graduation rates, the State’s measurements of interim progress must take into account the improvement necessary on such measures to make significant progress in closing statewide proficiency and graduation rate gaps. All numbers in the following tables represent percentages. A. Academic Achievement Exhibit 21: English Language Arts Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Interim Goals 2019 Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 LongTerm Goal 2022 46.145. 7 49.148. 7 52.151. 7 55.154. 7 58.157. 7 61.160. 8 64.163. 8 30.26 34.04 38.837. 9 42.141. 8 46.045. 7 49.69 53.47 13.912. 3 12.511. 4 18.717. 2 23.522. 1 22.221. 3 33.031. 8 37.836. 7 421.6 32.01.1 36.08 41.07 African American/Black 24.43.7 28.67.9 32.81 28.226. 9 27.126. 2 37.036. 4 41.20.6 45.44.9 49.16 Asian 53.32.9 55.95 58.51 61.10.7 63.73 66.30 68.96 Hispanic/Latino 25.24.8 29.38.9 33.51 37.73 41.85 46.05.7 50.149. 8 American Indian/Alaska Native 2019.8 2524.2 29.68.7 34.03.2 38.47.6 42.81 47.26.5 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 48.93 51.81 54.60 57.46.9 60.359. 8 63.12.6 66.05.5 28.027. 2 32.01.3 36.05.3 40.039. 3 44.03.4 48.07.4 52.01.5 51.61 54.33.8 57.06.5 59.72 62.30 65.04.7 67.74 Student Group All students Economically disadvantaged students Children with disabilities English learners Native Haw./Pacific Islander White 167.4 114 Exhibit 22: Mathematics Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Interim Goals 2019 Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 LongTerm Goal 2022 All students 49.48.2 52.21.1 55.03.9 5756.8 60.659. 7 63.42.6 66.25.4 Economically disadvantaged students 33.82.3 37.56.1 41.239. 8 44.93.6 48.57.4 52.21.1 545.9 Children with disabilities 18.816. 9 23.31.5 27.86.1 32.30.7 36.95.4 41.40.0 45.94.6 English learners 16.65.1 21.219. 8 25.94.5 30.529. 2 35.13.9 39.88.7 44.43.4 African American/Black 24.52.6 29.76.9 32.91.2 37.15.5 41.339. 8 45.54.1 49.78.4 Asian 57.46.7 59.81 62.21.5 64.53.9 66.93 69.38.7 71.61 Hispanic/Latino 26.34.7 30.428. 9 34.53.1 38.57.3 42.61.4 46.75.6 50.849. 8 American Indian/Alaska Native 21.70.1 26.14.5 30.429. 0 34.83.4 39.17.8 43.52.3 47.86.7 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 49.58.4 52.31.3 545.1 57.09 60.759. 9 63.52.7 66.35.6 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 29.97.9 33.81.9 37.75.9 41.639. 9 45.53.9 49.48.0 53.32.0 White 55.54.3 58.06.8 60.459. 4 62.91.9 65.44.4 67.08 70.369. 5 Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Interim Goals 2019 Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 Longterm Goal 2022 All students 65.4 67.30 69.20 71.10 73.00 74.90 76.8 Economically disadvantaged students 43.9 47.02 50.13 53.25 56.37 59.48 62.6 Students with disabilities 14.1 18.87 23.63 28.40 33.17 37.93 42.7 English learners 7.7 12.83 17.97 23.10 28.23 33.37 38.5 Student Group Exhibit 25: ACT Student Group 115 Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Interim Goals 2019 Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 Longterm Goal 2022 African American/Black 36.9 40.40 43.90 47.40 50.90 54.40 57.9 Asian 68.2 69.97 71.73 73.50 75.27 77.03 78.8 Hispanic/Latino 37.7 41.17 44.63 48.10 51.57 55.03 58.5 American Indian/Alaska Native 29.2 33.13 37.07 41.00 44.93 48.87 52.8 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 37.7 41.17 44.63 48.10 51.57 55.03 58.5 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 45.3 48.33 51.37 54.40 57.43 60.47 63.5 White 71.8 73.37 74.93 76.50 78.07 79.63 81.2 Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Interim Goals 2019 Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 Long Term Goals 2022 All students 85.2 86.0 86.8 87.7 88.5 89.3 90.1 Economically disadvantaged students 75.6 77.0 78.3 79.7 81.0 82.4 83.7 Children with disabilities 70.2 71.9 73.5 75.2 76.8 78.5 80.1 English learners 65.7 67.6 69.5 71.4 73.3 75.2 77.1 African American/Black 74.1 75.5 77.0 78.4 79.9 81.3 82.7 Asian 89.7 90.3 90.8 91.4 92.0 92.6 93.1 Hispanic/Latino 75.1 76.5 77.9 79.3 80.6 82.0 83.4 American Indian/Alaska Native 71.4 73.0 74.6 76.2 77.8 79.3 80.9 Multi-race, Non-Hispanic 81.5 82.5 83.6 84.6 85.6 86.6 87.7 Native Haw./Pacific Islander 84.6 85.5 86.3 87.2 88.0 88.9 89.7 White 87.9 88.6 89.2 89.9 90.6 91.3 91.9 Student Group B. Graduation Rates Exhibit 2263: Graduation Rates Student Group 116 117 C. Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Exhibit 2274: English Language Proficiency Baseline 2016 Interim Goals 2017 Interim Goals 2018 Elementary/Middle 57.4 60.0 62.6 High School 30.7 32.2 33.7 Student Group Interim Goals 2020 Interim Goals 2021 LongTerm Goal 2022 65.2 67.7 70.2 72.7 35.3 36.8 38.3 39.8 Interim Goals 2019 118 Appendix B: Notice to Applicants OMB Control No. 1894-0005 (Exp. 03/31/2017) NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS The purpose of this enclosure is to inform you about a new provision in the Department of Education’s General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to applicants for new grant awards under Department programs. This provision is Section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law (P.L.) 103-382). To Whom Does This Provision Apply? Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new grant awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION IN THEIR APPLICATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS NEW PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM. (If this program is a State-formula grant program, a State needs to provide this description only for projects or activities that it carries out with funds reserved for State- level uses. In addition, local school districts or other eligible applicants that apply to the State for funding need to provide this description in their applications to the State for funding. The State would be responsible for ensuring that the school district or other local entity has submitted a sufficient section 427 statement as described below.) What Does This Provision Require? Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an individual person) to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its Federally-assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. This provision allows applicants discretion in developing the required description. The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. Based on local circumstances, you should determine whether these or other barriers may prevent your students, teachers, etc. from such access or participation in, the Federally- funded project or activity. The description in your application of steps to be taken to overcome these barriers need not be lengthy; you may provide a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances. In addition, the information may be provided in a single narrative, or, if appropriate, may be discussed in connection with related topics in the application. Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirements of civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that, in designing their projects, applicants for Federal funds address equity concerns that may affect the ability of certain potential beneficiaries to fully participate in the project and to achieve to high standards. Consistent with program requirements and its approved application, an applicant may use the Federal funds awarded to it to eliminate barriers it identifies. 119 What are Examples of How an Applicant Might Satisfy the Requirement of This Provision? The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant may comply with Section 427. An applicant that proposes to carry out an adult literacy project serving, among others, adults with limited English proficiency, might describe in its application how it intends to distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such potential participants in their native language. An applicant that proposes to develop instructional materials for classroom use might describe how it will make the materials available on audio tape or in braille for students who are blind. An applicant that proposes to carry out a model science program for secondary students and is concerned that girls may be less likely than boys to enroll in the course, might indicate how it intends to conduct “outreach” efforts to girls, to encourage their enrollment. An applicant that proposes a project to increase school safety might describe the special efforts it will take to address concern of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, and efforts to reach out to and involve the families of LGBT students. We recognize that many applicants may already be implementing effective steps to ensure equity of access and participation in their grant programs, and we appreciate your cooperation in responding to the requirements of this provision. 120