2
ESEA Flexibility:An Overview of the NCLB Waiver
Approved for Virginia
August 2012
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waiver
• Revised accountability system that applies only to the NCLB federal Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) benchmarks.
• The AMOs do not apply to Virginia's accreditation standards.
3
4
Purpose of Flexibility
ESEA scheduled for
reauthorization in 2007
Congress failed to
reauthorize
Disproportionate percentage of
schools identified as
underperforming
Flexibility offered to promote reform
and respond to state concerns
5
Flexibility is offered in the following areas...
• Determining annual measurable objectives (AMOs)
• Improvement status and sanctions for divisions and schools that fail to meet AMOs (i.e. Public School Choice, SES, etc.)
• Improvement planning process for divisions not meeting Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirements
• Certain restrictions on use of specific federal program funds (i.e. 20% set a side, school improvement grants, etc)
6
In exchange for the waivers, states must submit plans to implement three educational reform principles outlined by the U.S. Department of Education-
1. College and career-ready standards and assessments2. *Differentiated accountability systems3. Teacher and principal evaluation systems *Focus of PowerPoint
Principle 2:Differentiated Supports and
Interventions for Underperforming Schools
7
System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability,
and Support
8
2012-2013
School Year Implement revised federal accountability requirements
System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability,
and Support
9
Revised Annual Measurable Objectives for:• All students• Three proficiency gap groups• Other individual subgroups
Schools – Divisions – State
Hispanic students, of one or more races*
Black students, not of Hispanic origin*
System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability,
and Support
10
Students with DisabilitiesEnglish Language Learners
Economically Disadvantaged
Gap Group 1(unduplicated)
Gap Group 2
Gap Group 3
*to include students with disabilities, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students
System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability,
and Support
11
Other individual subgroups:• All students• Students with disabilities• English language learners• Economically disadvantaged students• White students• Asian students
School Report Cards
12
Annual Accreditation Resultsbased on SOA expectations
**Proficiency Gap Group performance in meeting
AMOs or reducing proficiency gaps
**Individual subgroup performance will continue to be reported: All students, white, Asian, students with disabilities, economically
disadvantaged students, English language learners
Annual Measurable Objectivesfor Elementary and Middle Schools
13
1) Meet a test participation rate of 95 percent for reading and mathematics; and
2) Meet AMO targets in reading and mathematics, or reduce failure rate by 10 percent.
All students, proficiency gap groups, and individual subgroups must:
Annual Measurable Objectivesfor High Schools
14
1) Meet a test participation rate of 95 percent for reading and mathematics;
2) Meet AMO targets in reading and mathematics, or reduce failure rate by 10 percent; and
All students, proficiency gap groups, and individual subgroups must:
3) Meet the federal graduation indicator.
State and Division Accountability
• Share the same participation and performance expectations as schools
• Also expected to meet Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for English learners (ELs):• AMAO 1 – Progress• AMAO 2 – Proficiency• AMAO 3 – Reading and Mathematics
15
AMOs are established based on available data from the following:
Mathematics2011-2012 Revised assessments
Reading2010-11 Assessments(will be adjusted after administration of revised 2012-13 assessments)
Newly Established AMOs
16
*The new Math AMOs will be readdressed at this month’s state Board of Education meeting (Sept 27) and revisions are expected to be made
New group size will move from 50 students to 30 students
Reward, Priority, and Focus Schools
• Recognition will be provided to reward schools
• Supports and interventions will be provided to priority and focus schools
• Monitor and support schools that do not meet AMOs
17
18
Reward Schools• High performing, High Progress
• Virginia Index of Performance• National and State Title I Distinguished Schools• Blue Ribbon Schools
Priority Schools• 5% of state’s Title I schools (36 total)
• Low reading and math performance of “all students”• Federal graduation rates• Failure to meet 95% participation rate in reading
and/or math for 3 consecutive years
Focus Schools• 10% of state’s Title I schools (72 total)
• 10% of other non-priority schools having highest Proficiency gap points or
• Not meeting 95% participation rate
In Summary…
19
FOCUS STATUS:Based on reading and mathematics performance of
Proficiency Gap Groups
PRIORITY STATUS: Based on reading and mathematics performance
and graduation rates for All Students
IMPROVEMENT PLAN:Any school not identified as priority or focus with a subgroup
missing one or more AMO(s)
(All students, proficiency gap groups, or other individual subgroups)
Top Related