smarter balanced update - k12.wa.us · pdf filesmarter balanced update title i, ... and...
TRANSCRIPT
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Division of Assessment and Student Information
Smarter Balanced Update
Title I, Part A/LAP
Committee of Practitioners
March 27, 2015
Christopher Hanczrik, Assessment Division, OSPI
March 27, 2015 | Slide 2
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Today’s Topics
Learning Standards
Smarter Balanced Assessment System
Digital Library
Interim Assessments
Practice/Training Tests
Summative Assessments
Accommodations and Designated Supports
Achievement Level Setting
Portal
Washington Learning Standards
March 27, 2015 | Slide 4
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Learning Standards
Standards: Shared set of expectations for what
students should know and be able to do – the
destination.
Curriculum: Materials and methods used by
teachers for instruction – the road.
Assessment: Tools used to measure student
progress – the sign posts.
4
March 27, 2015 | Slide 5
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Learning Standards
K-12 learning standards
Washington state has had learning standards for
more than 20 years.
Learning standards include many subjects: the arts,
science, social studies, health & fitness, and more.
Common Core math and English language arts are
part of Washington’s K-12 Learning Standards.
5
March 27, 2015 | Slide 6
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Learning Standards
Common Core State Standards
Build on one another, allowing students to apply
the skills and knowledge they learned in the previous
grade to real-life situations.
• Go deeper into fewer topics and focus on developing
students’ deeper understanding of key concepts
(typical state standards are thought to be a mile wide
and an inch deep).
6
March 27, 2015 | Slide 7
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Washington Opinion Polls
Do people in WA support Common Core?
Yes, across Washington, 70% of residents support the
Common Core.
68% agree that an initial drop in state test scores is
worth it if student learning increases over time.
75% agree the new Smarter Balanced assessments
are better geared to accurately measure what
students really know and can do.
(Partnership for Learning statewide poll, June 2014)
7
Smarter Balanced Assessment
System
March 27, 2015 | Slide 9
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
A Balanced Assessment System
Digital Library
Educator resources for
formative assessment practices
to improve instruction
10 March 27, 2015
March 27, 2015 | Slide 11
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Digital Library
Access
District Assessment Coordinators (DACs), or their designees,
should enroll instructional and support staff who work
directly with students in their districts.
Functionality
The Digital Library offers professional learning resources and
instructional materials—like lesson plans, units, and learning
modules—for educators to use daily with students and staff.
Resources span K-12 and are aligned to Washington State
Learning Standards for English language arts and mathematics.
Resources are also aligned to formative assessment practices.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 12
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Digital Library
Modules now available in the Digital Library:
31 math Exemplar Instructional Modules
31 ELA Exemplar Instructional Modules
30 Assessment Literacy Modules
10 Score Report Modules
March 27, 2015 | Slide 13
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Grounded in this Definition of
Formative Assessment Process
Formative Assessment is a deliberate process used
by teachers and students during instruction that
provides actionable feedback that is used to adjust
ongoing teaching and learning strategies to improve
students’ attainment of curricular learning
targets/goals.
~ Compiled by the Digital Library National Advisory Panel
March 27, 2015 | Slide 14
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Quality Criteria for Instructional Resources
The resource…
1) Aligns with the intent of the Common Core State Standards
2) Incorporates formative assessment practices
3) Contains accurate, complete, high-quality curriculum and
instruction
4) Supports learner differences and personalized learning
5) Demonstrates utility, engagement, and user-friendliness
6) Integrates technology and media effectively
March 27, 2015 | Slide 15
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Resources in the Digital Library
* Resources include the following file types: Video, HTML5, Audio, PPT, Excel, Word, and PDF.
• Commissioned professional development modules
• Resources for students and families
• Frame formative assessment within a balanced assessment system
• Articulate the formative assessment process
• Highlight formative assessment practices and tools
• Commissioned professional development modules
• Instructional materials for educators
• Instructional materials for students
• High-quality vetted instructional resources and tools for educators
• High-quality vetted resources and tools for students and families
• Reflect and support the formative process
• Reflect and support the Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics and English Language Arts
• Create Professional Learning Communities
Assessment Literacy Modules
Exemplar Instructional Modules
Educational Resources
• Demonstrate/support effective implementation of the formative process
• Focus on key content and practice from the Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts
March 27, 2015 | Slide 16
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Digital Library Functionality
• Enables State Networks of
Educators and State
Leadership Teams to submit,
review, and publish resources
• Allows educators to view,
download, and rate resources
• Uses state-of-the-art tagging
and search to quickly find
resources by CCSS and other
topics
• Enables educators from across
the Consortium to
collaborate and share their
knowledge
• Facilitates access to resources
that are stored in participating
libraries
Interim Assessments
17
March 27, 2015 | Slide 18
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Interim Assessment Design Principles
Administered through the same system as Summative
Items drawn from same pool as Summative; full array of
item types
Can be administered at various points in the year
Optional for districts
Online administration
Adhere to Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations
Guidelines
Adaptive as appropriate (2015-16)
Not intended for accountability decisions
March 27, 2015 | Slide 19
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Interim Assessment Components
Interim Assessment
Interim Comprehensive
Assessment (ICA)
Interim Assessment Blocks
(IAB)
March 27, 2015 | Slide 20
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Interim Comprehensive Assessments
(ICAs)
Interim Comprehensive Assessments (ICAs) use the same
blueprints as the summative assessments and assess the
same standards. They will be provided as fixed forms and
will become adaptive when item counts are adequate. The
ICAs include the same item types and formats, including
performance tasks, as the summative assessments, and
yield results on the same vertical scale. The ICAs yield
overall scale scores, overall performance level
designations, and claim-level information.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 21
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Interim Assessment Blocks (IABs)
Interim Assessment Blocks (IABs) focus on smaller sets of
targets and therefore provide more detailed information
for instructional purposes. The blocks are available either
as fixed forms or with the use of a computer adaptive
algorithm. The IABs yield overall information for each
block.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 22
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Interim Assessment Scoring and
Reporting
Scoring
Interim assessments will have various item types, most of
which will be machine scored
Hand scoring will be a local (school/classroom)
responsibility
Rubrics and training are provided online as part of the
system
Practice and Training Tests
March 27, 2015 | Slide 24
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Practice and Training Tests
The Smarter Balanced Practice and Training tests are available
now on the WCAP portal: http://wa.portal.airast.org/
Practice and Training tests provide both test administrators
and students a thorough review of the test in preparation for
the summative assessment.
Most often, the Practice and Training tests can be administered
in lieu of the interims, especially with Practice Test using the
secure browser.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 25
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Practice Tests Always Available
The practice tests, in English language arts/literacy (ELA)
and mathematics for grades 3 through 8 and 11, each
include approximately 30 questions.
Practice tests are available to everyone – students, teachers,
parents, the general public.
Features include embedded universal tools, designated
supports and accommodations.
The Smarter Balanced practice tests will continue to be
updated with new questions and performance tasks.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 26
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Practice and Training Test options
• This is how students can take practice tests at home, for example, or how a member of the public can take a practice test
Guest student Guest session
• Requires a Test Administrator with a user account in TIDE
Guest student Real session
• Requires the student to be present in TIDE and requires a Test Administrator with a user account in TIDE
• This most closely mimics the operational environment
Real student Real session
Summative Assessments
27
March 27, 2015 | Slide 28
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Tests for Accountability (95% participation expected)
March 27, 2015 | Slide 29
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Tests for Accountability
ELA Math Science
Grade 3 Smarter Smarter
Grade 4 Smarter Smarter
Grade 5 Smarter Smarter MSP
Grade 6 Smarter Smarter
Grade 7 Smarter Smarter
Grade 8 Smarter Smarter MSP
Grade 10
(or earlier)
Biology EOC
Grade 11 Smarter Smarter
March 27, 2015 | Slide 30
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Smarter Balanced Assessments
What’s happening now?
3rd – 8th grade testing is underway (ELA and math)
Over 50,000 Smarter Balanced “test parts” have been
completed (~2.5 million expected)
What we are hearing?
Test engine is much better than previous 4 years
Schools and districts that participated in the field test
and/or interim assessments are in better shape
Technology is mostly an adult issue
Professionals can set a positive tone and motivate
students to do their best and to be resilient30
8.30.2007 | Slide 312007 WASL: Preparing Students to Live, Learn and Work in the 21st Century31
Test Type Grades CAT
Perf
Task Total
In-Class
Activity Total
Former Test
Times
English
Language
Arts/Literacy
3-5 1:30 2:00 3:30 :30 4:001:30 (Gr 3, 5)
5:30 (Gr 4)
6-8 1:30 2:00 3:30 :30 4:001:50 (Gr 6, 8)
5:50 (Gr 7)
11 2:00 2:00 4:00 :30 4:30 6:00 (Gr 10)
Mathematics
3-5 1:30 1:00 2:30 :30 3:00 1:30
6-8 2:00 1:00 3:00 :30 3:30 1:50
11 2:00 1:30 3:30 :30 4:00 2:00 (per EOC)
COMBINED
3-5 3:00 3:00 6:00 1:00 7:003:00 (Gr 3, 5)
7:00 (Gr 4)
6-8 3:30 3:00 6:30 1:00 7:303:40 (Gr 6, 8)
7:40 (Gr 7)
11 4:00 3:30 7:30 1:00 8:30 8:00 (Gr 10)
Estimated testing times for summative
assessments
Times are estimates of test length for most students. Smarter Balanced assessments are designed as
untimed tests; some students may need and should be afforded more time than shown in this table.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 32
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessments - Administration Windows
Smarter Balanced
2015 Testing WindowsGrade 3 ELA March 10 to April 23 – online
March 10 to April 15 – paper/pencil
Grade 3 Math Last 12 weeks of school, but no earlier than March 10 and no
later than June 15 – online
March 10 to May 20 – paper/pencil
Grades 4–8 ELA and Math Last 12 weeks of school, but no earlier than March 10 and no
later than June 15 – online
March 10 to May 20 – paper/pencil
Grade 10 ELA Last 12 weeks of school, but no earlier than March 10 and no
later than June 15 – online
Last 3 weeks of school, but no later than May 30 – paper/pencil
Grade 11 ELA and Math Last 7 weeks of school, but no earlier than April 6 and no later
than June 15 – online
Last 3 weeks of school, but no later than May 30 – paper/pencil
March 27, 2015 | Slide 33
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Other Summative Assessments -
Administration Windows
Measurements of Student Progress (MSP)
2015 Testing Windows
Grades 5 and 8 Science April 20 to June 5 – online
April 20 to May 19 – paper/pencil
High School Exit Exams (HSPE and EOC)
2015 Testing Windows
Grades 11 and 12 HSPE Retake
o Reading
o Writing
March 17
March 18–19
Math EOC exit exams May 11 to June 12
Biology EOC exit exam May 11 to June 12
Off Grade Level (formerly called
DAPE)
ELA and mathematics March 10 – June 15– online
Smarter Balanced
Science March 10-26 – paper/pencil MSP
March 27, 2015 | Slide 34
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Summative Assessments – Paper/Pencil
Smarter Balanced 3–8 and 11 paper/pencil tests will cost
$6.00 per test per content area ($12.00 per student if using
paper for both ELA and Math).
Additional costs do not apply to MSP science Grades 5 and 8,
HSPEs, Off Grade Level tests, EOCs, or Grade 10 ELA.
Selection of paper/pencil is at a school by grade by content area
(e.g., a school use online except for 5th grade math).
Cost is based on booklets ordered; OSPI will cover cost of
overage sent
Print-on-demand tests required for visually impaired
students (documented on the Individualized Education
Program), are available through the Smarter Balanced testing
engine at no cost to districts.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 35
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Summative Assessments – Paper/Pencil
Paper/pencil tests are fixed forms – not computer
adaptive. This means students will likely take longer to
complete paper/pencil tests than online tests.
The online test engine for Smarter Balanced incorporates
a multitude of embedded usability, accessibility, and
accommodations – districts will need to provide those
accommodations or have individual students who need
accommodations test online.
Scoring paper/pencil tests will take longer than scoring
online tests. Shipping paper/pencil tests back to the
scoring vendor will necessitate a shorter testing window
to minimize the delay in scoring and reporting.
Accommodations and Designated
Supports
March 27, 2015 | Slide 37
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
These tests will be more accessible for
all students
Accessibility addressed in three categories:
Universal tools
Designated supports
Accommodations
Accessibility guidelines focused on students AND content
constructs, developed through collaboration amongst states
and national experts
Smarter Balanced approach is consistent with recent USED
guidance on supporting greater student access that results in
valid test outcomes.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 38
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Accessibility and Accommodations
• Designed for all students, including students with disabilities and English language learners
• Three kinds of supports:
• Universal tools available to all
• Designated supports for those with identified need
• Accommodations for students with an IEP or 504 plan
March 27, 2015 | Slide 39
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Accessibility, continued
Universal Tools: Available to all students based on student
preference and selection. Provided as digitally delivered
components of the testing system or separate from it.
Many online tools are built into Smarter Balanced, such as:
Highlighter
Calculator
Zoom
Digital notepad
English dictionary and glossary
In addition, all students will be allowed to have scratch paper,
protractor, ruler, and other tools.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 40
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Accessibility, continued
Designated Supports: Available for any student for whom
need has been indicated by an educator (or team of
educators with parent/guardian and student).
Examples: Color contrast, translations, scribe
Accommodations: Available only to those students with
documentation of the need through a formal plan (e.g., IEP).
Examples: Braille, American Sign Language, noise buffers
March 27, 2015 | Slide 41
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Accessibility, continued
Smarter Balanced tests will have translations or glossaries in 10 languages and dialects, and American Sign Language.
The online testing platform embeds the tools, supports and accommodations within the system appropriate to a student’s need (e.g., text-to-speech, enlarged print, color contrast).
Greater accessibility also acknowledges occasional need to use non-embedded accommodations and supports (e.g., scribing, speech-to-text, read-aloud).
The interim assessments will have the same accessibility supports as the summative test administration.
Achievement Level Setting
I
March 27, 2015 | Slide 43
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
2015 results will set a new baseline of
student performance in Washington
Some people are predicting that the spring 2015 test
results will see Washington students falling off a
“performance cliff”, with scores dropping.
But the new tests are
not comparable so we
should not compare
scores from one to the
other.
We have a new baseline!
March 27, 2015 | Slide 44
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
2015 results, cont’
Think of the standards and the assessment as a new
target with new results…. I envision two mountains:
People who successfully climb Mt Rainer (at 14,000 ft),
will find Mt McKinley (at 20,000 ft) more challenging.
Some will be able to meet the challenge, some will be
close and some who previously were able to summit
Rainier will not be able to summit McKinley at first.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 45
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Preparing for New Test Scores
Smarter Balanced assessments measure the full range of the Common Core State Standards. They are designed to let teachers and parents know whether students are on track to be college- and career-ready by the time they graduate.
Because the new standards set higher expectations for students--and the new tests are designed to assess student performance against these higher expectations--our definition of grade level performance is higher than it used to be.
As a result, it’s likely that fewer students will meet grade level standards, especially for the first few years. Results should improve as students have additional years of instruction aligned to the new standards and become better equipped to meet the challenges they present.
This does not mean that our students are “doing worse” than they did last year. Rather, the scores represent a “new baseline” that provides a more accurate indicator for educators, students, and parents as they work to meet the rigorous demands of college and career readiness.
March 27, 2015 | Slide 46
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Percent of Field Test Sample That Met
Standard (Scored Level 3 or Level 4)
Grade ELA Math
3 38% 39%
4 41% 37%
5 44% 33%
6 41% 33%
7 38% 33%
8 41% 32%
11 41% 33%
Gr 4 WASL
Rdg 48% &
43% Wrt
in1997
Gr 7 WASL
Rdg 39% &
31% Wrt
in1998
Gr 10 WASL
Rdg 51% &
41% Wrt
in1999
Gr 7 WASL
Math 20%
in1998
Gr 4 WASL
Math 21%
in1997
Gr 10 WASL
Math 33%
in1999
March 27, 2015 | Slide 47
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Smarter Balanced Assessments
High school graduation cut score
In August 2015, the State Board of Education will set a
lower threshold score for exit exam/graduation purposes
Doing so is a balancing act between having more rigorous
standards (at a college and career ready level) and
allowing students to graduate
• The state board will adopt a performance level for
graduation that is statistically equivalent to the current
high school minimum proficiency standard
47
Portal
March 27, 2015 | Slide 49
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
WCAP Portal
Please share widely with all district and school personnel:
AIR’s WCAP portal at http://wa.portal.airast.org/
OSPI’s Smarter Balanced page at
http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/default.aspx
March 27, 2015 | Slide 50
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
As we begin, remember….
This is new to everyone
Challenges abound
Remain calm and assure staff and students to try their
best
Unexpected issues will be encountered but they will be
resolved
This will be a tough season; next year’s administration
will be much easier
June 16, 2015 (the day after the test administration
window closes) will come!
We will all make it!!
March 27, 2015 | Slide 51
OF
FIC
E O
F S
UP
ER
INT
EN
DE
NT
OF
PU
BLIC
IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
Thank you!
SPECIAL PROGRAMSMaria Flores
Director- Title II, Part A & Special Programs
STUDENT DISCIPLINE
TASK FORCE
2013–2014
2
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5946
Part III (Sec. 301)
• Created RCW 28A.600.490 and charged OSPI to convene the Student Discipline Task Force to develop:
1) Standard definitions for causes of student disciplinary actions taken at the discretion of the school district.
2) Data collection standards for disciplinary actions that are discretionary and for disciplinary actions that result in the exclusion of a student from school.
OSPI and K-12 Data Governance will revise the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) and begin collecting data in the 2015-16 school year.
3
Student Discipline
Task Force
K-12 Data Governance
2015–16 CEDARS Manual
4
Appointed Task Force Members
5
Implementation of Charge
• September 2013 – December 2013: Monthly meetings
• January 2014 – December 2014: Bimonthly meetings
• Members prepared for meetings by completing
assignments – individually drafting definitions and data
elements & reading discipline resources and research
• Neutrally facilitated by Maria Flores, Director of Title II,
Part A & Special Programs
• Other OSPI departments attended meetings, including:
Student Support, Student Information, Data Governance,
Information Technology, and Government Relations
6
Mandatory v. Discretionary
Mandatory
• OSPI is required by the Department of Education to collect data about certain “mandatory” student discipline incidents
• School districts and schools must ensure accurate data is collected within the “mandatory” discipline codes
Discretionary
Student misconduct that does not fall within the mandatory codes and is determined to disrupt the learning environment ( in accordance with state and federal law) is defined at “discretion” of the local school board.
• 09 – Other behavior resulting in a short term suspension (SS), long term suspension (LS) or expulsion (EX)
7
Standard Definitions
Finalized 2013 collection began 2014–
2015 Failure to Cooperate (including but not limited to non-compliance, defiance, disrespect): repeatedly failing to comply with or follow reasonable, lawful directions or requests of teachers or staff.
• Disruptive Conduct: conduct that materially and substantially interferes with the educational process.
8
Standard Definitions
Finalized 2014 collection
Will begin 2015–2016
• Destruction of Property/Vandalism: intentional
damage of school property or the property of others.
• Sexually inappropriate conduct: obscene acts or
expressions, whether verbal or non-verbal
• Theft, possession of stolen property: taking or
knowingly being in possession of district property or
property of others without permission.
• Academic dishonesty/plagiarism: knowingly
submitting the work of others represented as the
student’s own or assisting another student in doing
so, or using unauthorized sources.
• Multiple/ Accumulated Offenses: discipline
for culmination of multiple infractions that
occurred during a school year.
• Sexual Harassment: Conduct or
communication intended to be sexual in nature,
is unwelcome by the targeted person(s) and
has the potential to deny or limit another
student(s) ability to participate in or benefit from
a school’s education program.
• Discriminatory Harassment: Conduct or
communication that (1) is intended to be
harmful, humiliating, or physically threatening,
and (2) shows hostility toward a person or
persons based on their real or perceived sex,
race, creed, religion, color, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, veteran or military status, disability,
or use of a trained dog guide or service animal.
• Bullying: Unwanted, aggressive behavior that
(1) involves a real or perceived power
imbalance, and (2) is repeated, or has the
9
RCW 28A.600.490
• Statute stated the data collection standards must include:
• Information about education services provided while
a student is subject to a disciplinary action
• The status of petitions for readmission to the school
district when a student has been excluded from
school
• Credit retrieval during a period of exclusion
• School dropout as a result of disciplinary action
10
New data elements for 2015–16
collection Data Element Description
Appeal This element indicates if the suspension/expulsion was
appealed.Academic Services This element reports if academic services were offered and if
the student participated during the suspension or expulsion.
Behavior Services This element reports if behavior services were offered and if
the student participated during the suspension or expulsion.
Petition for Readmission This element is the date that a Petition for Readmission was
submitted by or on behalf of the student expelled or
suspended.
Petition for Readmission
Granted
This element is the date that a Petition for Readmission was
granted/approved for the student expelled or suspended.
Petition by District to
exceed more than one year
This element indicates if the district was petitioned to exceed
more than one calendar year for the suspension/expulsion.
Reengagement Meeting
Held
This element is the date that a reengagement meeting took
place with the student returning from suspension.
Reengagement Plan This element indicates if the district developed a reengagement
plan for the student’s return from this suspension/expulsion.
11
Existing Data Elements
• It was determined that two of the required
elements could be collected without creating
new data elements:
• Credit retrieval during a period of exclusion
• School dropout as a result of disciplinary
action
These data will be collected in CEDARS using
existing data elements.
12
Student Discipline Task Force Other
Policy Recommendations
Statute did not specify a
report requirement or ask
the Task Force to make
recommendations.
The members decided to
compile on the following
topics in a summative
report.
A report is expected to be
released early February.
• Prevention for at-risk students
• Positive Behavioral Interventions &
Supports
• Restorative Practices
• Alternatives to Suspension
• Family Engagement
• Equitable access to education services
• School to prison pipeline
• Reengagement Meeting, Planning, and
Programming
• District Enrollment
• Disproportionality
13
CLOSING THE OPPORTUNITY GAP
2015 RECOMMENDATIONS
Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee (EOGOAC)
14
1) Reduce the length of time students of color are
excluded from school due to suspensions and
expulsions and provide student support for
reengagement plans
• Implement discipline policy changes with culturally responsive, and relevant training
• Disseminate notification of all school discipline changes to families and communities
• Enact a policy sharing agreement between WSSDA and alternate service providers to ensure consistency in policy adoption
• Maintain school, family, and community partnerships throughout the whole discipline process
• Utilize alternative educational settings at schools and school districts
• Drive improvements at the school and district to foster a positive and supportive school culture that reduces the disproportional discipline of students of color
• Remove discretionary definitions from district codes of conduct (e.g. dress code, electronics),
• Or at a minimum, prohibit long term suspension or expulsions for discretionary discipline offenses
• Limit long term suspensions and expulsions to mandatory disciplinary offenses and limit length to no more than one academic term (trimester or semester, dependent on the academic calendar of the school)
15
2) Enhance the cultural competence of current and
future educators and classified staff
• Provide cultural competence training to teachers who received Residency or Professional Certification before the cultural competence standards were enacted
• Provide all staff with foundational courses in multicultural education and language acquisition strategies
• Provide ongoing cultural competence training to all staff in public schools, including training on best practices to implement tribal history and culture curriculum
• Develop cultural competence training partnerships between diverse community organizations, families, schools, tribal governments, and institutions of higher education
• Establish further accountability of district superintendents and school board members
• Encourage WSSDA, WASA, and AWSP to collaborate with the EOGOAC when developing cultural competency trainings to ensure it’s culturally appropriate
16
3) Endorse all educators in English language
learner/second language acquisition
• Focus the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program on language acquisition through dual language programs
• Require certificated and classified staff paid through the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program (TBIP) to have a Bilingual or ELL endorsement
• Increase funding for the Educator Retooling Grant Program at the Professional Educator Standards Board to enable allcertificated staff to receive a bilingual or ELL endorsement, in order to effectively provide instruction to ELL students
• Celebrate native language acquisition
17
4) Transitional bilingual instructional program accountability for
instructional services provided to English language learner
students
• Engage with the TBIP Accountability Task Force as they develop recommendations over the 2015 year
• Urge the TBIP Accountability Task Force to consider funding accountability for students exiting the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program
• Target funds to support recently exited students from TBIP eligibility two years beyond exiting services
18
5) Analyze the opportunity gap through deeper
disaggregation of student demographic data
• Collect and report expanded sub-ethnic and sub-racial categories in addition to the minimum federal ethnicity and racial categories
• Disaggregate Asian to include the following categories: Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Singaporean, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Other Asian
• Include under the federal race category of Black/African American, the following sub-ethnic categories: Black, national origin from a country in the continent of Africa (indicating country of origin) or African American, national origin from the United States of America with African ancestors
• Disaggregate white to include Eastern European nationalities that have significant populations in Washington (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Romanian, etc.)
• Revise the race and ethnicity guidance through a taskforce convened by OSPI with representation from the EOGOAC, the Ethnic Commissions, Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs and diverse parents
• Report students with two or more races by discrete categories for their racial and ethnic combination, rather than only as “two or more races”
• Reduce OSPI’s N-size requirement for reporting of subgroup data from a N-size of 20 to a N-size of 10 students
• Require that focus school plans appropriately reflect accountability for subgroups and include technical assistance to support the unique needs of students identified in particular racial/ethnic, poverty, ELL, and SPED subgroups
19
6) Invest in the recruitment, hiring, and retention of
educators of color
• Create a cohesive and comprehensive career path to provide incentives and greater access for candidates of color to become educators
• Embrace a focus on hiring and retaining educators of color within the building, under criteria one and two under the TPEP model:
1. Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.
2. Demonstrating commitment to closing the opportunity gap.
• Encourage mentoring and support throughout the process of becoming a teacher—from the program to placement in the classroom
• Increase accessibility of federal loan forgiveness for first generation college students and students of color to join the teaching profession • (e.g. use Stafford and Perkins loans as
an incentive to serve in low performing schools or teacher shortage areas)
• Increase funding for Recruiting WA Teachers program through the Professional Educators Standards Board (PESB)
20
7) Incorporate integrated student services and family
engagement
Family Engagement
• Determine an appropriate allocation for parent involvement coordinators within the prototypical schools funding model
• Allocate funds with the condition that no district receives less than 1 FTE allocation per district
• Allocate funds with the condition that they must be used for the purposes of family engagement
• Support the increased allocation of staffing as established in Initiative 1351
Integrated Student Supports
• Invest and integrate programs and strategies that are designed to provide student supports (multi-tiered interventions and supports, communities in schools, etc.)
• Revise allocations for social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and nurses to reflect professional guidelines for appropriate caseloads and staff to student ratios
21
8) Strengthen student transitions
Early Learning• Create a community
involvement plan at DEL to inform home based, tribal, and early learning providers about the Early Achievers program
• Support culturally responsive and dual language early learning providers who provide culturally appropriate instruction
• Implement WaKIDS in a culturally responsive manner that supports family engagement in the school and helps identify and connect services
K-12• Increase the guidance
counselor allocation through the prototypical schools model to reflect the national standards outlined by the American School Counselors Association
• Require all counselors to demonstrate their cultural competence and responsiveness, in alignment with the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Programrequirements and the Professional Educator Standards Board’s standards.
• Develop an articulated pathway to recruit, train and retain school counselors into the profession
• Invest in more school counselor programs in Washington public universities
22
High School—College and Career Readiness
• Support the Washington Student Achievement Council’s plan to provide dual credits to students in high school
• Focus efforts on the retention and persistence of students of color in obtaining college degrees
• Remove the College Bound Scholarship parent/guardian witness signature requirement
• The EOGOAC recommends the Council refine their communication on scholarship requirements for undocumented students and other ineligible students
• Provide community and family training on how to pay for college (e.g. filing the FAFSA, applying for grants, scholarships, and loans) through the Washington Student Achievement Council
EXPANDED LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES
COUNCIL
2014
23
Second Substitute Senate Bill 6163
The Expanded Learning Opportunities
Council (ELOC) was established in 2014 to
advise the Governor, Legislature, and the
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
regarding a comprehensive expanded
learning opportunities system, with particular
attention paid to solutions to summer
learning loss.
24
Council Members
Member Organization/Committee Title
Beth Blanchard Washington Workforce Association Project Manager, SeaKing Workforce Development
Council
Bill Hanawalt Peace Community Center Executive Director
Heather Gillette Washington State Parent Teacher
Association
President
Heather Elmore Northwest Community Action
Center
Education Services Manager
Jacob Clark
Blickenstaff
Pacific Science Center Program Director for LASER
Janet Schmidt Schools Out Washington Chief Program and Policy Officer
Jessica Vavrus Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction
Assistant Superintendent, Teaching and Learning
Judy Jennings State Board of Education Executive Director for WA Federation of
Independent Schools
Leslie Herrenkohl University of Washington Professor, Learning Sciences and Human
Development
Lisa White Spokane Public Schools Instructional Programs Director
Mark Bergeson Washington Student Achievement
Council
Associate Director of Academic Affairs and Policy
Mary Fertakis Washington State School Directors’
Association
School Board Director
Pat Erwin Association of Washington School
Principals
Principal at Lincoln HS, Tacoma SD
Saundra Hill Washington Association of School Superintendent of Pasco School District
25
RCW 28A.630.123, Section (2)
The Council will provide vision and recommendations for:
• Potential improvement and expansion of summer learning
opportunities
• School year calendar modifications that will help reduce
summer learning loss
• Increasing partnerships between schools and community-
based organizations to deliver expanded learning
opportunities
• Other current or proposed programs and initiatives across
the spectrum of early elementary through secondary
education that could contribute to a statewide system of
expanded learning opportunities
26
RCW 28A.630.123, Section (3)
The Council will identify:
• Fiscal, resource, and partnership opportunities
• Expanded learning opportunities policy development
• Quality standards and evaluation
• Research and evidence-based strategies
• Implementation of a comprehensive action plan for expanded learning
opportunities
• Addressing summer learning loss
• Academic supports that compliment instruction in the school
• Building strong partnerships between schools and community-based
organizations
• Utilizing expanded learning opportunities to close the opportunity gap
27
Vision and Mission
• Vision:
• Washington’s Expanded Learning Opportunities bring
families, communities, and schools together to create an
equitable and integrated network of support that provides
children and youth with the skills and experiences to
become “responsible and respectful global citizens.”
• Mission:
• Establish a sustainable high quality statewide system that
integrates learning across the day, across the year and
across a student’s life time.
28
Expanded Learning Program Quality
Standards
Adopted Standards
• The Expanded Learning Opportunities Council adopted the Washington State Quality Standards for Afterschool and Youth Development Programs.
• The standards are based on the stakeholders’ input, nationally recognized best practices, and feedback from youth and provide a research-based framework for providers to understand and measure expanded learning program quality and to plan for improvement.
Nine Domains
1) Safety and Wellness
2) Cultural Competency and Responsiveness
3) Relationships
4) Youth Leadership and Engagement
5) Program and Activities
6) Assessment, Planning, and Improvement
7) Ongoing Staff and Volunteer Development
8) Leadership and Management
9) Family, School, and Community Connections
29
Expanded Learning Opportunity
Framework
Strategic Plan
Community Involvement,
Engagement, and
Collaboration
Standards Based
Academic Linkage and
Enrichment
Evaluation Criteria,
Outcomes data, and
Success Management
Program Quality
Supportive and
Positive Relationships
Sustainability
Funding
Staff Qualifications
Communication and
Information Systems
Governance Structure
The Council has identified the initial components for a statewide
Expanded Learning Opportunities Framework and has created a work
plan to further define each component.
30
Funding Model for Summer Knowledge
Improvement Pilot Program• The Council was required to create an action plan for a
program to reduce summer learning loss through the provision of state funds for additional student learning days in elementary schools with significant populations of low-income schools through the Summer Knowledge Improvement Pilot Program.
• The Council examined the fiscal note for the Summer Knowledge Improvement Pilot Program in Sections 5–9 of Second Substitute Senate Bill 6163, which was not funded.
• An average daily per student funding amount for all basic and non-basic education state funding, including pupil transportation, was used to calculate the cost of one student learning day.
• Grants for ten schools to implement the additional twenty days of student learning were provided through the Pilot.
31
Additional Funding Considerations
• Planning Year Grant
• Collective Bargaining
Agreements and
Memorandums of
Understanding
• Professional
Development
• Evaluation
• State and Federal
Funding Sources to
Support Expanding
Learning OpportunitiesState Federal (NCLB,
2001)
Learning Assistance
Program (LAP)
RCW 28A.165
Title 1, Part A—
Improving Academic
Achievement of the
Disadvantaged
Extended Learning
Opportunities Program
RCW 28A.320.190
Title IV, Part B—21st
Century Community
Learning Centers
Washington
Community Learning
Centers Program
RCW 28A.215.060
32
TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
ACCOUNTABILITY TASK FORCE
ESSB 6002 Section 501(y)
• Included as a budget proviso in the 2014
Supplemental Budget
• $117,000 of the 2015 General Fund allotted
• Task force will design a performance-based
assistance and accountability system for
the Transitional Bilingual Instructional
Program (TBIP)
ESSB 6002 Section 501(y)
• Staffed by the Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction (Special Programs)
• OSPI must submit a report with
recommendations from the task force to the
education and fiscal committees of the
legislature by January 15, 2016.
Background
Language from 2013 and 2014 reports:
• Not sufficient accountability for ELL programs
• Recommended that new ELL Accountability Benchmarks
are created by OSPI
• Recommended that an ELL Accountability Benchmark
taskforce be created to review research and best
practices for ELL instructional programs to identify
appropriate performance benchmarks.
• Intended that benchmarks be used to assess the
instructional programs and interventions being employed
by schools and school districts using TBIP funds.
• Taskforce to represent diverse families, community
members, and educators in schools with different
languages spoken by students.
Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability
Committee Annual Report
HB 1680, Part IV: ELL Accountability, Section 401
• OSPI shall convene an ELL accountability task force to design a performance-based accountability system for TBIP. The task force must:
• Review the research literature to identify evidence-based program designs and instructional strategies for ELLs to achieve English proficiency.
• Identify performance benchmarks for transitional bilingual instructional programs, including:
• performance of eligible and exited students, including performance in English language and performance in other academic areas, based on state learning standards; and
• program characteristics that research suggests are associated with students achieving English proficiency, such as staff qualifications and training and the level of supplemental instruction for students.
• Design an accountability system for the program that includes reporting and monitoring of benchmark performance and tiered levels of support and technical assistance for schools and districts based on benchmark performance.
• The design of the system must also include a reduction in requirements for schools and districts to submit program applications and program plans for state approval, to be replaced with a focus on program outcomes.
• The task force must submit a report first to the EOGOAC and the QEC, and then to the education committees of the legislature, with recommendations for the design of the accountability system and any policy changes, statutory changes, or resources necessary for its implementation.
Background—continued
Presented by Jennifer Carrougher, Director
Federal Fiscal Policy/Grants Management, OSPI
Also referred to as: Omni Circular, Super Circular, Part 200
Combines/Supercedes several circulars issued by the Office of Management and Budget, including:
A-87 Cost Principles
A-102 Administrative Rules
A-133 Audit Requirements
Others applicable to other entity types
Effective for new awards after December 26, 2014 (impacting 2015-2016 school year)
First major reform of federal administrative regulations in over 25 years.
5/5/2015 2
Simplicity and consistency – incorporates all federal administrative requirements, cost principles and audit requirements into one document (for all entity types).
Increase efficiency and reduce burden
Strengthen oversight – emphasis on internal controls to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse.
5/5/2015 3
5/5/2015 4
The Major Changes in Federal Grants Management
1. Focus on Outcomes
2. Performance Metrics
3. Risk Assessments
4. Financial Management Policies
5. Equipment Use
6. Micro Purchases
7. Corrective Action
8. False Claims Certification
9. Audit Thresholds
New mandatory certification and disclosure about any violations of Federal criminal laws involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting a federal award.
Must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest.
New policies and procedures regarding cash management and determination of allowability of costs must be implemented.
5/5/2015 5
Added a new “micro-purchase” $3,000 threshold which doesn’t require quotes but make sure price is reasonable and distribute equitably among suppliers.
Increased small purchases threshold from $100,000 to $150,000 - at least 3 quotes must be obtained/documented for purchases under that threshold, in order to meet the state requirements (federal only requires 2 quotes).
IMPORTANT! If any federal funds are used, you must comply with the most restrictive of federal and state requirements.
5/5/2015 6
Procurement Method Goods (includes books) Services
Micro-Purchase - No required quotes. However, must consider price as reasonable, and, to the extent practical, distribute equitably among suppliers.
$3,000 or less
Must use more restrictive $3,000 federal threshold instead
of $40,000 state threshold
$3,000 or less
Small Purchase Procedures (Informal) - Obtain quotes from a reasonable number of qualified sources.
$3,000 - $75,000
Must use more restrictive $75,000 state threshold instead of $150,000 federal threshold
$3,000 - $150,000
Sealed Bids / Competitive Bids (Formal)
$75,000 or more
Must use more restrictive $75,000 state threshold instead of $150,000 federal threshold
$150,000 or more
Non-competitive proposals Appropriate only when:- Available only from a single source (sole
source)- Public emergency- Expressly authorized by awarding or pass-
through agency in response to written request from district
- After soliciting a number of sources, competition is deemed inadequate
5/5/2015 7
Emphasis on internal controls instead of a specific document with specific components - replaced “semi-annual certifications” and “personnel activity reports” with “records that accurately reflect the work performed”.
Continue with current time and effort system until Dept. of Education issues guidance.
5/5/2015 8
Conference meals are allowable only when it is reasonable and necessary to the completion of actual work.
A working lunch may be allowable if the conference must conduct sessions at that time to keep the number of conference days to a minimum.
Snacks and other meals typically are not reasonable and necessary because these costs can be purchased by attendees using non-grant funds and the snacks are not essential to the conference objectives.
5/5/2015 9
Prior Rule: Generally allowable Includes Meals / Conferences / Travel and Family
Friendly Policies
Allowable conference costs include rental of facilities, costs of meals and refreshments, transportation, unless restricted by the federal award
NEW: Costs related to identifying, but not providing, locally available dependent-care resources
Conference hosts must exercise discretion in ensuring costs are appropriate, necessary and managed in manner than minimizes costs to federal award
5/5/2015 10
ED Restrictions on Food
(1) Is a working lunch necessary?
(2) Is the portion of the agenda to be carried out during lunch substantive and integral to the overall purpose of the conference or meeting?
(3) Is there a genuine time constraint that requires the working lunch?
(4) If a working lunch is necessary, is the cost of the working lunch reasonable?
(5) Has the SEA or LEA carefully documented that a working lunch is both reasonable and necessary?
5/5/2015 11
Pass-through agencies must have a system to evaluate risks of subgrantees to determine monitoring priorities. Risk factors may include financial stability, history of performance, audit results, etc.)
Monitoring shift from focus on compliance to focus on performance – must look more to “outcomes” than to “process”.
5/5/2015 12
Some key changes that may result in fewer required audits and fewer findings/recovery of funds:
Increased single audit threshold from $500,000 to $750,000, which means an audit of federal programs is required if your district expends $750,000 or more in total federal awards.
Increased threshold from $10,000 to $25,000 for reporting questioned costs in an audit finding.
5/5/2015 13
UGG requires strong, written internal controls and offers flexibilities that were not previously available.
The Dept. of Education plans to assess the effect of UGG as it is implemented and provide feedback to the Office of Management and Budget about the effectiveness and the extent to which UGG reduces burden on recipients.
5/5/2015 14