Work Group Presentations ESSA Advisory Group_08.25.2016 ESSA Assessment work group update - PowerPoint Presentation

Work Group Presentations ESSA Advisory Group_08.25.2016

ESSA Assessment work group update Peter Zutz – Work Group Lead

ESSA Assessment Workgroup Summary Meetings: #1 – 8/8/16; #2: 9/2/16; #3: TBD Strategic QuestionWhat is the current state of the Nevada state assessment system? Strengths: EL Recommendations to ESSA Accountability Work Group Strengths Alignment of EOC and Smarter Balanced to NVACs Assessments used to drive instruction Aligned system offers more standardization across state and comparison across schools and districts New preK-3 a powerful tool - literacy plan ties assessment and instruction WIDA alignment to instruction ACT – paid for by state Online Weaknesses Testing windows don’t appropriately accommodate various track school Results not provided in a timely manner NAA – questions around utility and fidelity No s oft skills/disposition assessments with regard to college and career readiness – community readiness skills (relationship building, grit/stamina, motivation, emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, good mental health, conflict resolution, responsible decision making, time management, dependability) Opportunities Early childhood assessments can be recognized as vital Soft skills – development could be tiered and parent relationships could be strengthened To involve business and community members Improve Nevada state assessment system NAA – could be instructional not summative Define “College and Career Readiness” Better coordination at the state and district level – asking the question “why is this assessment needed at this grade level?” “What are we hoping to get out of this assessment information?” – make the data work for us Threats Perception of assessments by community and parents Unfunded mandates Lack of immediate feedback Fidelity to purpose Pathway courses Political impact Cleaning up and getting rid of other existing assessments (change) – hanging onto the familiar Student data being used to evaluate teachers – what does that look like Using our data we have to be accountable to our students and outcomes with intervention readiness

ESSA Assessment Workgroup Summary Participants NDE – Deputy Superintendent Brett Barley;  Peter Zutz, ADAM Administrator; Sophia Masewicz, Education Program Supervisor Nevada Education Professionals – Sandra Aird, WCSD-Assessment; Kristine Minnich, CCSD; Tina Winquist, CCSD; Katie Dockweiler, Nevada Associtation of School Psychs; Joailtiff Barbara Perez Sr, CCSD; Terri Clark, JAB Nevada; Meredith Smith, Nevada Succeeds; Angela Motter, WCSD-Teacher; Karen Staffen, SCSD-Teacher; Ashley Greenwald, UNR-PBIS; Mansea McClish, WCSD-Assessment; Brooke Wood Appreciate opportunity to have teacher voice on this committee. The first meeting was good and professional. We had a method of us working together and sharing out We had allow processing time The process is transparent N ot confident three meetings is enough Opportunity to review mission, goals, objectives – specifically to understand the current state assessment system Next meetings – obtain feedback from group members regarding what should be the ideal state assessment system, to include what kind of data is needed to support students to be college and career ready Appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with various stakeholders throughout the state, hear varied perspectives from others and recognize the commonalities among strengths and challenges of our current assessment system

Next Steps – ESSA Assessment Workgroup Develop Additional Strategic Question Recommendations In preparation for Meeting #2, the ESSA Assessment Workgroup has been working on answering: What should be the ideal state of Nevada’s comprehensive assessment system to meet our statewide goals? What are the requirements of ESSA relating to this workgroup and how can we use these requirements to empower our state goals?In Meeting #3, the ESSA Assessment Workgroup will discuss:How does Nevada’s current system align to the state’s college and career ready standards? Do the assessments that we give provide any predictive value to progress towards college and career ready targets (or high stakes assessments) and/or do they provide essential information for teachers to meet the differentiated needs of their students? Is there another purpose that the assessment service should provide? If so, what is it and why ? How does the assessment system allow us to identify focus areas & drive towards gap closure ? Questions for the ESSA Advisory Group What will the next steps be? In what ways do you anticipate our input will be utilized? What are the Advisory Group’s thoughts on aligning our assessment system to college/career readiness?

Accountability Workgroup Update Dr. Tonia Holmes-Sutton – Workgroup Member Russ Keglovits – Workgroup Lead

Accountability Workgroup Update July 1st Understand the priorities of the Nevada State Board of Education Understand the work of the Accountability Advisory Committee Understand the Accountability impact from the Every Student Succeeds Act Draft essential questions and perform a SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities & threats) analysis July 25th Perform SWOT analysis of the desired accountability system Make recommendations regarding school ratings Make recommendations regarding long-term goals with measures of interim progress August 24 th Review and comment on accountability indicators Share information regarding the academic profile activity Solicit recommendations regarding district accountability Answer essential and strategic questions

Next Steps Workgroup Summary document preparationMeeting Minutes Notes Workgroup Activities RecommendationsReconciliation with Accountability Advisory CommitteeExpand summary document into recommendations for Advisory GroupConvene technical stakeholder group to set standards on the proposed accountability system

Questions for the Advisory Group What information can we provide to the Advisory Group so that it can be best positioned to inform the accountability recommendations and system design?

ESSA English learners work group update Karl Wilson – Workgroup Lead

EL Work Group Summary Meetings: #1 – 6/30/16; #2: 8/12/16; #3: TBD Consensus Agreement Current and Ideal state for supporting English learners in Nevada Strengths Nevada’s membership in the WIDA Consortium Additional State Funds for English Learners English Mastery Council Weaknesses Lack of Teacher Preparation for ELs No Clear Plan for Monitoring Former ELs Lack of Quality Supports for Long-term ELs Opportunities Job-embedded Professional Learning Family Engagement School Planning to Address EL Needs Threats Lack of Administrator Preparation for ELs Lack of Adequate Staffing (pipeline shortages) Insufficient Number of Interpreters Risk of Discontinued or Inadequate Funding

EL Work Group Summary Consensus Agreement Recommendations to ESSA Accountability Work Group Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP) : use to measure growth & proficiency in English language acquisition EL Data Reporting: require annually as part of Nevada State Report Card systemEL student AGP Scores: include in all grades K-12 as part of school accountability; Calculate “n” size at school level Former EL Student Scores : include in accountability reporting for 4 Years after re-classification as English proficient; Guidelines for including recently arrived ELs in assessments

Next Steps - EL Work Group Develop Additional Strategic Question Recommendations In preparation for Meeting #3, the ESSA EL Work Group will prioritize remaining issues In Meeting #3, the ESSA EL Work Group will focus on recommendation development for ESSA Advisory Group Question for the ESSA Advisory Group What questions does the ESSA Advisory Group have for the EL Work Group that would help inform your decisions related to English Learners?

Teaching and leading Workgroup Update Dena Durish – Workgroup Lead

ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Group (Attract, Prepare, Develop, Retain) Meetings June 30, 2016 September and October TBD Next Week (pending Doodle poll results) 40 Work Group Members 2 – Business & Industry 8 – Classroom Teacher 4 – School-Based Administrator 10 – District-Level Personnel 6 – Other School-Based Licensed Employee 1 – Parent/Legal Guardian 9 – Community Stakeholder/Other (Higher Ed. Faculty) Essential Question How do we ensure that all Nevada students, particularly those who are identified as low-income, minority, English learners, and/or special education, have equitable access to experienced and effective educators (teachers, school leaders, other licensed personnel)?

Gradual shift in funding formula by 2020 from 35/65% to 20/80% (total student population/students in poverty) Nevada Estimate = 9.8% increase 95% to districts; 4% statewide activities; 1 % for NV administrationUp to additional 3% from districts to State for developing school leaders Federal “highly qualified” definition/plans replaced with “full state certification and licensure requirements” Plan to address disparities resulting in students from low-income families & students of color being taught by INEFFECTIVE , inexperienced , unqualified , or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than peers (equitable distribution) Collection/public reporting of professional qualifications data Educator evaluation systems not required Removes student performance measure requirement, unless using Title II-A Professional development definition updated to ensure “personalized, ongoing, job-embedded activities ” ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Gro up (Key Policy Considerations)

T&L Work Group Next Steps SWOT Analysis Prioritize Strategic Questions/Remaining IssuesRecommendations for Superintendent and ESSA Advisory Group Question(s) for the ESSA Advisory Group How should funding priorities be determined for the 4% of Title II-A funds reserved for statewide activities? What should be identified as the highest education workforce priorities in relation to attracting, preparing, developing, and retaining teachers and leaders? Should NDE reserve the additional allowable 3 % to implement statewide strategies for principals/other school administrators? Strengths Nevada’s membership in the WIDA Consortium Additional State Funds for English Learners English Mastery Council Weaknesses Lack of Teacher Preparation for ELs No Clear Plan for Monitoring Former ELs Lack of Quality Supports for Long-term ELs Opportunities Job-embedded Professional Learning Family Engagement School Planning to Address EL Needs Threats Lack of Administrator Preparation for ELs Lack of Adequate Staffing (pipeline shortages) Insufficient Number of Interpreters Risk of Discontinued or Inadequate Funding ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Gro up (Next Steps and Advisory Group Questions)

ESSA school improvement work group update Maria Sauter – Workgroup Lead

Update 2 Group meetings have been held: June 26, 2016August 1, 2016 Average 20 stakeholders including: TeachersSchool Improvement TeamsCommunity MembersHigher Education

Objectives Understand the priorities of the Nevada Department of EducationDevelop a vision for a statewide school improvement and support system Develop a process for support with districts in implementing evidence-based interventions for underperforming schools Develop a process to build local capacity to sustain the improvements

Outputs: SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Data-based decision making to decide on interventions Funding for evidence based interventions, PD Strong PD around 4 fundamentals NDE is being proactive Schools given autonomy for choices in interventions, goal-setting, programs, etc. Focusing on both proficiency and growth School choice, signature schools Funding to the schools NDE recognizing the needs for flexibility Available money aligned to need Actions of NDE moved from compliance to support Looking at 1 and 2 star schools Ongoing monitoring – addressing barriers and addressing data to move forward Pre-K expansion Unknown criteria /NSPF unknown piece PD is one size fits all Teachers lacking support and coaching Timing of funding is not efficient Pitting funding against schools with same needs Accessibility to programs Funding through districts is not always comprehensive/holistic Best practices – sharing Schools being reactive not proactive Family support and engagement Recruitment of STEM teachers – all high quality Lack of early childhood ED – compliance based Incentives to work at most needy schools Impact on lack of assessment data Funding does not stream consistency through feeders Funding doesn’t exist or ends with higher performing school

Opportunities Threats NEPF – funding some of the 3/4/5 star schools – looking at future demographic patterns Differentiate PD – including leaders Site-based decision making Consistency in program implementation Equity – cultural Timelines of funding Monitoring across all schools - feeders Collaboration among schools statewide Wrap around – transportation, job opportunity, medical Teacher improvement and retention Flexibility in funding Class size Greater alignment – curriculum and assessment Multiple assessment measures for growth and proficiency Braiding services Maximize P-K, R by 3, are we ready in the state–pushing up the bar Recruitment/retention of h-q teachers Politics and privatization of schools Get out in front of education (data, programs, grad rate) – be in front – educate public early Data: targeting right schools, too many incentives, make sure data knowledge is at school level – human capital New teacher prep. out of college/programs, etc., ALR Implementing change – change is hard/threatening – buy in Legacy of NCLB Election sessions, new expectations   SWOT

Outputs

Next Steps Final meeting held late SeptemberConsolidate Work Group documentsReconcile with other Work GroupsFinalize recommendations for Advisory Group

Big Question In regards to school improvement, what do you see as expectations for ALL schools regardless of proficiency level?