Iowa Department of Education

Fall Update ‘15

Dave TillyDeputy DirectorPRESENTATION GIVEN TO IOWA SUPERINTENDENTS AND CURRICULUM DIRECTORS

Topics for todayStatewide Assessment Changes

Literacy Goings On – 279.68

Differentiated Accountability

Assessment – Now and Future

Large-Scale Accountability Assessment

December 2014 – Recommendation to Legislature from Task Force

Legislative Session 2014 – No action taken

September 2015 – State Board to Notice Rules Adopting SBAC – ELA and Math

Process takes 108 to 180 days

At the end of that time RFP for vendor Capacity Analysis Professional Development

Important Considerations New Assessment required by law May 2017

Assessment will be “On Line”

State Board can make rule, but not appropriate funds

Cost for ELA and Math is approximately $26.55 - $29.55 per student Contains Interim, Formative and Summative Assessments Provides access to Digital Library of Teaching Resources May be used to reduce additional assessment costs in other areas

To be administered grades 3-11

Department does not have funds to cover these costs

Important Considerations The Assessment Task Force is Reconvening – Science

Complete guess – about $10 per assessment

Question on number of grades (may just be 5, 8, 11)

If Rules Pass – two options for fundingAppropriationDistrict BudgetsDE will defray some costs (circa $1M)

Transitioning of Other Required Assessments This Year

Old Assessment New Assessment Cost How It Will Be Paid For

IELDA and TELPA ELPA21 Circa $700,000 Statewide

Federal Assessment Dollars (Title VI of ESEA)

Iowa Alternate Assessment

Dynamic Learning Maps

About $89.00 per student

State Set Aside, IDEA

Discussion Questions #1 What would this mean in terms of large-scale assessment costs for your district? How much would it cost – ball park?

What sources of funds might be used to pay for these new assessments?

What questions do you have for the Department at this point?

Early Literacy Requirements Update

Progress To Date $8M again available in FY15/16 to districts, grants open now

Early Warning System in use by over 97% of Elementaries System improvements continue

◦ Speed Enhancement◦ Additional Reports◦ Usability Improvements

New Capabilities◦ IEP System and SPED IMS◦ Possibility for Behavioral Data

Early Literacy Data for 2014-15 School Year

Proficient Tested % Proficient Proficient Tested % ProficientPK 496 1,635 30%KDG 18,547 34,326 54%1st 19,223 30,403 63% 10,228 14,016 73%2nd 17,417 27,656 63% 11,818 16,224 73%3rd 17,042 27,246 63% 10,552 15,580 68%4th 9,008 19,248 47% 8,612 12,145 71%5th 9,219 14,428 64% 7,133 9,474 75%6th 2,247 4,086 55% 1,929 2,836 68%

FALLIGDIs/earlyReading/CBM-R aReading

Proficient Tested % Proficient Proficient Tested % ProficientPK 2,951 5,783 51%KDG 27,101 34,612 78% 11,380 17,761 64%1st 19,629 30,517 64% 11,717 17,694 66%2nd 17,870 27,850 64% 12,234 19,494 63%3rd 15,997 27,128 59% 13,427 18,966 71%4th 10,855 20,311 53% 11,461 14,658 78%5th 10,462 15,435 68% 7,804 11,170 70%6th 2,821 4,698 60% 2,576 3,708 69%

WINTERIGDIs/earlyReading/CBM-R aReading

Proficient Tested % Proficient Proficient Tested % ProficientPK 3,564 5,974 60%KDG 24,052 34,599 70% 14,534 17,730 82%1st 20,701 30,391 68% 13,337 16,846 79%2nd 18,945 27,493 69% 13,810 18,846 73%3rd 17,020 27,040 63% 14,754 18,441 80%4th 10,972 20,313 54% 11,600 14,447 80%5th 10,670 15,439 69% 8,266 10,855 76%6th 3,075 4,688 66% 2,693 3,777 71%

SPRINGIGDIs/earlyReading/CBM-R aReading

Percent of Students Proficient on aReading by Season

Intensive Summer Reading Program Beginning May 1, 2017, a student must be retained in grade 3 who: • is not proficient by the end of 3rd grade, AND

• does not quality for a good cause exemption AND

• does not enroll in and complete the intensive summer reading program

Good Cause Exemptions1. The student is a Limited English Proficient student with less than two years of instruction

in an ESL program

2. The student has an IEP that indicates that participation in the assessments required by 279.68 is not appropriate

3. The student has demonstrated an acceptable level of performance on an alternative assessment based on scientifically-based research

4. The student has demonstrated mastery through a portfolio review that meets Department-required criteria

5. The student was previously retained and has received intensive remediation for at least two years

This Year’s Work Define Intensive Summer Literacy Program 8 Criteria identified by IRRC for intensive Summery Literacy Program State Board to Promulgate Rules to Implement Define Components of Retention Decision Making Process

◦ Substantially deficient (Universal Screener, Progress Monitoring, Large-Scale Accountability Test)◦ Good cause exemption◦ Alternative and Portfolio Assessments and criteria for use◦ Role of parents in decision making

Examine examplars for summer programs Pivot DE/AEA support to Professional Learning Celebrating Iowa’s Success Conference (January)

Discussion Questions What is the trend in your district’s early literacy results?

Do you have a summer literacy program currently? How are you funding it?

What words of wisdom do you have for the DE/AEAs as we move forward?

Overview of Differentiated Accountability

We can do anything but we can’t do everything

Emphasis on Results

Positive Effect for Kids Negligible or Negative Effect for Kids

Required Effort Effort

Not Required Effort

Pilot for the 2015-2016 School YearA survey was sent to superintendents and AEA chiefs asking for volunteers

Statewide voluntary preschool programs are included in the pilot if their district is includedPartner programs are also be included if the public district is included

Total volunteers = 48 AEAs, districts, and nonpublic schools

2015-2016 School Year: Pilot ParticipantsPilot AEAs, districts, preschool programs, and nonpublic schools will Submit initial desk audit information for compliance with state and federal legal

requirements (e.g. Ch. 12, preschool requirements, AEA accreditation and special education)

May have further compliance review through more detailed desk audit, remote interview, or on-site review if needed

Have their Healthy Indicator data analyzed and may have further review and support through remote interview or site visit

Have opportunities to provide feedback to inform the process periodically throughout the year as the process is refined for statewide implementation in 2016-2017

Assessment and Data-

Based Decision-Making

Targeted and Intensive Services

Leadership

UniversalInstruction

Infrastructure

Healthy Indicators

Continuous Improvement Process

2015-2016: PK-6 Literacy Only

Healthy Indicator Examples (PK-6 Literacy)Percent of students assessed with a valid and reliable universal screenerPercent of students not meeting benchmark assessed with a valid and reliable

progress monitoring assessmentPercent of students at benchmark on universal screening assessmentPercent of students beginning the year at benchmark who remain at

benchmark

Healthy IndicatorsWhat then?

If my district, school or AEA is identified for universal support on one or more healthy indicators?

We will not schedule any further time with you, but you will be provided with tools to exploreyour data further if you choose.

If my district, school or AEA is identified for targeted support on one or more healthy indicators?

We will schedule a remote interview with you to explore your data further.

If my district, school or AEA is identified for intensive support on one or more healthy indicators?

We will schedule a focused, on-site visit to explore your data further.

Discussion Questions What do you like about this new framework?

What questions do you have about Differentiated Accountability?

What final questions do you have for the DE