School Quality Improvement System Powerpoint

CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request: The

School Quality Improvement System

Who is CORE?

CORE is a collaboration among ten California school districts that are working together to significantly improve student outcomes • Together we serve more than one

million students and their families

Number of Students CORE Districts, SY 2011-2012

Note: Garden Grove and Clovis are not participating in the ESEA waiver application

CORE’s Waiver Goal With this waiver, CORE does not seek to escape FROM accountability. Instead, CORE is asking for a waiver INTO a new system with a higher level of shared responsibility and accountability but propelled by the right drivers to achieve the system’s ultimate purpose: 1. All students prepared for college and careers 2. Elimination of disparity and disproportionality on

multiple measures of student engagement and success.

Current ESEA (NCLB) law demands 100% proficiency by 2014 and loss of funding and one-size-fits-all interventions for schools that do not meet the target

Source: USED; CDE, NBC News

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB), formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandates that all students are academically proficient by 2014

• Schools, LEAs, and subgroups must meet these goals to make AYP targets and exit Program Improvement

• NCLB neglects subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education

• The penalty for missing AYP is loss of federal funding for schools serving low-income children

• ESEA expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it

• In 2011, the US Education Department told states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work"

California LEAs and schools must meet Participation Rate, ELA, Math, API, and Graduation Rate targets for all students and

subgroups under NCLB to be considered making AYP

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Target for High School ELA, 2002-2014

ESEA Authorization

Expired

Current School Year

Schools are far from meeting proficiency targets; without the waiver, shortly all schools would fall into Program Improvement Corrective Action

Source: USED; CDE

Participating CORE Waiver LEA Title I Schools by Average ELA and Math Proficiency Level

Current Proficiency Expectation

• Schools, LEAs, and the state must meet all AYP criteria to meet ESEA

• Shortly, all schools and LEAs will miss these ratcheted up targets

− Title I Schools and LEAs are identified for Program Improvement (PI) if they do not meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years

• If a school or an LEA is designated PI, it must provide certain types of required services and/or interventions during each year it is identified as PI

• In Year 3 of PI, schools and LEAs are subject to onerous sanctions which include:

− Replacing school staff

− Extending school year or day

− Restructuring school organization

− Implementing new curriculum

USED offers a waiver for ESEA requirements; California is one of five states that does not have an approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver or one

under review

States approved for ESEA flexibility (n=39, DC) States with ESEA flexibility requests under review (n=6, PR, BIE)

Puerto Rico

Bureau of Indian Education

District of Columbia

Source: USED

California represents more than 90% of non-waived students nationwide. The state submitted a letter requesting flexibility which was deemed

insufficient by USED

Source: USED; NCES; Ed Week

• California submitted letter (not a waiver application) as an ESEA flexibility request on June 15, 2012

• However, unlike other states, California shied away from two central components of the application:

• Developing a complete new accountability system

• Implementing a teacher evaluation system that takes student outcomes into account

• USED denied California’s request, and the state has not submitted another version

States That Do Not Have a Waiver Under Review

Current CORE Waiver districts would cover ~1M students

The large achievement gaps in CA’s student subgroups are a call to action: Change is needed to address this disproportionality, as the status

quo is not working

Source: EdSource website

• “At more than 6 million students, California’s public school population is enormous. It is also enormously diverse. In its schools, the state has a majority of minorities, with Hispanics/Latinos making up the largest student group”

• “More than one in five children in California live in poverty, and nearly half of all K–12 students participate in the federal free and reduced-price meal programs offered in schools to students from low-income families”

• “In addition, one quarter of California’s K–12 students are English learners”

—EdSource, “The Achievement Gap in California”

• “On the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and California’s own standards-based tests (CSTs), poor students, African Americans and Latinos, and English learners are over-represented among students scoring at the lowest levels and under-represented among the highest scoring”

• “Other measures of student achievement—including dropout and graduation rates, completion of the A-G courses required for eligibility to the state’s four-year universities, and college admissions—reveal similar achievement patterns between these groups of students and their peers. These results are important because they predict later success, including students’ ability as adults to secure jobs that pay a living wage”

• “Because African Americans and Latinos in California represent disproportionate numbers of children living in poverty, they are also more likely to begin school at a disadvantage”

—EdSource, “The Achievement Gap in California”

California’s population of historically

underperforming subgroups is large

California’s subgroups underperform from starting

KG to entering college

An ESEA waiver can help Participating LEAs address the problem of disproportionality among California’s student population by highlighting schools with large achievement gaps and providing targeted interventions

PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS

1A. Adopt College- & Career-Ready Expectations for All Students 1B. Transition to College- & Career-Ready Standards 1C. Develop & Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth

PRINCIPLE 2: DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT

2A. Develop and implement a state-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 2B. Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives 2C.-E. Identify Reward Schools, Priority Schools, and Focus Schools 2F. Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools 2G. Build LEA and school capacity to improve student learning

PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

3A. Develop and adopt guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation support systems 3B. Ensure LEAs implement teach and principal evaluation and support systems

Federal ESEA Waiver requirements aim to drive change through 3 key principles: academic standards, differentiated accountability, and

effective leadership

The CORE Waiver addresses these requirements through four commitments

Commitment from Participating CORE Waiver LEAs Waiver Component

College and Career Ready Standards

New CORE Accountability Model For Identifying School Supports and

Interventions

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Incorporating Growth in Student

Achievement

Peer-based Monitoring, Review, and Support

• Implement Common Core Standards in the 2013-14 SY and SBAC (or PARCC, if necessary) assessments, starting in 2014-15

• Participate in the School Quality Improvement System, which includes a CORE-designed holistic accountability model, AMOs, and school designations (e.g., Reward, Focus, and Priority schools)

• Track, submit, and release school-level academic, social-emotional, and culture and climate information

• Develop guidelines for the teacher and principal evaluation system by the start of the 2013-14 SY

• Implement by 2015-16 (and pilot by 2014-15) a teacher and principal evaluation system that differentiates performances into four tiers and includes, as a significant factor, student growth

• Partner with LEA peers to support and monitor waiver activity implementation • Priority or Focus schools or other schools needing improvement will participate in

pairing process with a Reward or exemplar school

Central to the CORE Waiver is a holistic school performance system with tailored support for schools and LEAs called the School Quality

Improvement System

Goals

Usage

The CORE School Quality Improvement System seeks to:

• Establish a holistic school performance system that values multiple measures of student success across academic, social-emotional, and culture-climate domains

• Provide schools, teachers, and administrators clear, in-depth feedback on areas of strength and those in need of improvement to improve outcomes for students

• Create a collective ownership structure within schools, districts, and the CORE network in which teacher, staff, and administrator collaboration and shared responsibility for student outcomes are primary drivers of accountability

• Increase and restore student, parent, and community confidence in all CORE network schools

CORE seeks to apply these goals to the differentiated accountability, recognition and support framework required through the ESEA waiver:

• A school-level improvement index (School Quality Improvement Index) that clearly evaluates schools on student achievement, subgroup performance, and graduation rates;

• Annual Measurable Objectives (School Quality Improvement Goals) that are used to design targeted interventions and rewards; and

• A school designation system that identifies and outlines rewards for high performing or high-progress “reward” schools, and interventions for severely underperforming “priority” schools or “focus” schools with persistent achievement gaps

• LEAs will use this holistic, detailed information to inform school self assessments, professional learning community topics, and school partner pairings to drive tailored interventions and school support

Source: California Department of Finance, EdSource Website

Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) CORE Waiver Proposal

Local Autonomy

Accountability Metrics

• LCFF increases flexibility and accountability at the local level so those closest to the students are able to make resource decisions

LEAs will produce a local control and accountability plan that will describe how they intend to meet the following requirements: • Implementation of the Common Core Standards • Improve student achievement, graduation rate, and school

performance • Increase student engagements as measured by attendance,

chronic absenteeism, dropout rates, etc. • Prepare students for college and careers • Provide services for English learners, economically

disadvantaged students and children in foster care • Provide opportunities for parent involvement

LEAs have committed to measuring their progress and success using the following metrics: • Implementation of the Common Core Standards • Student proficiency rate • Student academic growth • High school graduation rates • Middle and high school persistance rates • Suspension and expulsion rates • Chronic absenteeism • Non-cognitive skills • Special Ed identification rates • English learner reclassification rates • Culture and climate surveys of students, parents and all

staff

• Waiver activities include targeted interventions for Priority schools, Focus schools and schools that do not meet their AMOs—designations which rely heavily on the performance of subgroups and metrics such as ELL re-designation rates

Focus on Subgroups

• On top of a base funding provided for each student, LCFF will allocate supplemental grants to English learners, economically disadvantaged and foster students; concentration grants provide additional funds to schools with greater than 50% enrollment of students in these subgroups

• The CORE waiver was developed as a collaboration among districts and their respective stakeholders and represents common approaches they have agreed upon while allowing for local flexibility

The CORE waiver and LCFF both emphasize a focus on subgroups, flexibility at the district level, and similar metrics of accountability to

reduce disparity and disproportionality Both initiatives reorient the educational system to focus

on the reduction of disparity and disproportionality

Collaborative system for mutual accountability and support • School partnership based upon

Reward, Focus, and Priority school designations, as well as school progress against School Quality Improvement Goal

• Bi-annual LEA Peer Review to support and monitor Waiver implementation


School Pairing and LEA Peer Review Dual Data System School Quality

Improvement Goal

School Quality Improvement Index

Continuous Improvement Data Collection

Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

• “CORE Waiver AMO” based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement Index

Key School-Level Measurement for Accountability Purposes • Includes school-level

Academic, Social-Emotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators

• Consistent across LEAs • Aggregated by 3rd Party

Data Sharing Function for Support of Collaboration and Sharing • Includes (1) indicators piloted

for use in the index; (2) implementation metrics; (3) other classroom-, school-, and LEA-level formative data

• Collected by CORE

Moral imperative of college and career readiness for all students with a significant focus on the elimination of disproportionality

The School Quality Improvement System is a holistic approach to school improvement with the goal of college and career readiness for all students

Participation in School Quality Improvement System Monitoring and Escalating LEA Interventions

LEAs joins School Quality Improvement System

• Signs CORE MOU and accepts associated responsibilities

LEAs participate in School Quality Improvement System

• CORE monitors implementation of performance measures at the student, teacher, principal, school and LEA levels

June Peer Review

• LEAs submit evidence of implementation, reporting, and monitoring efforts; peer review submission of another LEA

LEA satisfactorily meets obligations in peer review and

will resume monitoring

LEAs that do not satisfactorily meet

obligations in peer review

CORE notifies Oversight Panel of LEAs which have not fully

implemented School Quality Improvement System

Oversight Panel decides whether or not to recommend to the USED if a

waiver revocation is necessary

The USED is solely responsible for revocation of Waiver agreements

Development Period

• LEAs design and apply implementation steps for successful implementation in the following year with CORE support

• Feb. 1 - LEA submits mid-year interim report for second peer-review cycle

2nd Friday in April – CORE Board reviews progress. LEAs

given opportunity to self-remove from Waiver if desired

LEA does not satisfactorily meet obligations

Yes

LEA re-enters the

cycle of review

No

The CORE Waiver Oversight Panel will render decisions on compliance for LEA inclusion/exclusion in the waiver based on peer

and self evaluation inputs CORE Waiver Compliance Panel

(Facilitated by CORE staff)

1. ACSA appointee 2. CSBA appointee 3. CCSEA Appointee 4. CDE Appointee 5. State Board Appointee 6. Governor’s Appointee 7. CTA Appointee 8. PTA Appointee 9. Civil Rights Representative Appointees 10. EdTrust Appointee 11. Non-Supt. California Collaborative Appointee 12. CORE Board Appointed Higher Education Researcher

(Non-LEA) 13. Students with Disabilities Representative Appointee 14. English Language Learners Representative Appointee

• Oversight panel will operate with a simple majority

Peer review report

Core Staff presents comprehensive compliance and status report to Oversight Panel

Peer review process

District self-evaluation report

District self-evaluation process

Compliance panel will determine 1) Administrative discipline 2) Escalation path 3) Final decision on inclusion/exclusion from waiver

Principle 1: College and Career Ready Expectations for All Students

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, LEAs must complete the Principle 1 Must Dos

1. Develop district CCSS instructional plans which include necessary pedagogical shifts for engaging all students to master all standards (with emphasis on meeting the needs of EL, SwD, and low achieving students).

2. Identify ELD benchmarked learning targets within the CCSS and new CA ELD standards.

3. Develop district professional development plan for all teachers aligned to CCSS and SBAC.

4. Engage all teacher leaders in CCSS and SBAC based professional development for preparation of CCSS implementation.

5. Full district transition to CCSS in 2013-14. 6. Agree to fully transition to SBAC assessments in 2014-15.

Principle 1: Transition to College and Career Ready Standards

LEAs have begun transitioning to CCSS and SBAC implementation. In order to maintain local flexibility, each district is responsible for designing their own

transition plans with support from CORE as needed

Complete In Progress Next Steps

Over the course of Summer 2013, districts will prepare for full implementation of the CCSS in the 2013-2014 school year through continued stakeholder engagement

and district-led PD

CORE CCSS Transition Timeline

Principle 2: State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support

The proposed School Quality Improvement System is designed to hold schools accountable for the performance of all students across a variety of

factors

Beginning in 2015-2016, all schools will be scored on an annual overall School Quality Improvement Index on a 100-point scale that is based on student- and school-level performance in the academic, social-emotional, and culture-climate domains

• Reward, priority, and focus school designation will be based on a rank order of these scores for all Title 1 schools, across all participating districts

Subgroup-level performance impacts ~60% of a school’s overall index, incentivizing schools and districts to improve proficiency among underperforming groups across each factor associated with the three domains. Schools will receive annual detailed reports highlighting performance in:

• Proficiency in Math (“all students” and all subgroups), ELA (“all students” and all subgroups), and all other state-administered assessments for the “all students” group

• Student growth (“all students” and all subgroups)

• Graduation rate (“all students” and all subgroups)

• Social-Emotional factors: absentee rate, suspension/expulsion rate, non-cognitive (“all students” and all subgroups)

• Culture-Climate factors: student/staff/parent surveys (“all students” and all subgroups), ELL re-designation, and Special Education identification

• As aligned with the central goal of preparing students for success in college and beyond, CORE hopes to include college completion rates should high quality data becomes available

The CORE district-developed School Quality Improvement System will be implemented in all schools across participating districts, ensuring consistent, rigorous standards across districts representing over 1 million students

• Districts have the flexibility to hold schools accountable to additional locally-relevant factors, but these will not be integrated into a school’s School Quality Improvement Index

Elimination of Disparity and Disproportionality

CORE’s theory of change is based on eliminating disparity and disproportionality across academic, social/emotional, and culture/climate

domains



Improvement Goal



Key School-Level Measurement for Accountability Purposes • Includes school-level

Academic, Social-Emotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators

• Consistent across LEAs • Aggregated by 3rd Party


The School Quality Improvement Index is a key component of the Dual Data System, and the driver of differentiated recognition, accountability and

support

School Quality Improvement Index scores flow to AMO status (School Quality Improvement Goal) and school designations

Accountability Model Accountability Model School Quality Improvement Index

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

School Quality Improvement Goals

School Designations

(Reward, Focus, Priority)

Academic Social-Emotional Culture and Climate


School scores on the accountability report will be used to determine whether a school met its School Quality Improvement Goal and will provide schools information on subgroup performance

School Quality Improvement Goals are designed to improve schools’ overall accountability score and improve student performance across numerous dimensions

School designations are informed by the accountability model scores, and for reward schools, whether the School Quality Improvement Goal was met

The School Quality Improvement Index provides a more holistic view of school and student performance than under NCLB

Performance measured against ELA, Math, API, and graduation rate targets

Academic performance broadened to include other subjects (e.g., science, history, writing) and other metrics (e.g., growth, 5th and 6th year graduation rates)

Non-Cognitive skills will be included, in addition to measuring absentee and suspension/expulsion rates

Academic Social-Emotional Culture and Climate

Student, staff, and parent surveys included, in addition to Special Ed identification and ELL redesignation rates

NCLB

CORE Waiver

Not included Not included

Research has demonstrated the importance of these factors not only for academic achievement but also life success (e.g., employment, wages, avoidance of risky behavior)

2015-16 and Beyond

Proposed Accountability Model – Includes All Grades


100%

Social-Emotional Factors

20%

Culture and Climate Factors (Student

20%

Absentee Rate, Suspension/Expulsion Rate, Non-Cognitive Skills (TBD)

Student/Staff/Parent Surveys, Special Ed

Identification, ELL Re-designation Rate (TBD)

Academic Domain 60%

Performance 20%

Growth 20%

Completion Grad Rate (HS)

HS Retention (MS) 20%

A school will be successful on the School Quality Improvement Index only if historically underperforming subgroup performance improves

All Students 10%

Subgroups 10%

All Students 10%

Subgroups 10%

All Students 10%

Subgroups 10%

All Students 10%

Subgroups 10%

All Students 10%

Subgroups 10%

Transition

Accountability Score will be based on Academic Domain

Begin collecting social-emotional and culture/climate in order to set a

baseline for future measurement

2013-14


Partial Implementation Introduce Socio-Emotional

& Cultural Factors Growth in academic

performance excluded during 1st year of SBAC/PARCC implementation

2014-15

Full Implementation

School Quality Improvement Index fully

implemented with all factors fully measured and

considered

2015-16 & Beyond

Implementation Timeline

Districts will transition gradually to the School Quality Improvement Index and Goal systems in order to allow for thoughtful implementation and

account for new standards under CCSS and SBAC

The School Quality Improvement Index works in tandem with the formative performance factors of the dual data system to identify school-specific areas in

need of reward or intervention

Lowering the N-size would follow the pattern of other state waivers and create accountability structures for a significant

number of additional CA students Additional Students Counted Under N≥20 Recommendation, CORE

Waiver LEAs Based on 2012 student numbers

State Original N-Size New N-Size

Arkansas 40 25 Connecticut 40 25 Delaware 40 30 Idaho 34 25 Mississippi 40 30 Nevada 25 10 North Carolina 40 30 Rhode Island 45 20 South Carolina 40 30 South Dakota 25 10

Virginia 50 30 Washington 30 20 Wisconsin 40 20 CORE Waiver LEAs 100 20

State ESEA Waivers With Lowered N-Sizes

Source: The Aspen Institute, “The commission’s Recommendations in Practice: What the New N-Size Policy Would Mean in California”; US DOE website; Parthenon analysis

Subgroup

Students Counted Under Current N-

Size (N≥100 or 15% of students)

Students Counted Under

Recommended N-Size (N≥20)

Additional Students Counted

% Increase in Students

African American 31.3k 54.6k 23.2k 74% American Indian - - - - Asian 25.5k 41.3k 15.8k 62% English Learner 238.6k 259.0k 20.4k 9% Filipino 3.0k 8.4k 5.4k 182% Hispanic or Latino 362.8k 378.1k 15.3k 4% Pacific Islander - 1.1k 1.1k Infinite Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 449.9k 460.6k 10.7k 2%

Students With Disabilities 19.0k 65.3k 46.3k 244%

2 or More Races - 1.3k 1.3k Infinite White 40.5k 54.1k 13.5k 33%

~150K Additional Students

The School Quality Improvement Index will utilize assessments appropriate for SWDs while following the ESEA waiver’s cap

requirements

SWDs – Significant Cognitive Disabilities (1%) SWDs – Moderate Cognitive Disabilities (2%) All Other Students

Current California Assessment

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) An alternate assessment to assess students with significant disabilities to a modified set of standards

California Modified Assessment (CMA) An alternate assessment to assess students with moderate disabilities to a modified set of standards

California Standardized Tests (CSTs)

2013-2014 SY: Inclusion in School Quality Improvement Index

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with significant disabilities will be based on CAPA assessments

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with moderate disabilities will be based on CMA assessments

Other students’ scores will be based on CST scores

2014-15 SY: Changes Under SBAC Implementation

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with significant disabilities will be based on CAPA assessments. If California changes CAPA assessments, LEAs will use an appropriate alternate modified assessment

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with moderate disabilities will be based on a CCSS-aligned adaptive assessment (e.g. SBAC)

Other students’ performance/growth will be based on SBAC scores

Application of ESEA Waiver Caps

No more than 1% of students will be eligible for inclusion in the School Quality Improvement Index based on their CAPA score (or equivalent assessment score)

No more than 2% of students will be eligible for inclusion in the School Quality Improvement Index based on their CMA score or modified CCSS-aligned assessment score

n/a

Note: If California delays SBAC implementation, CORE will consider implementing either PARCC or SBAC

Students who are not tested below the 95% participation level will be counted as non-proficient for the “all students” group and all subgroups

100 Student School with 60% Proficiency “All Students” Example

90 Students Tested (90%)

10 Students Not Tested (10%)

54 Students Proficient

(60% of those tested)

36 Students Not Proficient (40% of those

tested)

5 Students Excused

(5%)

5 Students Not

Excused

54 Students Tested

Proficient

90 Students Tested

5 Unexcused Not Tested Students

57% Proficient

20 ELL Students (within the same school) Subgroup Example – Repeated for Each Subgroup

17 Students Tested (85%)

3 Students Not Tested (15%)

9 Students Proficient


8 Students Not Proficient


1 Students Excused

(5%)

2 Students Not

Excused

9 Students Tested

Proficient

17 Students Tested

2 Unexcused Not Tested Students

47% Proficient

All Students ELL Subgroup

Example High School Scoring Table: Academic Domain, Performance

Note: Under CSTs, “Proficient” refers to “Proficient/Advanced” category. As California shifts from SBAC assessments, will measure performance based on Proficient category equivalent to current CST “Proficient/Advanced” categories; SBAC ELA assessments will include writing portion; LEAs will design History/SS and Science Common-Core aligned assessments; for Science and History/SS, “% Students” refers to percentage of all students who have taken a History/SS or Science exam respectively in the previous year (i.e. not percentage of total student population)

Performance (20%) % Proficient (up to 100)

Weight (Overall) Calculation

All

Stud

ents

(1

0%)

Math, "All Students" 3% Math: % Students scoring Proficient in Math assessment * 100 points * 3% weight

ELA, "All Students" 3% ELA: % Students scoring Proficient in ELA assessment * 100 points * 3% weight

Science, "All Students" 2% Science: % Students scoring Proficient in Common-Core aligned Science assessments at appropriate grade levels * 100 points * 2% weight

History, "All Students" 2% History/SS: % Students scoring Proficient in Common-Core aligned History/SS assessments at appropriate grade levels * 100 points * 2% weight

Subg

roup

s (10

%) M

ath

(5%

)

Math, White Av

erag

e Pr

ofic

ienc

y of

Q

ualif

ying

Sub

grou

ps

5%

1. Determine number of qualifying subgroups (number of students in subgroup ≥20) 2. Calculate % Proficient in Math for each qualifying NCLB subgroup 3. Average % Proficient in Math among qualifying subgroups 4. Multiply average * 100 * 5%

Math, African American Math, Latino

Math, Asian American Math, Pacific Islander

Math, Filipino Math, American Indian

Math, Two or more races Math, SED

Math, ELLs Math, SWD

ELA

(5%

)

ELA, White

Aver

age

Prof

icie

ncy

of

Qua

lifyi

ng S

ubgr

oups

5%

1. Determine number of qualifying subgroups (number of students in subgroup ≥20) 2. Calculate % Proficient in ELA for each qualifying NCLB subgroup 3. Average % Proficient in ELA among qualifying subgroups 4. Multiply average * 100 * 5% weight

ELA, African American ELA, Latino

ELA, Asian American ELA, Pacific Islander

ELA, Filipino ELA, American Indian

ELA, Two or more races ELA, SED

ELA, ELLs ELA, SWD

Total 20% Overall Performance Points: Sum of performance subgroup weighted percentage points (20 possible overall points)

SWDs are included as one of the subgroups measured across the School Quality Improvement System

CORE and participating LEAs will continue to ensure that only 2% of students are included in SQII using alternative state-administered assessments after CMA sunsets. Participating LEAs will also ensure that no more than 1% of students take CAPA, or another state-administered test for students with severe disabilities if CAPA is no longer in use

Example High School Scoring Table: Academic Domain, Performance (N ≥ 20 Subgroup Threshold Scenario)

“All Students” N = 1824

All Subgroups Subgroups with N ≥ 20

Total Groups: 11

White N = 1444

African American N = 212

Latino N = 41

Asian American N = 103

Pacific Islander N = 0

Filipino N = 17

American Indian N = 5

Two or more races N = 2

White N = 1444

African American N = 212

Latino N = 41

Asian/Pacific Islander N = 103

SED N = 415

ELLs N = 98

Qualifying Groups: 6

Math (5%) % Proficiency

ELA (5%) % Proficiency

White 70% 72% African American 50% 67%

Latino 45% 43% Asian/Pacific Islander 77% 65%

SED 58% 60% ELL 62% 40%

Average Proficiency Among Qualifying Subgroups 62% 58%

Multiply by 100 100 100

Multiply by Weight 5% 5%

Subgroups Total Score (Points) 3.1 2.9

All

Stud

ents

(1

0%)

Subject % Proficiency Multiply by 100 Multiply by Weight Points Allocated Math (3%) 68% 100 3% 2.0 ELA (3%) 71% 100 3% 2.1

Science (2%) 60% 100 2% 1.2 History (2%) 62% 100 2% 1.2

“All Students” Total Score (Points) 6.6

Points from “All Students”

Out of 10

Points from Subgroups, Math

Out of 5

Points from Subgroups, ELA

Out of 5

6.6 3.1 2.9 12.6% + + = Performance

Score Out of 20%

All Students Scores, “All Subjects” (10%)

Subgroups Scores, Math (5%) and ELA (5%)

Note: Though SBAC has yet to release proficiency categories,“% Proficiency” refers to number of students falling into the equivalent Proficient SBAC category

SED N = 415

ELLs N = 98

SWD N = 18

Priority Schools Focus Schools Reward Schools High-Progress

Reward Schools Highest Performing

Priority schools have the most stringent required interventions; Reward schools recognize both high progress and highest-performing schools

At least 10% of Title 1 schools At least 10% of Title 1 schools At least 5% of Title 1 schools

USED Description

Highest-Performing Schools:

• Are among schools with the highest absolute performance over a number of years for the “all student” groups and all subgroups

• At the high school level, must have the highest graduation rates

• Must be making AYP for “all students” and all subgroups

• Cannot have significant achievement gaps that are not closing

High-Progress Reward Schools:

• Are among the top 10% of CORE schools in improving performance over a number of years

• Cannot have significant achievement gaps that are not closing

Focus Schools must include:

• Any high schools with <60% graduation rates not designated a Priority School

• Title 1 schools with the largest within-school achievement gaps in performance or graduation rates

• A Title 1 school with at least 1 low performing subgroup over a number of years

A Priority School must be one of the following:

• A currently-served Title 1 and non-Title 1 SIG School

• Title 1 eligible or participating school with <60% graduation over a number of years

• Among the lowest 5% of schools in CORE based on student achievement in the “all students” group

USED Required Interventions or Rewards

• Rewards identified by CORE and participating districts

• Rewards identified by CORE and participating districts

• Focus Schools must engage in LEA and school-determined targeted interventions based on the specific needs of each Focus School

• Priority Schools must apply the 7 turnaround principles for at least 3 years as outlined in USED’s ESEA Flexibility Application

Source: U.S. Department of Education

The overall lowest performing schools and SIG schools are designated as priority. Schools with large, persistent achievement gaps are designated as

focus

SIG

Performance

Graduation Rate

• 42 Tier I or Tier II SIG Schools (includes 4 non-Title I)

• 12 schools in the lowest 5% of based upon proficiency rates of the “all students” group (Lowest 5% for 2012, 2011; lowest 10% for 2010)

• 4 incremental schools have a graduation rate of <60% for last 3 years

42 + 12 + 4= 58 Schools H: 23 M: 16 E: 19

5% (49 schools) are required to be listed as

priority

Priority Schools 1

Graduation Rate

Achievement Gap

Subgroup Performance

10% (99 schools) are required to be listed as

focus

Focus schools (Schools not already designated

priority)

0 + 12 + 103 = 115 Schools H: 32 M: 21 E: 62

2

• 0 schools with a graduation rate of < 60%

• Schools ranked by Achievement Gap

• 12 schools in the lowest 5% of based upon their achievement gap (lowest 5% for 2012, 2011, and 2010)

• 103 schools with subgroups at less than 20% average proficiency on math and ELA assessments and less than 5 percentage points of improvement over 3 years Excludes all

• Credit recovery programs • Independent study schools • Schools for students with severe disabilities

• Early education programs

Reward Schools are comprised of both high-performing and high-progress; our definition closely follows the requirements of the waiver

Highest-Performing High-Progress

• Title 1 school; and

• Top 10% most improved academic performance across ELA and Math in all grades in the “all students” group; and

Required for High-Progress schools

• Top 50% most improved graduation rate; and

“Most progress in increasing graduation rates” is not clearly defined by DOE requirements; therefore this cut point can be adjusted

• The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved by at least 5% since 2010

Schools cannot be designated highest-progress if they have a stagnant or worsening achievement gap. By showing significant improved performance for a school’s lowest performing subgroup, our methodology meets DOE’s requirement that a High-Progress school must not have significant achievement gaps that are not closing

67 additional schools 55 Elementary, 9 Middle, 34 High Schools

• Title 1 school; and

• Top 30% of schools based on performance in 2010-2012, and based on 2012 graduation rates; and

• Within-school achievement gap in In the lowest 30% across all participating schools; or

• The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved since 2010 (i.e. change is >0); and

• Met AYP in 2012, defined as:

Met proficiency rates for all students and all subgroups; and

Reached 740 API or grew by at least 1 point; and

Met the graduation rate requirement (or the growth target

35 schools 34 Elementary, 2 Middle, 3 High Schools

Reward Schools Must include both “highest-performing” and “high-progress”

Note: If a school meets criteria for both highest-performing and high-progress, they are included only in the highest-performing list

Reward, focus, and priority schools are dispersed across participating LEAs

Fresno Long Beach Los Angeles Oakland Santa Ana Sac. City San Francisco Sanger

Reward: Highest performing

2 0 24 1 2 1 3 2

Reward: High Progress

3 6 46 2 2 4 4 0

Focus 14 3 74 7 0 10 7 0

Priority 3 0 27 11 6 1 10 0

SIG 3* 0 19 4 6 1 9* 0

Total Number of Non-Sig Title 1 Schools

64 55 565 83 48 61 45 13

(*) In both San Francisco and Fresno, 2 of their SIG schools are not Title 1

School Designations by School District

Beginning in 2014-15 with the school weighted score, the below methodology could be applied to determine Reward, Priority, and Focus

Schools

Reward Schools (10% of Schools)

Priority Schools (5% of Schools)

Focus Schools (10% of Schools)

1. Highest-Performing: Top 10% of schools based off index scores generated of the School Quality Improvement System

2. High-Progress: Are among the top 10% of CORE Title I Schools, highest score on the growth factor of School Quality Improvement Index for the all students and all subgroups for 3 years

3. Include only schools that have testing data for at least 95% of students

1. Add the lowest performing schools ranked based on scores generated through the School Quality Improvement System until 5% of schools is reached for that year

Recommended Methodology

Notes: Schools refers to Title I Schools; Source: ESEA Flexibility Guidelines, CORE Waiver

1. All remaining non-priority schools with less than 60% graduation rate for the 3 prior years

2. Non-priority schools with which the highest 5% ranked by largest achievement gaps from the “achievement gap” metric in the School Quality Improvement System

Cut point may need to increase to 10% to meet required total number of schools target

3. All schools that test less than 90% of eligible students

Title I Schools Only

List Calculated Annually Priority and Focus schools will be identified with the addition of new LEAs and beginning annually 2014-15

Priority and Focus School Interventions

Interventions

Focus Schools

• Schools and parents will be notified as to the reason for priority designation • Priority schools will be paired with highest-performing reward schools for ongoing coaching and collaboration • Priority schools will undergo a year-long needs assessment and planning process that includes both self-evaluation and peer-review with their partner reward

school • Districts will ensure timely implementation of the 7 turnaround principles

Priority Schools

Intervention first steps

• Schools will be will be provided data analysis from Gardner Center, highlighting reasons for designation

• Focus schools will complete needs self-assessment and work with school advisory councils (which will include key stakeholders) to develop 2-year improvement plan

• Beginning in Fall 2013, and every Fall there after, focus schools will join appropriate communities of practice, which will convene at least quarterly to address specific needs

– Schools will stay in the same communities of practice until exiting Focus status, but will have the option of appealing to CORE to join another community of practice if the school feels theirs is ineffective

• In years 1 & 2 of designation, focus schools will have the option to pair with peer reward schools that have demonstrated excellence in closing achievement gaps, or in improving results for traditionally underserved subgroups to assist in developing improvement plan

Intervention subsequent steps, if necessary

• If a focus school has not exited status by the end of Year 2, the school will be required to partner with a reward school at the start of Year 3

– If not enough schools are designated as reward, CORE will identify others that have performed well in the focus schools’ area(s) of relative weakness

• If a focus school has not exited status by the end of Year 4, the following district-managed turnaround principles are required (from the Alabama waiver):

– The school will lose the autonomy to select and implement interventions to address the learning needs of students

– Changes in leaders and teachers may be made – A district facilitator may be assigned to diagnose and support

improvement among the effective subgroups and will ensure that the school improvement plan is carried out to fidelity

– The District may intervene in the daily operations of the school

• School writes a School Improvement Plan in the fall of the school year of initial designation in partnership with their School Advisory Council

• Through this process, combined with analysis of the schools’ student data, the school will identify the most relevant community of practice to attend

Community of Practice Intervention Cycle

School writes School Improvement Plan

School attends Community of Practice

School revises School Improvement Plan

Continuous Cycle

• School attends quarterly community of practice

• School attendance at a community of practice is required at least quarterly

• Upon reflecting on learnings from the community of practice, the school will revise its School Improvement Plan

Priority and Focus School Exit Criteria

Requirements to Exit: Priority Schools Focus Schools

Proficiency

• School has reduced the number of non- proficient students by 25% in the “all students” group

– Baseline is calculated using the year of data during which a school is designated

– This target will be recalibrated when SBAC/PARCC assessments are introduced in 2014-15 SY to ensure that exit criteria is ambitious but achievable under the new standards

• School has reduced the number of non- proficient students by 25% in the focus subgroup(s)


– This target will be recalibrated when SBAC/PARCC assessments are introduced in 2014-15 SY to ensure that exit criteria is ambitious but achievable under the new standards

+ Graduation

AND for high schools identified as Priority Schools with a persistent graduation rate of <60%

• Graduation rate must reach at least 60% OR

• Graduation rate must grow by 10 percentage points

• Schools will be held to the goal that requires the greatest amount of growth in graduation rate


– The 10 percentage point mark represents the growth in graduation rates that are one half of a standard deviation above the participating schools annual average increase between 2010 and 2012

– We believe that this is an ambitious but achievable goal since 6 of the 13 schools identified as having a whole school graduation rate less than 60% in 2010, are on track to achieve this growth by 2013

For high schools identified as Focus Schools with a persistent graduation rate of <60% (none currently and n/a given CORE’s definition of Priority)

• Graduation rate must reach at least 60% OR

• Graduation rate must grow by 10 percentage points

• Schools will be held to the goal that requires the greatest amount of growth in graduation rate

– Same details as Priority Schools

+ AMOs

AND (Beginning in 2014-15, the first year of SBAC and baseline year for School Quality Improvement Goal)

• Schools must meet their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 2 points in 2 years, and if time of exit is at or after year 4, met their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 4 points in 4 years or reaching 90 points on their School Quality Improvement Index

AND (Beginning in 2014-15, the first year of SBAC and baseline year for School Quality Improvement Goal)

• Schools must meet their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 2 points in 2 years, and if time of exit is at or after year 4, met their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 4 points in 4 years or reaching 90 points on their School Quality Improvement Index

Reward schools will receive recognition and benefits of peer coaching

• All reward schools, their districts and governing boards will be recognized locally and statewide by CORE Board Members, staff and media

• Additionally, reward schools will receive free professional development to develop coaching capacity to share successful practices as interventions for Priority and Focus Schools

CORE reward system

Additional rewards districts can choose to implement and fund outside of the CORE reward system

• Certificate • Banners/Plaques • Ceremony • Special reward designation logo can be displayed on the

school website • Staff can serve on district task forces

Benefits for teachers at reward schools include:

Additional training on coaching principles that are critical in the classroom: active and effective listening, giving constructive feedback, observation, and relationship building

Research shows that teacher-child relationships are critical to educational attainment – supportive, organized and cognitively stimulating teacher-child relationships account for gains of up to a year’s progress on standardized tests. Even greater advantages accrue to more disadvantaged students

Exposure and access to new teaching and classroom management techniques, particularly in traditionally under-served subgroups that may have small populations at reward schools

Access to and strengthening of professional communities within reward schools, their districts, and across the CORE network

Research by Judith Little (1982) documented that norms of collegiality are crucial to school success

School- and teacher-level benefits of peer coaching

Source: “Teaching Children Well”, Center for American Progress, 2011. “Peer Coaching: An Effective Model of Teacher Professional Development for Technology Integration”, Puget Sound Center

1. School Interventions for: • Priority • Focus • Other Title I Schools • Low-Achieving Student Groups (SWD, ELL, low-achieving)

2. Support for school partnering teams – Priority, Focus (optional) 3. Support for communities of practice 4. Waiver implementation at the LEA level 5. CCSS implementation and assessment transition in Title I schools

• Extending STEM programs in Title I schools 6. Stakeholder outreach and engagement 7. Transportation to support school-choice (if district chooses)

Title I Set Asides Large Categories of Allowable Title I Expenditures

In Descending Order



Improvement Goal




The School Quality Improvement Goal provides school with an ambitious but achievable goal based off its performance on the School Quality Improvement

Index

Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

• “CORE Waiver AMO” based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement Index

• All schools will have as School Quality Improvement Goals either:

− Reaching a score of 90% on its School Quality Improvement Index; or

− Improve the School Quality Improvement Index by increasing 2 percentage points in 2 years, and 4 percentage points in 4 years

• Baseline year for CORE School Quality Improvement Index

• School Quality Improvement Goal determined for each school

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

CORE AMO Development

Interim CORE AMO

• First year of determination of progress against School Quality Improvement Goal (2-year progress based off of 2014-15)

• Status on API and graduation rate target drive interventions for “Other Title I Schools” in 2013-14 SY

• Interventions in “Other Title I Schools” for those in the bottom 30% on the API that are not Priority or Focus

• CORE School Quality Improvement Index used to set AMO

• Interventions in “Other Title I Schools” next year for those in the bottom 30% on the Index that are not Priority or Focus Schools





• Full AMO goal in effect

• Interventions in next school year driven by whether the school met their School Quality Improvement Goal (AMO)

Annual Calculation of CORE AMOs and Use in Determination of Interventions in “Other Title I Schools” Until Full AMO Implementation

Schools will write to progress on California AMOs in the school improvement plans

Each school’s SQII score will inform its School Quality Improvement Goal, with the ultimate goal of reaching 90% or improving one percentage

point per year

School Quality Improvement Index 100%

Social-Emotional Factors 20%

Culture and Climate Factors 20%

Absentee Rate

Suspension/Expulsion Rate

Non-Cognitive Skills

Student/Staff/Parents Surveys

Special Ed Identification

ELL Re-designation Rate

High

Middle

Elementary

A school’s index score will directly inform its School Quality Improvement Goal

Note: 90 point target will be revisited and potentially recalibrated once SBAC comes online

Required interventions and timelines

• Schools will receive a detailed report on their School Quality Improvement Index that outlines each component’s point distribution so that schools are able to identify focus areas of improvement

• Schools that did not meet their School Quality Improvement Goal after 2 years will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools’ accountability score card as most in need of improvement

• After 4 years: (1) Schools that did not meet either their 2- or 4-year School Quality Improvement Goal will be required to enter into a peer pairing and (2) Schools that did meet their 2-year School Quality Improvement Goal but not their 4-year goal will be required to join a community of practice

2014-2015 and Beyond SBAC Growth to be included in 2015-2016

Academic Domain 60%

Performance Growth Grad Rate

Performance Growth

Performance Growth

H.S. (10th gr.) Persistence Rate

All schools will have as School Quality Improvement Goals either:

• Reaching a score of 90% on its School Quality Improvement Index; or

• Improve the School Quality Improvement Index by increasing 2 percentage points in 2 years, and 4 percentage points in 4 years

School Quality Improvement Goals

Even if the Waiver is approved, Participating LEAs will still be measured by the State AMO system but interventions will be driven by the Waiver

designations

All Students All NCLB Subgroups N>= 100

Math 100% proficiency by 2014

100% proficiency by 2014

ELA 100% proficiency by 2014

100% proficiency by 2014

API Growth 800 by 2014 n/a

Cohort Graduation Rate

83.6% by 2014 n/a

Source: CDE; CORE Waiver plan

State AMO System (100% proficiency by 2014)

Waiver School Quality Improvement Goal (90% or 4 point improvement in 4 years)

• School performance on the state accountability system will still be published by the schools

• Schools may still use this information to inform self-reflection, school pairings, and areas of focus

• Schools that don’t meet AMOs will still be designated “Program Improvement” schools

• However, interventions will no longer be based on this system

• Interventions will be determined based on school performance in the accountability system and whether or not schools met their School Quality Improvement Goal

• Schools will need to publish the waiver School Quality Improvement Index

• School waiver high-performing reward designations will be based on this score

Individual AMOs are not set for each subgroup but successfully meeting the School Quality Improvement Goal is reliant upon subgroup performance – it accounts for ~60% of each school’s score and is a part of every category of the accountability system

Math and ELA proficiency rates are used as key metrics of school performance, growth, and gaps

This state AMO will be integrated into the School Quality Improvement Goal - meeting API Growth Targets will account for 100% of the Growth score in the accountability system for ‘13-’14

Graduation rates account for 20% of high schools’ academic domain score

Full transition to the new School Quality Improvement Goal will mirror the transition to the CORE School Quality Improvement System (1/2)

2013-2014 Planning and Piloting

School Quality Improvement System in place

• Academic domain only: o Proficiency rates will be based on CST o Growth will be measured by whether or

not a school met their API target

• All participating districts and schools will transition to the new School Quality Improvement System that will include: o Academic domain scores based on

SBAC performance. Academic domain will not include growth

o Social-Emotional domain scores o Culture-Climate domain scores

• Full implementation of the School Quality Improvement System

• 2015-16 will be the first year that school index scores are calculated across all domains

Implications for School Quality Improvement Goal

• Start of School Quality Improvement System

• Baseline year for School Quality Improvement Index and Goal

• Schools in all participating districts will be accountable to the CORE-wide School Quality Improvement Goals of either reaching a score of 90 or improving the accountability score by 2 percentage points in 2 years and 4 percentage points in 4 years

• CORE will analyze the first year of SBAC results and the impact of adding growth to the School Quality Improvement Index, and recalibrate goals if necessary

• Based on their index score schools will be given specific focus areas of improvement, and will have the opportunity to enter into communities of practice or participate in CORE-facilitated PD in those areas

Priority and Focus Schools Intervention Timeline (For priority and focus schools identified in Spring 2013 only)

• Priority schools identified in Spring 2013 enter a 1-year needs assessment and intervention planning process utilizing turnaround principles, including an initial self-evaluation and in-depth peer review with partner reward school

• Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 implement interventions immediately, including an initial self-evaluation and membership in a community of practice, with the option to partner with a peer reward school

• List of focus, priority and reward schools is re-calculated at EOY

• Interventions in priority schools identified in Spring 2013 begin in the first semester

• Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 continue to implement the interventions determined through the needs assessment until they are removed from focus designation

• Priority schools listed as priority in 2013-2014 continue to implement interventions until at least 2016-2017

• Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 continue to implement the interventions determined through the needs assessment until they are removed from focus designation.

• Schools that remain in the focus designation will be required to pair with a reward school

2014-2015 Initial Implementation

2015-2016 Full Implementation

School Quality Improvement System implementation phase and initial intervention timeline

Full transition to the new School Quality Improvement Goal will mirror the transition to the CORE School Quality Improvement System (2/2)

2015-2016

Long-term interventions timeline

• School Quality Improvement Index includes SBAC and School Quality Improvement Goals established

• Goals for all schools are improving overall school scores by 2 points in 2 years and 4 points in 4 years

• Reward, Priority, Focus school list re-calculated

2016-2017 2018-2019 2017-2018

• Newly identified priority schools enter into 1 year needs assessment and intervention planning process utilizing turnaround principles

• Needs assessment will be conducted using Sacramento City’s School Quality Review – schools complete an initial self-evaluation, followed by in-depth peer review with partner reward school

• Newly identified focus schools undergo a self-evaluation and join appropriate communities of practice, with the option to partner with a reward school

• All other schools will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal with the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with peers

• Priority schools implement Y1 of interventions with support from peer partner school

• All other schools (including focus) will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal. Non-focus schools will have the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with schools with demonstrated success in their biggest area of need

• At EOY Gardener Center makes public School Quality Improvement Index scores and determines whether or not schools met their goal of increasing their overall school score by 2 points in 2 years

• Schools that did not meet their goal will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools’ School Quality Improvement Index score card as most in need of improvement


• Focus schools continue to implement interventions and participate in communities of practice as needed. Schools identified as Focus schools for 3 consecutive years will be required to partner with a reward school

• Schools identified as missing their School Quality Improvement Goal in 2018-2019 continue to work with their communities of practice

• All other schools will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal with the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with schools with demonstrated success in their biggest area of need


• Focus schools continue to implement interventions and participate in communities of practice and reward school partnerships as needed

• At EOY Gardener Center makes public school index scores and determines whether or not schools met their goal of increasing their overall school score by 4 points in 4 years

• Schools identified as missing their goal in 2018-2019 continue to work with their communities of practice

• Schools that did not meet either their 2- or 4-year goal will be required to enter into a peer pairing

• Schools that did meet their 2-year goal but not their 4-year goal will be required to join a community of practice

2014-15

School Quality Improvement Index and Goal will be recalibrated if necessary after full School Quality Improvement System is

implemented with SBAC (including growth)

The School Quality Improvement System provides for targeted interventions as opposed to one-size-fits-all requirements of NCLB Program Improvement

• Interventions are the same for each school and LEA in a given year of Program Improvement

• System is one of top-down compliance and does not include cross-school/LEA collaborations

• LEAs partner with peers to jointly work through implementation of initiatives (e.g., CCSS, teacher and principal evaluation system)

• Lower-performing schools partner with exemplar school based upon area of focus

California CORE Waiver

Nature of Interventions

Support Available

• Required interventions are targeted based upon school needs (e.g., achievement gap, low grad rate)

• Schools and LEAs must progress though PI interventions without the flexibility to assess whether they are working well for their context

• LEA and school partners hold each other accountable, partner to solve targeted problems together, and will notify CORE if peer falls out of good standing

Evaluation

The School Quality Improvement System creates interventions and supports for schools of all performance levels

The school designation system is designed to create targeted interventions and support, as well as accountability for low performing schools through a school

partnership program

• CORE staff will organize regular meetings to check in with and support LEAs in implementation of the waiver plan, including CCSS, teacher and principal evaluation system, and peer partnership responsibilities

• CORE will collect any necessary information from LEAs and is responsible for communicating with USED • CORE staff, plus potentially district FTEs on secondment (one proposed option), will train LEAs and schools on how to be a successful

partner within the district peer or school partnership relationships

The School Quality Improvement System has created structures for peer partnership and review at the LEA and individual school level, with CORE

providing central guidance

CORE Oversight

School Partnership Individual School Actions

• Reward schools work closely with Priority schools at least on a monthly basis to support Priority schools’ implementation of their school plan for improvement

• Focus schools join communities of practice, which will convene at least quarterly to address specific needs − If a school is identified as a Focus school for 3

consecutive years, the school will be required to partner with a Reward school at the start of Year 3

• Schools that did not meet their School Quality Improvement Goal after 2 years will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools’ accountability score card as most in need of improvement; after 4 years, these schools are required to join a peer pairing

• All schools have the option of joining communities of practice or entering into peer partnerships and review at any time

• Priority and focus schools are required to implement the interventions as described in the waiver

District Peer Accountability

• LEAs engage in peer review processes regularly to review implementation of CCSS and teacher and principal evaluation systems

− Between CORE-facilitated meetings, LEAs could be responsible for meeting with a peer LEA to discuss progress on CCSS implementation

− LEAs enter into peer review each Fall to ensure progress towards designing or refining educator evaluation systems in line with School Quality Improvement System guidelines

− LEAs have the option of convening more regularly if they choose

LEA and School Pairing as Included in the Waiver

Participating districts will participate in a peer partnership program to ensure timely and effective implementation of Waiver principles

Activities completed through LEA peer review and partnerships within the School Quality Improvement System

• Common Core Implementation: Within CCSS convenings, LEAs will work with partner LEAs to be sure each is implementing CCSS in classrooms by the end of 2013-2014 and will complete all preparatory activities as described in the Waiver, including:

• Developing transition plans for full CCSS implementation

• Developing and implementing CCSS professional development for all teachers

• Teacher and Principal Evaluation: Through annual fall review periods, LEAs will ensure that their partner LEA meets key educator evaluation system development milestones in 2013-2014; pilots in 2014-2015; and implements in 2015-2016 educator evaluation systems that include the principles agreed upon as part of the Waiver MOU, and participate in all necessary activities related to implementing this evaluation system as described in the Waiver

If a peer LEA falls out of compliance with the requirements of the MOU, it is the responsibility of the peer LEA to notify the LEA and CORE of the noncompliance

Annual

Year-Specific

School Pairing Implementation Timeline CORE will use annual performance on factors of the School Quality

Improvement Index and stated school needs to determine school pairings

• Scores from the School Quality Improvement Index, the initial school pairing survey, and the school pairing satisfaction survey will be used on an annual basis to review and reassign school pairings

• CORE will oversee formal appeals process for schools that wish to partner with a different reward school

• CORE will add full time staff to oversee the partnering process, including matching, creation of materials to support district relationship, and checking in with schools to ensure their needs are being met

• Identify reward, priority, and focus schools on an annual basis to be in “pool” of schools to be matched for pairing process

• Administer short questionnaire to schools to seek schools’ stated strengths and needs for 2013-2014 school year − In May of each year, CORE will

administer a School Pairing Satisfaction Survey in order to evaluate effectiveness of pairings and re-assign as needed

• Use School Quality Improvement Index score and progress against State AMOs to assess school needs

CORE will play a central role in the school matching and partnering process

Identify Schools and Needs Match Schools Oversee Partnering Process

• CORE will pair schools considering the following:

− Reward with priority or focus

− Geographic proximity

− Areas of strength and need as identified by School Quality Improvement Index Scores

− Stated areas of need/areas of strength as listed in School Pairing Survey

• If schools are not able to match on a 1:1 basis

− There may be situations with a 1:2 or 2:1 approach

− Other high-performing schools that are not “reward” may be identified to pair with focus or priority schools

• CORE will add full time staff (School Pairing Program Managers) to oversee the partnering process, including matching, creation of materials to support district relationship, and checking in with schools to ensure their needs are being met

• (Proposed option) Post 2013-2014, districts will provide staff on secondment for a 2 year basis to build capacity at CORE and provide professional learning opportunities for district personnel. Feasibility and details to be confirmed with CORE Board

CORE Role in School Matching and Partnering

School Pairing Implementation Timeline CORE will host two training institutes annually to build capacity within schools

for the school pairing program

Finalize School Pairing System July/August 2013

Hold Coaching Institute Annually, Mid-September

Convene Partner Institute Annually, Early October

• CORE will work closely with CORE Board and other external parties to: − Define coaching protocols for

Reward schools − Define key activities that schools

should complete under the school pairing program (e.g. needs assessments) − Plan coaching PD for reward

school delegates

• CORE will host a coaching institute (length TBD) for delegates from Reward schools throughout the School Quality Improvement System network. Sessions will include:

− Meet and greet

− Analysis, feedback, and coaching PD

− Introduction to key activities under the school pairing program

− Facilitating best practice sharing

• CORE will engage external content providers to host training sessions and facilitate dialogue

• CORE will host a partner institute in which Reward, Priority, and Focus (where appropriate) schools come together for training and to initiate partnership. Activities will include:

− Meet and greet

− Review of pairing program protocols and expectations

− Needs assessment and intervention planning training

• CORE will engage external content providers to host training sessions and facilitate dialogue

Principle 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

AND LEADERSHIP

1. Ensure that District teacher/principal evaluation system is aligned to the CORE Districts agreed-upon common standards. If necessary for alignment, modify or design and adopt a teacher/principal/superintendent evaluation system in spring of 2013, if current one does not align to the required elements. Districts have the flexibility to design evaluation systems and instruments that best meet local context needs given District existing systems, processes, and relationship with labor unions.

a. Includes student learning as a significant component (this may need to be bargained) b. Is aligned to the pedagogical shifts required by CCSS c. Ensure data collection with sufficient frequency to provide a basis for evaluation; d. Employ ratings that meaningfully differentiate among teaching effectiveness using at least four categories;

2. If a new or redesigned system is needed, pilot must occur by 14-15 school year 3. Share aggregate evaluation system data, reports and evidence regarding progress in increasing student outcomes

and closing the achievement gap by: a. Track and report the aggregate distribution of teachers and principals by performance level data no later than

the 2014–2015 school year.

Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, districts must complete the Principle 3 Must Dos

Adopted from Greatness by Design, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s Taskforce on Educator

Excellence, September 2012

The School Quality Improvement System-wide common educator evaluation indicators are founded in the theory of a standards-based framework put forth

in Greatness By Design

Student growth integrated through a “trigger” system

Teacher & Principal Evaluation and Support Systems Waiver language will be updated to reflect districts’ options for

integrating student growth into evaluation systems

• Similar to the Massachusetts model, misalignment between teacher/ administrator professional practice and student performance will initiate dialogue between teachers and administrators to identify why a discrepancy between scores exists, followed by district action in the interest of professional development of the teacher which could include, among others, an addendum to the review of professional practice or a one year improvement plan

Student growth as a defined percentage

2 1

CORE LEAs will choose will between both options in order to allow LEAs flexibility to maintain current systems that already meet USED requirements, while ensuring rigorous models and

consistency across all participating districts

• Student growth will represent a minimum of 20% of teacher and principal evaluation calculations

Any negotiated lawsuit or court order will supersede the requirements for student

growth per the CORE Waiver

LEAs will enter into peer review of their educator evaluation systems each Fall to assess progress towards School Quality Improvement System guidelines

Has the district implemented an evaluation system consistent

with CORE’s guidelines?

Waiver Evaluation Requirements

Fulfilled

Has the district met required milestones as outlined in

waiver application?

Is the district still interested in

participating in the waiver?

6 Month Development Period

• District can partner with another LEA to build capacity in designing and implementing new evaluation system

• CORE assists in connecting LEAs with resources or partner LEA as necessary

District is no longer included in the waiver

No

Status Update due by April 15th

• Districts responsible for updating CORE on steps taken towards meeting key milestones and progress towards evaluation system goals

Yes No

Yes

No

Fall Peer-Monitoring

Evaluation System Cycle of Review

If evaluation system requirements not met

by the 2015-2016 school year

Rubric will remain the same and the target for district performance will become more rigorous each year as the LEAs approach

full implementation

High Quality Plan to ensure that CORE’s LEAs develop, adopt, pilot, and implement evaluation systems that are consistent with CORE’s guidelines

Evaluation System Cycle of Review

By 2013-2014 School Year

• The CORE Board will develop guidelines and a rubric to measure development and implementation of teacher, principal, and superintendent evaluation systems per the timeline outlined in the waiver application

• Starting in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into peer review to ensure progress against the milestones outlined in the rubric

By 2014-2015 School Year & Ongoing

• Rubric will be fully implemented across the Participating LEAs by the 2014-15 school year

• It will be utilized as a part of the overall LEA accountability process in order to determine ongoing participation in the School Quality Improvement System

• Rubric will be used to measure the degree to which LEAs’ evaluation systems are designed and being utilized to improve professional practice and student growth; and whether it is being utilized in such decisions as recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, layoff and dismissal

• Rubric will also inform placement into the Evaluation System Cycle of Review

Cycle of Review

• LEAs that do not meet the minimum required peer review score (to be determined) on the rubric will enter into the Evaluation System Cycle of Review adding an additional step of monitoring and support to ensure that the LEA modifies or speeds up their process of system design and/or implementation

• If an LEA is unable to meet the required design guidelines defined in the rubric or achieve the adoption and/or implementation deadlines, exclusion from the School Quality Improvement System participation will be recommend by the CORE Board to USED

Build Shared Knowledge and Understanding

Building capacity for new educator evaluation systems

2012-13

Design Design new or modify

educator evaluation systems aligned to local district

contexts 2013-14

Pilot and Implementation Pilot and full

implementation of educator evaluation systems 2014-15 / 2015-16

Implementation Timeline

Beginning in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into a Peer Cycle of Review to ensure progress towards educator

evaluation systems that meet School Quality Improvement System requirements and to promote continued collaboration and best practice sharing

between LEAs

Complete In Progress Next Steps

Participating districts have flexibility to design an educator evaluation systems in partnership with key stakeholders within the parameters of full

implementation in 2015-2016

Additional Considerations

CORE Waiver LEAs will be expected to contribute funds to cover the cost of Waiver activities

1) Activities related to the school pairing program in which high-performing and high-progress reward schools are paired with priority and focus schools, including:

• Travel costs for school staff - mileage, gas, airfare, hotels, meals as needed • Release time for school staff • PD content (including development for PD specific to priority and focus school needs), facilitation, and materials

2) Activities related to the school pairing program in which other Title 1 schools not designated as reward, priority, or focus are paired or participate in communities of practice (as desired, or as required if AMOs are not met), including:

• Travel costs for school staff - mileage, gas, airfare, hotels, meals as needed • Release time for staff • PD content (including development for PD specific to priority and focus school needs), facilitation, and materials

3) Other Costs Potential reward school costs, such as recognition, plaques or certificates Shared communication costs for parents and community members to understand new accountability system

Costs to be covered by CORE Waiver LEAs

Participating LEAs are also responsible for all district-level costs associated with faithful implementation of the CORE Waiver requirements (e.g., implementing CCSS, common assessments, and teacher and principal evaluation systems)

Eight CORE LEAs have signed on to the CORE Waiver; other LEAs will likely have the option to join onto the Waiver annually

Long Beach

Sanger Fresno

Santa Ana

San Francisco

Oakland

Sacramento

Los Angeles

CORE ESEA Waiver Participants

• This year, only the currently participating 8 LEAs will be allowed to participate in the waiver, per USED guidance

• However, an annual enrollment period will likely allow additional LEAs to join the CORE Waiver by April 15th of each subsequent year

Timeline for Joining Waiver

Appendix

Commitment 2012-2013 SY 2013-2014 SY 2014-2015 SY

Districts develop instructional plans aligned to the CCSS

Districts develop and provide professional development on these plans and the new standards of the CCSS and SBAC

Teachers and administrators receive training on implementing SBAC-aligned assessment modules

Teachers implement these modules in schools throughout districts and provide feedback on ways to improve or better use in the classroom

Districts implement CORE’s SBAC-aligned assessments in 2013-2014 school year and use data to inform 2014-2015 targets

Principle 1 commitments will be largely self-monitored by districts, with annual peer reviews providing additional opportunities for district collaboration

Legend

Self-monitored

CORE check-in

Districts will be responsible for sharing

CCSS and SBAC-aligned PD materials, instructional

plans, and teacher feedback on assessment modules with CORE on a

regular basis


School Quality Improvement Index factors and weights are finalized. CORE facilitates partner with statistician and psychometrician to develop data measurement and collection methodologies

CORE facilitates the creation of a student growth model to be used in teacher evaluations across all districts

Districts measure and share data required for all factors of the School Quality Improvement Index. All Academic Domain factors, as well as chronic absenteeism and suspensions/expulsions, will be measured and shared beginning in 2013-2014 SY, with the remaining factors measured and shared beginning in 2014-2015. Growth will be measured and shared after the first year of SBAC or PARC, beginning in 2015-2016

Districts make publically available data for accountability reporting

Many Principle 2 commitments will be managed through dual processes between the districts and external partners

Legend

Self-monitored

CORE facilitated

External partner monitored/facilitated

CORE facilitates development of statistical models and weighting methodologies

External data partner collects and aggregates data

External data partner analyzes data and shares results with districts

External data partner also makes publically available the list of schools or districts that

did not provide data

District analyzes data and shares results

CORE works with data partner to facilitate partnership with district


Reward, priority, and focus schools identified according to data analysis as outlined in CORE waiver principle 2 requirements

Reward schools receive proper recognition and professional development to serve as coaches and peer partner schools to priority and focus schools

Reward schools fulfill responsibilities related to mentoring priority schools (and focus schools where applicable)

Priority schools conduct needs assessments in the first year of designation, with interventions beginning in Year 2. Focus schools conduct needs assessments and implement interventions beginning in Year 1 of designation

Districts ensure that effective leadership is in place at priority and focus schools and apply turnaround principals in a timely manner

Commitments related to the Accountability Framework will be managed by the districts, with annual peer reviews ensuring effective implementation

CORE facilitates professional development for Schools of Distinction

School categorization is driven by the data analysis methodology outlined in the waiver

Priority and focus schools conduct needs assessments, design school improvement plans, and ensure schools have effective leadership in place in collaboration with

their partner reward school

Legend

Self-monitored

CORE facilitated

Peer check-in

Peer collaboration

Data-driven/3rd party-driven

Commitment 2012-2013 SY 2013-2014 SY 2014-2015 SY 2015-2016 SY

Student growth model developed for use in SQII and educator evaluation systems; LEAs determine which, if any, local assessments fit within the common educator evaluator framework

Districts develop common evaluation system guidelines for alignment to Principle 3 requirements, including common educator effectiveness indicators, and submit to the Department of Education by 8/15/2013

Districts engage key stakeholders and bargaining units in dialogue around designing or revising educator evaluation systems that are in line with SQIS evaluation system guidelines and Principle requirements

Educator evaluation system is piloted in 2014-2015 school year

Educator evaluation system is implemented across all participating districts

Principle 3 deliverables will be largely self-managed, with twice yearly collaboration sessions facilitated by CORE

Beginning in Fall 2013, and every Fall thereafter, districts will enter into peer

review to ensure that districts are making progress towards designing

and implementing educator evaluation systems in line with the agreed-upon

framework. Districts that have not made adequate progress will enter in

the Evaluation System Cycle of Review. CORE will organize regular

meetings to check in with and support LEAs in implementation

Student Growth model developed

Legend

Self-monitored

CORE facilitated

Peer check-in

Peer collaboration

Data-driven/3rd party-driven

73

School Designations Fresno

Reward High Performing Reward: High Progress Focus Priority

Manchester Gate Easterby Elementary Ann B. Leavenworth Carver Academy

McCardle Elementary Ezekiel Balderas Elementary Calwa Elementary Webster Elementary*

Webster Elementary* Columbia Elementary Yosemite Middle

Deborah A. Williams Elementary

Heaton Elementary

Homan Elementary

Jackson Elementary

King Elementary

Lawless Elementary

Norseman Elementary

Slater Elementary

Susan B. Anthony Elementary

Turner Elementary

Winchell Elementary

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

74

School Designations Long Beach


Butler Middle Burcham K-‐8

Franklin Classical Middle Harte Elementary

Hoover Middle Jefferson Leadership Academies

Lindsey Academy

Marshall Academy of the Arts

Webster Elementary

75

School Designations Los Angeles (1 of 3)


Alfred Bernhard Nobel Middle Annalee Avenue Elementary Alexander Hamilton Senior High Bret Harte Preparatory Middle

Apperson Street Elementary Breed Street Elementary Alexandria Avenue Elementary Belmont Senior High

Baldwin Hills Elementary Bryson Avenue Elementary Arleta High Charles Drew Middle

Broadway Elementary Calvert Street Elementary Bell Senior High Crenshaw Senior High

Caroldale Learning Community Century Park Elementary Benjamin Franklin Senior High David Starr Jordan Senior High

Chapman Elementary Charnock Road Elementary Bridge Street Elementary East Valley Senior High

Colfax Charter Elementary Chase Street Elementary Bushnell Way Elementary Edwin Markham Middle

Danube Avenue Elementary Chatsworth Park Elementary Castelar Street Elementary Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary

Eshelman Avenue Elementary Coldwater Canyon Elementary Chester W. Nimitz Middle Gardena Senior High

Fullbright Avenue Elementary El Sereno Elementary CIVITAS School of Leadership George Washington Carver Middle

Harbor Teacher PreparaVon Academy Enadia Way Elementary Coliseum Street Elementary George Washington Preparatory High

Kester Avenue Elementary Evelyn Thurman GraWs Elementary Columbus Avenue Henry T. Gage Middle

Lemay Street Elementary FiXeenth Street Elementary Ellen Ochoa Learning Center Hillcrest Drive Elementary

Newcastle Elementary Frank del Olmo Elementary Ernest Lawrence Middle Hollenbeck Middle

Oliver Wendell Holmes Middle Gardena Elementary Esperanza Elementary Horace Mann Junior High

One Hundred FiXy-‐Sixth Street Elementar Glenwood Elementary Euclid Avenue Elementary John C. Fremont Senior High

Playa del Rey Elementary Gulf Avenue Elementary Fairfax Senior High John Muir Middle

Point Fermin Elementary Harbor City Elementary FiXy-‐Ninth Street Elementary Johnnie Cochran, Jr., Middle

Seventh Street Elementary HazelVne Avenue Elementary George K. Porter Middle Los Angeles Teachers Preparatory Academy

Seventy-‐Fourth Street Elementary Hubbard Street Elementary Glen Alta Elementary Manual Arts Senior High

Sierra Vista Elementary John F. Kennedy High Graham Elementary *Maywood Academy High

Taper Avenue Elementary Langdon Avenue Elementary Grover Cleveland High Robert Louis Stevenson Middle

Vintage Math/Science/Technology Magnet *Maywood Academy High Hart Street Elementary Samuel Gompers Middle

West Hollywood Elementary Menlo Avenue Elementary Hollywood Senior High South East High

Napa Street Elementary James A. Garfield Senior High Thomas Jefferson Senior High *Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

76



Noble Avenue Elementary James Monroe High William Jefferson Clinton Middle

One Hundred Thirty-‐FiXh Street Elementary John Adams Middle Woodcrest Elementary

Orthopaedic Hospital John Marshall Senior High

Oxnard Street Elementary Kingsley Elementary

Palms Elementary Latona Avenue Elementary

Queen Anne Place Elementary Lillian Street Elementary

RiWer Elementary Limerick Avenue Elementary

Strathern Street Elementary Luther Burbank Middle

Sylmar Elementary Magnolia Avenue Elementary

Thomas A. Edison Middle Mary McLeod Bethune Middle

Thomas Starr King Middle Mayberry Street Elementary

Twenty-‐Eighth Street Elementary McKinley Avenue Elementary

University Senior High Meyler Street Elementary

Vena Avenue Elementary Miguel Contreras Learning Complex

West Athens Elementary Miramonte Elementary

Western Avenue Elementary Nathaniel Narbonne Senior High

Westport Heights Elementary North Hollywood Senior High

Westside Leadership Magnet One Hundred Ninth Street Elementary

Wilmington Park Elementary One Hundred TwelXh Street Elementary

Wilshire Crest Elementary Pacoima Middle

Winnetka Avenue Elementary Panorama City Elementary

Ralph Waldo Emerson Middle

Ramon C. CorVnes School of Visual and P Rudecinda Sepulveda Dodson Middle

San Fernando Senior High

San Jose Street Elementary

San Pedro Senior High

77



School for the Visual Arts and HumaniVe

School of CommunicaVons, New Media and Sixty-‐Eighth Street Elementary

South Gate Middle

Southeast Middle

Sun Valley High

Sun Valley Middle

Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High

Sylmar Senior High

Tarzana Elementary

Twenty-‐Fourth Street Elementary

Ulysses S. Grant Senior High

Union Avenue Elementary

Utah Street Elementary

Valerio Street Elementary

Van Nuys Senior High

Venice Senior High

Virginia Road Elementary

Washington Irving Middle

West Adams Preparatory High

Woodland Hills Academy

Woodrow Wilson Senior High

78

School Designations Oakland


Lincoln Elementary Parker Elementary Bret Harte Middle Alliance Academy ROOTS InternaVonal Academy* East Oakland Pride Elementary Castlemont High School

Frick Middle Dewey Academy

Fruitvale Elementary Elmhurst Community Prep

LafayeWe Elementary Fremont High School

McClymonds High Oakland InternaVonal High

Oakland High Reach Academy

ROOTS InternaVonal Academy*

Rudsdale ConVnuaVon

United for Success Academy

West Oakland Middle

Note: Castlemont and Freemont schools represent multiple smaller schools that have since been consolidated; however consolidated data is not available for these schools *Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

79

School Designations Sacramento


West Campus Edward Kemble Elementary Bret Harte Elementary Oak Ridge Elementary*

Father Keith B. Kenny Elementary C. K. McClatchy High

Fern Bacon Middle Clayton B. Wire Elementary

Oak Ridge Elementary* Collis P. HunVngton Elementary

Ethel I. Baker Elementary

John F. Kennedy High

Kit Carson Middle

Mark Hopkins Elementary

Mark Twain Elementary

Rosemont High

Source: Capital City Independent Study is an Independent Study school and so will be removed pending consultation with the DOE *Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

80

School Designations San Francisco


Chin (John Yehall) Elementary Buena Vista/ Horace Mann K-‐8* El Dorado Elementary Bryant Elementary

Garfield Elementary King (Starr) Elementary Francisco Middle Buena Vista/ Horace Mann K-‐8*

Ulloa Elementary Parks (Rosa) Elementary Hillcrest Elementary Carver (George Washington) Elementary

Revere (Paul) Elementary* King Jr. (MarVn Luther) Academic Middle Chavez (Cesar) Elementary

Longfellow Elementary EvereW Middle

Tenderloin Community Mission EducaVon Center

Visitacion Valley Middle Mission High

Muir (John) Elementary

O'Connell (John) High

Revere (Paul) Elementary*

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

81

School Designations Sanger

Reward High Performing Reward: High Progress Focus Priority Fairmont Elementary Jefferson Elementary

82

School Designations Santa Ana


John Muir Fundamental Elementary Franklin Elementary Century High

Middle College High Lowell Elementary Saddleback High

Santa Ana High

Sierra Intermediate

Valley High

Willard Intermediate

83

Differentiated Accountability Schools are asked to align their interventions around the 7 turnaround principles defined by the ESEA

1. Providing strong leadership by: (1) reviewing the performance of the current principal; (2) either replacing the principal if such a change is necessary to ensure strong and effective leadership, or demonstrating to the SEA that the current principal has a track record in improving achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort; and (3) providing the principal with operational flexibility in the areas of scheduling, staff, curriculum, and budget;

2. Ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools; and (3) providing job-embedded, ongoing professional development informed by the teacher evaluation and support systems and tied to teacher and student needs;

3. Redesigning the school day, week, or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration;

4. Strengthening the school’s instructional program based on student needs and ensuring that the instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with State academic content standards;

5. Using data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement, including by providing time for collaboration on the use of data;

6. Establishing a school environment that improves school safety and discipline and addressing other non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional, and health needs; and

7. Providing ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

Source: ESEA Flexibility Guidelines

ESEA Turnaround Principles

84

Graduation Rate The four-year or extended-year adjusted graduation rate as defined by 24 CFR 200.19(b)(i). The “four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate” is defined as “the number of students who graduate in four years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for that graduating class. • For those high schools that start after grade nine, the cohort must be calculated based on the earliest high school grade

• The term “adjusted cohort” means the students who enter grade 9 or the earliest high school grade) and any students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9 through 12 minus any student removed from the cohort − The term “students who transfer into the cohort” means the students who enroll after the beginning of the entering cohort’s first year in

high school, up to and including in grade 12. − To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must confirm in writing that the student transferred out, emigrated to another

country, or is deceased. • To confirm that a student transferred out, the school or LEA must have official written documentation that the student enrolled in

another school or in an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma. • A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a General Educational Development (GED) program, or leaves school for any other

reason may not be counted as having transferred out for the purpose of calculating graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort.

• The term “students who graduate in four years” means students who earn a regular high school diploma at the conclusion of their fourth year, before the conclusion of their fourth year, or during a summer session immediately following their fourth year.

• The term “regular high school diploma” means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a GED credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.

• In addition to calculating a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, a State may propose to the Secretary for approval an “extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.” − An extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate in four years or more with a

regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, provided that the adjustments account for any students who transfer into the cohort by the end of the year of graduation being considered minus the number of students who transfer out, emigrate to another country, or are deceased by the end of that year.

Definitions Definition: Graduation Rate

Source: Race to the Top District Selection Criteria, Code of Federal Regulations Title 34 § 200.19

85

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Despite a terminology “Tower of Babel,” there is nascent consensus on a unified categorization for the mindsets, skills and habits that can help students succeed

Openness: Curiosity, creativity,

insightfulness

Conscientiousness: Self-control, grit,

organization, planning

Extraversion: Assertiveness,

enthusiasm, energy

Agreeableness: Kindness, empathy,

social intelligence

Emotional Stability: Nervousness, anxiety,

tension

*Note: KIPP’s three forms of character form a Venn diagram of characteristics. Overlapping characteristics are listed in italics. Source: John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy; Character Education Partnership (2008) Performance Values: Why They Matter and What Schools Can Do To Foster Their Development

Performance Character: Self-discipline, perseverance, planning, creativity, curiosity,

open-mindedness, meta-cognition

Moral Character: Empathy, fairness, integrity, compassion

Intellectual Character: curiosity, honesty, zest,

optimism*

Achievement Character: grit, self-control, purpose, optimism

Interpersonal Character: empathy, gratitude, self-control, purpose, honesty, zest

Self-Management: managing emotions and behaviors to achieve one’s goals

Social Awareness: understanding of and empathy for others

Cognitive Domain:

Intellectual ability, knowledge, cognitive strategies, creativity

Intrapersonal Domain:

Work ethic, conscientiousness, self-evaluation, mindset, perseverance, metacognition, intellectual openness, curiosity

Interpersonal Domain:

Teamwork, collaboration, leadership, communication, conflict resolution, empathy

Self-Awareness: recognizing one’s emotions, values, strengths, and challenges

Relationship Skills: teamwork, conflict resolution, positive relationships

Responsible Decision Making: constructive, ethical choices about personal and social behavior

Personality Psychology

Character Education

Partnership

KIPP

Social-Emotional Learning

National Academy of Sciences

(21st Century Skills)

Sense of belonging in one’s community, which contributes to one’s willingness to adopt

established norms

Social Psychology

Engagement and motivation, which are influenced by perceptions of competence, autonomy

Cognitive Psychology

Executive Function: Self-regulatory processes governing attention, planning, decision-making, inhibition,

mental flexibility, problem-solving, reasoning, memory, etc.

86

Nobel prize-winner James Heckman demonstrated that, in addition to cognitive abilities, students’ self-esteem and locus of control are important predictors of educational attainment, employment, wages, and avoidance of risky behavior

Decile of “Cognitive” Factors Decile of “Non-Cognitive” Factors

Probability of Being a 4-Year College Graduate by Age 30 by Decile of Cognitive and Non-cognitive Factors (males)

Pro

babi

lity

Note: Non-cognitive factors are measured by the Rotter Locus of Control scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Source: Heckman, Stixrud, Urzua (2006) The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior;

Heckman at al. (2006) demonstrated that both

cognitive ability and “non-cognitive” mindsets were

important predictors of academic success

(e.g. graduating from a 4-year college by age 30), as well as future employment, wages, and avoidance

of risky behaviors.

In Heckman’s study, “cognitive factors” include arithmetic

reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension,

mathematical knowledge, and coding speed. “Non-cognitive”

factors include self-esteem and the degree to which individuals feel they

are in control of their own life.

87

Walter Mischel’s “Marshmallow Test” showed that ability to delay gratification at age 4 predicts academic and social competence as well as ability to cope with stress later in life

The study:

• From 1968-1974, Stanford professor Walter Mischel and colleagues conducted a study, popularly known as “the marshmallow test.”

• They assessed the ability of 4-year-olds to delay gratification by giving each child a treat and a choice: the child could wait for the experimenter to return in 15 minutes with two treats, or he could eat the single treat at any time before that.

• Mischel et al. later assessed the cognitive and self-regulatory competencies of the same subjects years after the initial experiment.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938; Y. Shoda, W. Mischel, & P.K. Peake, “Predicting adolescent cognitive and self‐regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification,” Developmental Psychology, 1990, 26, 6, 978‐86.

The findings:

• Ten years after the experiment, those had delayed gratification on the marshmallow test at age 4, compared to those who had not, were rated by their parents as more academically and socially competent, verbally fluent, rational, attentive, planful, and able to deal with frustration and stress.

• Several years later, the group that had delayed gratification at age 4 also had higher SAT scores than their peers who had not waited for a second treat.

88

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research The Perry Preschool Study demonstrated that early intellectual and social development opportunities predict lifelong personal and economic outcomes

The study:

• From 1962–1967, 123 three- and four-year-old children from families identified as “high risk” were randomly divided into a program group and a comparison group. The program group attended a high-quality preschool based on HighScope's participatory learning model, which emphasizes both intellectual and social development. The comparison group received no preschool program.

• In the study's most recent phase, 97% of study participants still living were interviewed at age 40. Additional data were gathered from the subjects' school, social services, and arrest records.

The findings:

• Initial program impact on IQ seemed to disappear by age 10

• The study found that adults at age 40 who had the preschool program were more likely to have graduated from high school, were more likely to hold a job, had higher earnings, and had committed fewer crimes than adults who did not have preschool.

HighScope Educational Research Foundation: http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219 Juvenile Justice Bulletin (2000): https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_10_1/contents.html

89

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research The Dunedin Study shows that childhood self-control predicts key life outcomes such as high school completion, physical health, and financial stability

The study:

• 30+ year longitudinal study of all 1,037 children born in a single year (1972 – 1973) in Dunedin, New Zealand

• Study participants underwent a battery of examinations and interviews over 30+ years. These assessments were supplemented by review of official records and questionnaires completed by parents, teachers, and peers as appropriate.

The findings:

Childhood self-control (controlling for intelligence and SES) was shown to predict important life outcomes such as high school completion, physical health, substance dependence, income, single parenthood, and criminal involvement.

Moffitt et al. (2011) A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety

90

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research – Absentee Rate

Factor Key Supporting Research Quoted Articles

Absentee rate • “In some districts, students who missed a month or more of school (roughly, 90% attendance rates or less) had greatly diminished graduation odds. In other districts, like Philadelphia, students needed to miss two or more months (roughly, attendance of 80% or less) to achieve similar outcomes. This suggests that both the number of days a student misses and how his or her attendance compares with that of peers signal that a student is not fully engaged and is in danger of falling off the graduation path” –Balfanz, 2009

• “The analysis also looked at scores on state assessments and found that all students showed improvement over the years, but that the kindergartners with the highest absenteeism rates were not likely to catch up to their peers. The second cohort, with test results from sixth through 10th grades, shows a nearly identical pattern…[T]he results do suggest a clear and consistent relationship between early attendance and later achievement. A similar analysis of math achievement suggests the same thing” –Buehler, Tapogna, and Chang, 2012

• “By 6th grade, chronic absence begins to predict high school dropout rates, a study of Baltimore students showed. By 9th grade, missing 20 percent of school can be a better predictor of dropout rates than 8th-grade test scores are, Chicago researchers found. Along with behavior problems and failure in core academic courses, poor student attendance is a critical early warning sign of dropout” –Buehler, Tapogna, and Chang, 2012

• “In San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in California, students who arrived at school academically ready to learn but were then chronically absent in kindergarten and first grade scored 60 points below good attenders on third grade reading tests and close to 100 points below on mathematics tests (Applied Survey Research 2011)” –Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012

• “In Baltimore, students who were chronically absent in both pre-k and kindergarten often continued to be chronically absent in later years, and are more likely to be retained and have lower achievement (Connolly and Olson 2012)” –Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012

• Balfanz and Byrnes. The Importance of Being in School: A Report on Absenteeism in the Nation’s Public Schools. Johns Hopkins University (2012).

• Balfanz, Putting Middle Grades Students on the Graduation Path: A Policy and Practice Brief, National Middle School Association (2009); http://www.nationalpirc.org/engagement_forum/resources.cgi?item=46

• Buehler, Taponga, and Chang, Why Being in School Matters: Chronic Absenteeism in Oregon Public Schools (2012)

Additional Selected Articles

• Attendance Works. A Summary of Key Research on Chronic Absence.

• Applied Survey Research. Attendance in Early Elementary Grades: Association with Student Characteristics, School Readiness and Third Grade Outcomes (2011). Applied Survey Research

• Baltimore Education Research Consortium (BERC). Destination Graduation: Sixth Grade Early Warning Indicators for Baltimore City Schools: Their Prevalence and Impact (2011). BERC: Baltimore MD

• Connolly, F. & Olson, L. S. Early Elementary Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools’ Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten (2012). Baltimore Education Research Consortium, Baltimore, MD.

91

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research – Suspension/Expulsion

Factor Key Supporting Research Quoted Articles

Suspension/ Expulsion

• “A key assumption of zero tolerance policy is that the removal of disruptive students will result in a safer climate for others (Ewing, 2000). Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a number of indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect, that is, that schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate (Bickel & Qualls, 1980), to have less satisfactory school governance structures (Wu et al., 1982), and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary matters (Scott & Barrett, 2004). Perhaps more important, recent research indicates a negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and schoolwide academic achievement, even when controlling for demographics such as socioeconomic status (J. E. Davis & Jordan, 1994; Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Although such findings do not demonstrate causality, it becomes difficult to argue that zero tolerance creates more positive school climates when its use is associated with more negative achievement outcomes.” –American Psychological Association

• “Rather than reducing the likelihood of disruption, however, school suspension in general appears to predict higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension among those students who are suspended (Bowditch, 1993; Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996). In the long term, school suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time (Bowditch, 1993; Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986)” –American Psychological Association

• “[R]ecent research [shows] that being suspended even once in ninth grade ias associated with a twofold increase in the likelihood of dropping out, from 16% for those not suspended to 32% for those suspended just once (Balfanz, 2013)” –Justice Center

• “Research demonstrates that higher suspending schools reap no gains in achievement, but they do have higher dropout rates and increase the risk that their students will become embroiled in the juvenile justice system (Balfanz, 2013; Fabelo, 2011; Schollenberger, 2013). Research also indicates that the frequent use of suspensions could be a detriment to school and community safety because it increases student disengagement and diminishes trust between students and adults (Finn, 2013)(Steinberg 2013). Finally, the tremendous disparities in the use of suspension at the secondary level may violate civil rights law (Kim, Losen, & Hewitt 2010)” –Justice Center

• Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, A Report by American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2006); http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf

• Losen and Martinez, Out of School & Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middle and High Schools, A Report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (2010); http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/out-of-school-off-track-the-overuse-of-suspensions-in-american-middle-and-high-schools/


• Breaking School Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Student’s Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, (2011); http://stage.csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/breaking-schools-rules-a-statewide-study-of-how-school-discipline-relates-to-students-success-and-juvenile-involvement-2/

• Skiba, Rausch, Ritter, Discipline Is Always Teaching, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (2005)

• Losen and Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis (2010); http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis

92

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research – Non-Cognitive Factors

Factor Key Supporting Research Selected Key Articles

Non-Cognitive Factors (e.g. mindset, grit)

• “In a longitudinal study of 140 eighth-grade students, self-discipline measured by self-report, parent report, teacher report, and monetary choice questionnaires in the fall predicted final grades, school attendance, standardized achievement-test scores, and selection into a competitive high school program the following spring. In a replication with 164 eighth graders…[s]elf-discipline measured in the fall accounted for more than twice as much variance as IQ in final grades, high school selection, school attendance, hours spent doing homework, hours spent watching television (inversely), and the time of day students began their homework. The effect of self-discipline on final grades held even when controlling for first-marking-period grades, achievement-test scores, and measured IQ. These findings suggest a major reason for students falling short of their intellectual potential: their failure to exercise self-discipline” –Duckworth and Seligman, 2005

• “[T]he decline in test scores during the test picks up something else than just cognition. The size of the decline in test scores during the test is related to personality traits, mainly to agreeableness, and to motivational attitudes towards learning. It also predicts outcomes in later life such as income and smoking in addition to the pure test score. The motivation effect can explain 19 percent of the variation in the average test scores between countries” –Borghans and Schils, 2012

• “Psychological factors--often called motivational or non-cognitive factors -- can matter even more than cognitive factors for students’ academic performance. These may include students’ beliefs about themselves, their feelings about school, or their habits of self-control. Indeed, there is a growing recognition in education, psychology, and economics of the importance of non-cognitive factors in achievement both in school and in the labor market (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Dweck, 1999; Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). There has also been a recognition that these factors offer promising levers for raising the achievement of underprivileged children and, ultimately, closing achievement gaps based on race and income (Heckman et al., 2006). [This research] shows that educational interventions and initiatives that target these psychological factors can have transformative effects on students’ experience and achievement in school, improving core academic outcomes such as GPA and test scores months and even years later” –Dweck, Walton, & Cohen (2011)

• Borghans and Schils. The Leaning Tower of Pisa: Decomposing Achievement Test Scores Into Cognitive and Noncognitive Components (2012). Maastricht University.

• Duckworth and Seligman. Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of Adolescents (2005). Association for Psychological Science.

• Dweck, Walton, & Cohen. Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills that Promote Long-Term Learning (2011). Paper prepared for the Gates Foundation.


• Farrington et al. Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Non-cognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance (2012).

• Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua. The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior (2006). Journal of Labor Economics.

• National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (2012).

• Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century (2013 Draft). US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

93

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research – Student/Staff/Parent Perceptions

Factor Key Supporting Research Selected Key Articles

Student/Staff/ Parent perceptions (Culture/Climate)

• “In the Hulleman and Harackiewicz (2009) study intended to increase students’ valuing of science through personal connection, we know that, of the students who did not expect to do well in science at the beginning of the study, those who wrote about science in connection with their own lives earned higher grades at the end of the course than those who just wrote summaries of science topics. After the intervention, students in the treatment group also had a higher interest in science and were more likely to indicate plans to take science-related courses in the future than were students in the control group” –Farrington et al., 2012

• “Conditions in the classroom that have been shown to affect students’ mindsets include the level of academic challenge and teacher expectations for success (Conchas, 2006; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Shouse, 1996; Wentzel, 2002); student choice and autonomy in academic work (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004): the clarity and relevance of learning goals (Grant & Dweck, 2003); availability of supports for learning (Gordon & Bridglall, 2006); grading structures and policies (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Berliner, 1984; Black & Wiliam, 2004; Brookhart, 1994, 2004; Butler & Nisan, 1986; Covington & Müeller, 2001; Crooks, 1988; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Kaplan, Peck, & Kaplan, 1997; Weiner, 1979); the nature of the academic tasks students are asked to do (Bridgeland, DiJulio, & Morison, 2006; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995); the type, usefulness, and frequency of feedback on student work (Brookhart, 1994, 2004; Brophy, 1981; Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Harber, 2004; Stipek, 2001); and classroom norms of behavior and level of trust and safety (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988)” –Farrington et al., 2012

• “As a National Research Council study concludes, positive engagement and self-efficacy in any given subject is contingent upon ‘creat[ing] a set of circumstances in which students take pleasure in learning and come to believe that the information and skills they are being asked to learn are important and meaningful for them and worth their effort, and that they can reasonably expect to be able to learn the material’” (National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 2004, p. 14)” –Farrington et al., 2012

• Farrington et al. Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Non-cognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance (2012).


• Jackson. Non-cognitive Ability, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina (2012). National Bureau of Economic Research.

• Durlak et al. The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions (2011).

94

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Reports show that by considering social-emotional factors, schools can create cultures to improve student achievement

Factors other than academic performance

should be considered in developing students into

21st-century learners

Classrooms and school cultures should be shaped

to encourage students’ social-emotional

development

• “In addition to content knowledge and academic skills, students must develop sets of behaviors, skills, attitudes, and strategies that are crucial to academic performance in their classes, but that may not be reflected in their scores on cognitive tests” –Farrington et al. (2012)

• “The states and the federal government should establish policies and programs—in the areas of assessment, accountability, curriculum and materials, and teacher education—to support students’ acquisition of transferable 21st century competencies. For example, when reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Congress should facilitate the systemic development, implementation, and evaluation of educational interventions targeting deeper learning processes and the development of transferable competencies” –National Research Council (2012)

• “A growing corpus of research evidence suggests that [grit, tenacity and perseverance] can be just as important as intellectual abilities for success…it is the responsibility of the educational community to design learning environments that promote these factors so that students are prepared to meet 21st-century challenges” – US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2013 Draft)

• “The culture of a school is too often neglected but can make a big difference in student success…The [Quaglia Instiute for Student Aspirations] survey reveals…only 42 percent of those surveyed say that students are supportive of each other. Fifty-five percent feel that teachers care about them as individuals. Forty-five percent say that school is boring. Fifty-three percent enjoy being at school. These numbers need to serve as a wake-up call that our test-driven, high-stakes culture is not creating the schools that our students deserve” –EdWeek (2013)

Schools have the ability to teach specific academic mindsets and behaviors

that directly lead to improved academic

performance

• “Academic mindsets strongly influence the degree to which stu-dents engage in academic behaviors, persevere at dif-ficult tasks, and employ available learning strategies. In turn, the use of appropriate learning strategies strongly influences the quality and effectiveness of academic behaviors and helps students stick with a task and persevere despite obstacles. Thus, building students’ academic mindsets and teaching them appro-priate learning strategies are the best ways to improve academic behaviors and perseverance, which leads to better grades” –Farrington et al. (2012)

• “Academic behaviors are the visible, outward signs that a student is engaged and putting forth effort to learn. Because they are observable behaviors, they are also relatively easy to describe, monitor, and measure…While it seems logical that attending class, studying, and completing homework will lead to better grades, there are also likely reciprocal effects—where students’ success at earning high grades gives them encouragement to continue to work hard. As shown by the psychological research on mindsets, the grades students receive have a marked effect on their attitudes about school and about their own academic identities in ways that strongly influence their subsequent behavior and future school performance” –Farrington et al. (2012)

• “This article presents findings from a meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal social and emotional learning (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students. Compared to controls, SEL participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and academic performance that reflected an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement” –Durlak et al. (2011)

In order to improve student outcomes, schools must create cultures to support students’ social-emotional learning development

95

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research A wide variety of research shows ties between SEL/culture and climate and improved student outcomes, with calls to schools to make improvements

Reports giving an overview of research showing ties between SEL/CC and improved outcomes: • National Research Council (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century

21st century skills include cognitive and non-cognitive components. Conscientiousness is highly correlated with educational, career and health outcomes. The NRC recommends states/federal government adapt policies to support the acquisition of 21st century skills

• Farrington et al. (2012) Teaching Adolescents To Become Learners: The Role Of Non-cognitive Factors In Shaping School Performance A report drawing from a wide variety of studies shows non-cognitive traits can improve educational outcomes. Education systems have some ability to influence students’ academic behaviors (e.g. absenteeism, assignment completion), academic mindsets, and learning strategies (e.g. time management, goal-setting), all of which lead to improved outcomes

• Durlak et al. (2011) The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions A study of 270,034 K-12 students in 213 school-based social and emotional learning programs showed an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement over controls

• Yaeger, Walton (2011) Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic A report drawing from several randomized experiments shows brief psychological interventions can improve students’ academic achievement

• US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2013 Draft) Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century An article drawing from a wide variety of papers to support the claim that non-cognitive factors impact academic achievement

• Pearson Foundation and Quaglia Institute for Student Aspirations (QISA) (2013) “My Voice, My School Survey” QISA has created an Aspirational Framework recommending 8 conditions for students to realize academic, social, and personal success: Belonging, Heroes, Sense of Accomplishment, Fun & Excitement, Curiosity & Creativity, Spirit of Adventure, and Leadership & Responsibility

Other selected papers of interest: • Blackwell, Trzesniewski, Dweck (2007) Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition

• Diamond et al. (2007) Preschool Program Improves Cognitive Control

• Duckworth, Quinn, Tsukayama (2011) What No Child Left Behind Leaves Behind: The Roles of IQ and Self-Control in Predicting Standardized Achievement Test Scores and Report Card Grades

• Duckworth, Tsukayama, May (2010) Establishing Causality Using Longitudinal Hierarchical Linear Modeling: An Illustration Predicting Achievement From Self-Control

• Robbins et al., (2006) Unraveling the Differential Effects of Motivational and Skills, Social, and Self-Management Measures From Traditional Predictors of College Outcomes

• Chetty et al. (2011) How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings?

• Mischel, Shoda, Rodriguez (1989) Delay of gratification in children

• Moffitt et al. (2011) Gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety

• Schweinhart et al. (2005) Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40

School Quality Improvement System Powerpoint

Documents

Transcript of School Quality Improvement System Powerpoint