Meeting of the Board of Regents | January 2008

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:
FROM:	Johanna Duncan-Poitier
SUBJECT:	Development of an Enhanced School Accountability System
DATE:	January 4, 2008
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1, 2 and 4
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Discussion

 

Are the Department’s actions to implement an enhanced accountability system for New York’s schools and districts as required by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 well aligned with Regents policy objectives?

 

Reason(s) for Consideration

 

Review of policy.

 

Proposed Handling

 

The question will come before the Regents EMSC Committee in January.

 

Procedural History

 

In April 2007, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007.   In early April 2007, the Commissioner provided a summary of the provisions of the law in his briefing memo to the Board of Regents on the enacted

budget.  Subsequent to the April meeting, the Board of Regents has discussed, at each of its monthly meetings, various aspects of the law, including:

• review and revision of the learning standards,
• Contracts for Excellence,
• expansion of Universal Pre-K,
• creation of the Excelsior Scholars program and Summer Institutes for Math and Science teachers,
• doubling the number of charter schools permitted in NYS,
• instructional computer hardware,
• standards and procedures for tenure determinations,
• the Temporary Task Force on Pre-School Special Education,
• standards for higher education ability to benefit tests for students who do not have high school diplomas,
• state aid for high-need nursing programs, and
• the development of a P-16 data system. 

 

 Regulations implementing many of these provisions of Chapter 57 have been enacted by the Regents and others are in development now and will be submitted to the Regents for discussion and action during the 2007-08 school year.

             

Background Information

 

In addition to those provisions of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 listed above, the law requires the development of an enhanced accountability system for New York State’s schools and districts.   Like many of the provisions of Chapter 57, the statutory requirements related to the development of an enhanced accountability system are consistent with the policy direction that the Regents established in their P-16 Plan of Action.  Among the key provisions related to accountability are the following:

 

• Beginning with the 2007-08 school year, the Board of Regents must develop a new system of support and intervention in low performing schools, including:
• • School Quality Review Teams to assist any school in improvement, corrective action, restructuring or SURR status.  These teams begin operation during the 2007-08 school year.
  • Joint Intervention Teams appointed by the Commissioner and the school district to assist any school in restructuring or SURR status that has failed to demonstrate progress as specified in a corrective action plan or comprehensive educational plan.  These teams will begin operation during the 2008-09 school year.
  • Distinguished Educators, appointed by the Commissioner, as appropriate, to assist districts and schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for four or more years with the development and review of school improvement plans, reorganization and/or reconfiguration efforts.  Distinguished Educators can be assigned by the Commissioner as early as the 2008-09 school year.
• Beginning with the 2007-08 school year, The Regents shall expand the scope and the effectiveness of the Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) process so that all schools that meet the criteria for SURR are so identified, with the goal that up to five percent of public schools will be identified within four years.
• Later this year, the Commissioner will require districts requiring academic progress or districts with schools that have been identified as in need of improvement or requiring academic progress to submit district improvement plans that must either redirect resources to support allowable programs designated by the Commissioner or provide a justification for not doing so.
• By July 1, 2008, the Board of Regents shall establish targets for school and district improvement based on State assessments, graduation rates and other indicators of progress. 
• By the 2008-2009 school year, the Board of Regents, subject to the necessary U.S. Department of Education (USDE) approval, will establish an interim modified accountability system that uses the State assessment system to support a growth model.
• By the 2010-2011 school year, the Board of Regents will, subject to USDE approval and that of external experts in testing and measurement, implement an enhanced accountability system based on an enhanced growth model, using revised or new valued added assessments.

 

The attached document provides a summary of key strategies that the Department proposes to implement the enhanced accountability system.

 

Please note:  There are a number of designations for schools and districts in need of improvement by the Board of Regents, NCLB, IDEA and now Chapter 57 as well as multiple reporting, monitoring and technical assistance requirements.  The Senior Deputy Commissioner of Education – P-16 and the Deputy Commissioner for Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and their teams are working with the field to identify how efficiencies can be achieved and how we can better help schools improve.  We are seeking greater clarity of designations for the public, elimination of duplicative efforts, and more focused and aligned assistance.  This is also a part of the comprehensive monitoring effort. 

�

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

Staff recommends that the Regents endorse the strategies outlined in this item to implement the requirements of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 related to the development of an enhanced accountability system.

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

Department staff will continue to implement the strategies outlined in this item as appropriate.

Strategies for Implementing An Enhanced Accountability System for New York State Schools and Districts

 

Overview of New York State Accountability System

 

New York has long been nationally recognized for the strength of its system of pupil assessment and school accountability.  New York has consistently been given an “A” rating by Quality Counts for its system of standards, assessments, and accountability. In addition, New York was among the first five states to have its No Child Left Behind system approved by the Secretary of Education.

 

              The Board of Regents and the State Education Department began more than two decades ago to build a regulatory framework by which public school performance on State assessments in language arts and mathematics are measured against specified standards and publicly reported, schools that are in need of improvement are identified, and assistance is provided to those schools. 

 

              Today New York provides detailed information on the performance and accountability status of each public school and district in the State.  These public schools report cards, which are available on the Internet, provide results for each school and district on State assessments disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, limited English proficiency status, disability status, migrant status and gender.

 

              When a school performs below a State standard in English language arts or mathematics, a school district is required to develop and implement a plan to assist the school to improve student results.  These plans, known as Local Assistance Plans, may be stand alone documents or may be integrated into other existing district or school improvement plans.

 

In addition, to determining whether schools are achieving State standards, New York also determines each year whether every public school and district is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in English and mathematics at the elementary-middle and high school levels.   Schools and districts that make AYP have demonstrated satisfactory progress towards the goal of having all students achieve proficiency in English language arts and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. New York also measures whether the performance of schools is acceptable in terms of elementary-middle level science and high school graduation rate.

 

              When a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years on an accountability criterion, the school is identified as either a School in Need of Improvement (SINI) if the school is subject to sanctions imposed on Title I schools by the No Child Left Behind Act or as a School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) if the school is subject solely to requirements of Commissioner’s regulations.  Among other actions, these schools must develop a two-year school improvement plan that must be annually updated.  In addition, SINI schools must offer parents the option to transfer their children to other public schools within the district. 

 

              Once schools are identified as Requiring Academic Progress or In Need of Improvement their continued failure triggers a series of increasingly rigorous actions.  Schools In Need of Improvement that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress must offer eligible students supplemental educational services.  A second year of failure to make AYP in SINIs and SRAPs results in the district being required to take one of several corrective actions.  Eventually, after a school has failed to make AYP for four years following identification as a SINI or SRAP, the district is required to restructure the school.

 

Schools that fail to make AYP and also are determined to be farthest from State standards and most in need of improvement are identified by the Commissioner for Registration Review.  Once identified for registration review, the school is given by the Commissioner a set of performance targets that the school is expected to achieve within a specified period of time or risk having its registration revoked by the Regents.  After being placed under registration review, the school is visited by an external team, led by a district superintendent that does a planning, resource, and program audit.  The report of the external team is used by the school to develop a comprehensive education plan and by the district to do a Corrective Action Plan. 

 

Schools that are identified for improvement are provided with additional assistance and support by the local school districts, regional school support centers, and directly by State Education Department staff.  SURRs in particular receive intensive support from the Department, including the assignment of an SED liaison to the school, the provision of State grants to support improvement efforts, and the provision of extensive technical assistance and professional development to school leaders and staff.

 

In addition to school accountability, the State Education Department is also responsible for determining whether each school district in the State has made Adequate Yearly Progress.  Like schools, districts that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years on an accountability criterion are designated as Districts In Need of Improvement and must develop improvement plans. Pursuant to NCLB, The State Education Department must take Corrective Action against a district that receives Title I funds that fails to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two years after being designated as In Need of Improvement.  In recent years the Department has required Districts in Corrective Action to undergo a curriculum audit and implement the recommendations that are developed based on the audit. Similarly, pursuant to the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Commissioner beginning with the 2006-07 school year has identified as In Need of Assistance, In Need of Intervention, or In Need of Substantial Intervention those districts that fail to achieve certain specified targets for the performance of students with disabilities. 

 

As a companion to Department’s process of identifying low-performing schools, the Commissioner began in 2004-05 to formally designate schools and districts that meet specified criteria as high-performing. During the 2005-06 school year, the Commissioner also began to identify schools and districts as rapidly improving.

 

New York’s system of support for and intervention in low-performing schools has enjoyed considerable success.  There has been consistent improvement overall in language arts and mathematics since the introduction of the State’s new assessments in 1999 and the number of extremely low-performing schools has declined in recent years.  The SURR process has helped a large majority of schools identified to improve performance, and in those instances where improvement has been insufficient it has resulted in the phase out or closure of schools. Yet challenges remain, with too many schools having too few students achieving proficiency and too large gaps existing between groups of students based on geographic location, income status, race/ethnicity, and disability or English proficiency status.  Low graduation rates in many high schools, particularly in urban districts, remains a persistent challenge. After more than two decades, the State accountability system remains a key support for the Regents effort to raise standards, build capacity in schools and districts to meet these standards, report results, and provide assistance and support to those schools with the greatest needs.

 

Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 calls upon the Board of Regents to build on the system that the Regents developed and create an enhanced accountability for New York State.  Additional support mechanisms are now being put in place to further encourage increased academic performance in schools in need. The remainder of this report provides information on the key features of this enhanced accountability system and the actions that have been taken or will be taken to implement the new accountability system.

 

Please note:  There are a number of designations for schools and districts in need of improvement by the Board of Regents, NCLB, IDEA and now Chapter 57 as well as multiple reporting, monitoring and technical assistance requirements.  The Senior Deputy Commissioner of Education – P-16 and the Deputy Commissioner for Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and their teams are working with the field to identify how efficiencies can be achieved and how we can better help schools improve.  We are seeking greater clarity of designations for the public, elimination of duplicative efforts, and more focused and aligned assistance.  This is also a part of the comprehensive monitoring effort. 

�

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced Support and Intervention in Low Performing Schools and Districts

 

Background:

 

The statute calls upon the Board of Regents and the Commissioner to use School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators to leverage improvement in low performing schools and districts, and to develop a plan for intervention in restructuring and SURR schools.

 

School Quality Review Teams

 

Background:

 

For the 2007-08 school year, the new statute requires School Quality Review (SQR) Teams also now be appointed by the Commissioner to assist any school in improvement, corrective action, restructuring or SURR status.  The teams may conduct resource, program and planning audits, and examine organization, operations, curriculum, instructional plans, and learning opportunities available to students. The teams make diagnostic recommendations, which are advisory.

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 57, reasonable and necessary expenses for the SQR teams, as well as for Joint Intervention Teams and distinguished educators, are a charge to the school district or charter school.  For the 2007-08 school year, the department, working in collaboration with district superintendents and regional network partners, has been able to craft a plan as specified below that does not require that districts incur any costs for the activities of teams.  Beginning in 2008-09, if the law is not amended, the Department anticipates that districts will incur costs for the operation of these teams. The Regents in their State aid proposal have recommended that the costs to districts instead be substantially mitigated by the Department receiving a $10 million appropriation to pay for the operation of those teams that are assigned to schools and districts as required by the statue.

 

Actions Being Taken to Implement School Quality Review Teams in Low Performing Schools:

 

For 2007-08, School Quality Review (SQR) Teams are comprised of SED School Improvement and other SED staff, as appropriate, e.g., VESID and the Office of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language Studies; regional school support staff; and for certain schools, BOCES district superintendents and their designees.  For the 2007-08 school year, SQR teams will function as follows:

 

• The SQR team is, at a minimum, comprised of two persons.
• In districts other than the large five city school districts, SQR teams assigned to schools identified as Schools In Need of Improvement Year 1 and Schools Identified as Schools in Need of Improvement Year 2 will be lead by district superintendents.  For all other schools, SED and regional school support center staff will comprise the SQR teams.
• The primary role of the SQR team is to assist the school to develop and implement school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans.
•  During the school year, SQR Teams may conduct resource planning and program reviews.  Teams may also examine the quality of curriculum; instructional plans; teaching and learning opportunities; student support services; and the organization and operation of schools.
• Each school will receive recommendations for consideration for inclusion in the school’s 2008-09 school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring plans, including recommendations as appropriate regarding use of Contract for Excellence Funds.
• Schools that have been identified as Schools In Need of Improvement Years 1 and 2 will receive school support using either a Basic or Advance School Quality Review Model as described below:

 

              BASIC REVIEW MODEL:

 

              ADVANCED REVIEW MODEL:

• The Advanced Model Review is on-site review of teaching and learning in the area(s) for which the school has been identified as in need of improvement.
• The Advanced Model Review involves direct observation and exploration of the teaching and learning opportunities provided by the school. The SQR Team aims to reach a collective perspective regarding the work that they have observed and discussed.
• During the visit, the Team reviews the alignment of instruction and assessment with the State Learning Standards and performance indicators for the identified content areas and subgroups not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as well as how students are grouped for instruction based upon their needs.
• The SQR Team identifies recommendations that will be included in a written report and be distributed to the district/school.  These recommendations are to be used to develop the 2008-09 comprehensive educational plan, i.e., the school improvement plan

 

• In Schools Identified for Registration Review, the State Education will continue to assign an SED liaison who will provide direct, on-site technical assistance between one day and one week per month. The SED liaisons will coordinate their activities with those of the SQR team. In newly identified SURR schools, district superintendents will continue to lead a registration review team visit to the schools and the findings and recommendations of this visit will be shared with the SQR team.

 

Recommendations for 2008-09:

 

Based upon the activities conducted by the SQR Teams in 2007-08, recommendations will be formulated for the following:

 

JointSchoolIntervention Teams

 

Background:

 

Joint School Intervention Teams are appointed by the Commissioner to assist any school in restructuring or SURR status that has failed to demonstrate progress as specified in a corrective action plan or comprehensive educational plan.  The teams, which must include district representatives, assist school districts in developing, reviewing and recommending plans for reorganizing or reconfiguring schools in restructuring status or a SURR school. As in the case of the School Quality Review Teams, the recommendations of the Joint School Intervention Teams are advisory and reasonable and necessary expenses for the teams are charged to the school district or charter school. 

 

Actions Being Taken to Implement Joint Intervention Teams for 2008-09:

 

Department staff are currently:

• establishing the Joint Intervention Team (JIT) model of support and determining the roles of administrators and educators from identified districts, SED staff, and Distinguished Educators on the JIT.
• establishing a process to appoint Distinguished Educators, as appropriate, to JITs.
• planning to make JITs operational in school year 2008-2009 by assigning teams to districts with a restructuring school or SURR school that has failed to demonstrate progress as specified in their improvement plans.

 

The Department proposes that beginning in 2008-09, The Commissioner assign a JIT to:

• Schools In restructuring status that commencing with 2006-07 school year results fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years for any accountability criteria for which the school has been identified for restructuring.
• SURRs that commencing with 2006-07 school year results fail to achieve their minimum benchmarks for two consecutive years on any accountability criterion for which the school has been placed under registration review.

 

Distinguished Educators

 

Background:

 

Distinguished Educators may be appointed by the Commissioner to assist districts and schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for four or more years with the development and review of school improvement plans, reorganization and/or reconfiguration efforts. These Distinguished Educators will be assigned to the extent practicable to school districts with similar demographics to those in which the Distinguished Educators demonstrated success. The Distinguished Educators may be current or former superintendents, principals, teachers or educators. However, they may not come from for-profit entities. Once identified, Distinguished Educators serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of the school board.  Distinguished Educators must either endorse improvement plans for the school(s) or district to which they have been assigned or send them back to the school district for modification.  A school district must modify the plan as required by the Distinguished Educator unless the district provides compelling reasons to the Commissioner for why the plan should not be modified.  All school districts and charter schools are required to enter into contracts with their superintendent or school head that stipulate that they will fully cooperate with any assigned Distinguished Educator.  The reasonable and necessary costs of a distinguished educator are a charge upon the school district.

 

Actions Being Taken to Implement Distinguished Educator Program for 2008-09:

 

• Staff have reviewed the lessons learned from New York’s informal “distinguished educator” program in which curriculum experts have been assigned to provide on-site technical support in English language arts or mathematics to selected SURR schools.
• Staff conducted a literature review regarding the selection criteria, programmatic components, and evidence of effectiveness for states that have implemented Distinguished Educator (DE) Programs. Staff have also obtained information regarding Blue Ribbon Panels that are typically assembled as “experts in their field” to identify and/or work with high performing schools.
• Staff have conducted interview sessions with Distinguished School Program Coordinators from North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky.  Staff also discussed the Distinguished Educator program with former United States Department of Education Under Secretary Henry Johnson who had experience with a DE program while working in Alabama.
• Staff are soliciting input on the concept of a distinguished educators form key educational constituency organizations such as district superintendents, the New York State Council of Supervisors and Administrators, and the New York State United Teachers and parents. Staff have also met with principals of Blue Ribbon Schools as well as with principals who have received Time Warner Distinguished Educator Awards.  Meetings with additional organizations, including institutions of higher education, are planned.

 

Actions to be Taken:

 

• Develop a proposal for recruitment, professional development and training, remuneration, and evaluation of a distinguished educator program and submit to the Regents for consideration.

• Establish a cadre of Distinguished Educators with expertise in such areas as leadership, instructional content, students with disabilities, English language learners, and school reform.

• Create a process for appointing Distinguished Educators, as appropriate, to districts or schools that have failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) for four or more years.
• Initiate the Distinguished Educator program in school year 2008-2009.
• The Department proposes that the Commissioner assign a Distinguished Educator to a school district if:
• • The district has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress on an accountability criterion at least four times beginning with 2002-2003 school year results; and
  • The district has been identified for Corrective Action and commencing with 2006-07 school year results, the district has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years on any accountability criterion for which the district has been identified for Corrective Action or the district has been identified as a District Requiring Academic Progress Year 3 and commencing with 2006-07 school year results, the district has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years on any accountability criterion for which the district has been identified; and
  • The Commissioner determines that the district has failed to demonstrate improvement in educational outcomes as a result of corrective actions implemented.
• The Department propose that the Commissioner  assign a distinguished educator to a school if:
• • The school has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress on an accountability criterion at least four times beginning with 2002-2003 school year results; and
  • The school has been identified for Restructuring or SURR; and
  • A Joint Intervention Team has been assigned to the school; and
  • The Commissioner determines that the school has failed to demonstrate improvement in educational outcomes as a result of the appointment of the Joint Intervention Team.
• The Department will ask the Regents to consider such regulations as may be necessary to implement the above proposal, including creating in Commissioner’s Regulations a definition of “reasonable and necessary costs” for operation of a distinguished educators program.

 

 

Expand the Scope and Increase the Effectiveness of the Schools Under Registration Review Process

 

Background:

 

The scope and effectiveness of the Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) process should be expanded so that all schools that meet the criteria for SURR are so identified, with the goal that up to five percent of public schools will be identified within four years. 

 

Actions Being Taken to Improve the Effectiveness of the SURR Process

 

• Contract for Excellence Districts with SURR schools were required to focus Contract resources on their lowest performing schools, including their SURR schools. One of the five large city school districts, Buffalo, utilized its entire Contract allocation to support its SURR schools.
• A School Quality Review team has been assigned to each SURR school.  In addition to assisting SURR schools to implement their corrective action plans, SQR teams will review the use of C4E funds by SURR schools and make recommendations for how these funds should be integrated into the school’s 2008-09 comprehensive education plans. Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, joint intervention teams and distinguished educators may be assigned to SURR schools.
• New protocols are being developed to shorten the period between when newly identified schools receive registration review visits and schools receive their registration review reports. New protocols are also being developed so that beginning with the 2008-09 school year, identification of SURR schools will occur earlier in the school year.
• Conversations are being conducted with key constituent groups to solicit their recommendations for improvements to the process.

 

Actions Being Taken to Expand the Scope of the SURR Process:

 

• Beginning with the 2006-2007 school year results, the Department is revising the procedures by which schools that are farthest from state standards are identified for registration review. These new procedures will make more rigorous the standards by which schools that are farthest from State standards are exempted from SURR identification because of “temporary or extraordinary” circumstances.
• Beginning with 2007-2008 school year results, we will consider accelerating the annual increments in the cutpoints for schools farthest from State standards in grades 3-8 and high school English language arts (ELA) and mathematics.
• Beginning with the 2007-08 school year results, the SURR process will be expanded to include as appropriate the identification of very small schools, newly created high schools and other schools for which regular State assessments are not used to make Adequate Yearly Progress determinations.
• Beginning with 2007-08 school year results, the Department will revise and consider whether the supplementary performance indicator program that is used to determine whether alternative high schools, CSD 75 schools, and schools in Special Act school districts should be identified for registration review needs increased rigor.
• Later this year, the Department will ask the Regents to consider amending Section 100.2(p) of Commissioner’s Regulations to:

 

Plan for Intervention in SURR/Restructuring Schools NOT Demonstrating Progress on Established Performance Targets

 

Background:

 

The Plan for Intervention in SURR/Restructuring Schools is to be developed for schools that have not demonstrated progress on established performance targets, and are targeted for closure.  The plan must specify criteria for school closure; include processes to be followed; specify research-based options; and include alternatives and strategies to reorganizing, restructuring or reconfiguring schools.  The plan is to be developed with input from administrators, teachers, parents and Distinguished Educators, among others.

 

Actions Being Taken to Implement a Closure Process:

 

Department staff are:

• reviewing  with key constituent groups the current procedures used to phase-out and close SURR schools and restructuring schools;
• reviewing procedures used in other states;
• identifying  any changes to procedures that are likely to improve performance in reorganized, restructured, reconfigured, or new schools; and
• identifying necessary amendments to Commissioner’s Regulations if required to implement any recommended changes in procedures.

 

Establish Targets for School and District Improvement

 

Background:

 

By July 1, 2008, targets for school and district improvement based on State assessments, graduation rate and other indicators of progress must be established.

 

Actions Being Taken to Establish Targets for School and District Improvement:

 

• Targets for school and district improvement in English language arts, mathematics, elementary and middle level science and graduation rate have been established pursuant to New York’s approved plan for NCLB accountability.
• Farthest from State standards cutpoints have been established for English language arts and mathematics to be used as part of the process for identification of SURR schools.
• Standards for district performance in relation to students with disabilities have been established to meet the requirements of IDEA and in relation to limited English proficient students to meet the requirements of Title III of NCLB. 
• Standards have also been established by which schools may be identified as persistently dangerous or placed on a watch list.
• Standards have been established regarding the percentage of teachers in core academic subjects who must be highly qualified.
• The Department recommends that the Regents consider the following additional actions:

 

 

District Improvement Plans

 

Background:

 

The Commissioner will obligate districts requiring academic progress or districts with schools that have been identified as in need of improvement or requiring academic progress to submit district improvement plans that must either redirect resources to support allowable programs and activities, as defined by the Commissioner, or provide a justification for not doing so.  While most of these districts already submit improvement plans to the State Education Department, the statute requires that districts consider incorporating in their improvement plans class size reduction, increased time on task, teacher and principal quality initiatives, middle school and high school restructuring, or pre-k or full-day kindergarten programs.  The law also requires that the Board of Education hold a public hearing on the plan and submit a transcript of the hearing to the Commissioner.

 

Actions Being Taken to Implement District Improvement Plans:

 

Based upon NCLB and/or State accountability status, districts will submit a district improvement plan in conjunction with the submission of other required district improvement plans, their Consolidated Application and/or District Comprehensive Educational Plan.

 

The Department staff will:

 

• incorporate existing planning and improvement documents into the required District Improvement Plan;
• develop a format that:
• • outlines how all funding (State, federal and local) will be used to support schools that have been identified as in need of improvement or requiring academic progress;
  • provides a description  of how C4E funds, in approximately 86 districts, support allowable programs and activities in each building targeted to receive funding. In developing the improvement plan, the district must describe where the resources have been redirected to include allowable programs and activities pursuant to Chapter 57.  If such programs are not adopted, the district must provide an explanation which must be considered by the Commissioner in determining whether to approve the plan.

 

 

 

Develop Growth and Value Added Accountability Models

 

Background: 

 

By the 2008-2009 school year, subject to the necessary USDE approval, an interim accountability system that uses current State assessments to support a growth model is to be established.  By the 2010-2011 school year, the Board of Regents are, subject to USDE approval and that of external experts in testing and measurement, to implement an enhanced accountability system based upon an enhanced growth model, using revised or new value added assessments. In November 2005, Secretary Spellings announced that up to ten states that met certain conditions would be permitted to pilot growth models. New York at that time did not meet the requirements that a state have a fully approved NCLB assessment program, a unique student record system, and a minimum of one year of grade 3-8 assessment results in order to participate in the pilot. At present, USDE has given approval or conditional approval to nine states to implement pilot growth models.  On December 7, 2007, Secretary Spellings announced that any state now meeting the growth model eligibility criteria that wishes to put in place a growth model for use with 2007-08 school year results may apply by February 1, 2008 to receive permission to implement a growth model. At present, USDE does not permit value added models to be used to meet NCLB accountability requirements.

 

Actions Being Taken to Develop Growth and Value Added Accountability Models:

 

• Department staff have:
• • Reviewed growth models being implemented by other states and school districts within New York
  • Developed design principles for creation of a New York growth model.
  • Made presentations and solicited comments from key consultation groups such as the State Assessment Technical Advisory Group, the Title I Committee of Practitioners, The New York State Council of School Superintendents, the District Superintendents, and districts that have developed local growth and value added initiatives.
  • Requested comment on a proposal for a growth model from selected individuals and organizations.
  • Run simulations of one the most promising growth models, similar to the one used by North Carolina, to determine its implications for New York’s accountability system.
  • In collaboration with Holland and Knight, established an accountability technical research group of national experts co-chaired by Robert Linn and Brian Gong to conduct validation research on the current accountability system to inform the next generation of accountability methodologies, including growth and/or value added models.
  • Met with representative of United States Department of Education to discuss growth models.

 

• Later this school year, Department staff will:

.

• Provide the Board of Regents with an overview of growth models and recommendations regarding a growth model for New York.
• Seek permission from the Board of Regents to submit a model for review by USDE.   Department staff are currently consulting with external experts regarding whether New York should seek approval to commence implementation of its model based upon 2007-08 or 2008-09 school year results.
• Upon Regents approval submit a model to USDE.

 

• Upon approval by USDE of a growth model, SED will develop regulations for Regents consideration to implement the growth model and move forward with work on an enhanced growth model based on revised or new value added State assessments.

 

Linkage Between Contracts for Excellence, Coordinated Technical Assistance and Monitoring and Enhanced Accountability

 

There is a strong linkage between the Chapter 57 requirements for Contracts for Excellence and an enhanced accountability system as well as the Department’s efforts to provide coordinated technical assistance and monitoring to school districts:

 

• C4E districts are fiscally and programmatically accountable for expending contract funds in accordance with their approved plans and SED will monitor district adherence to their plans.  Districts that have been identified as requiring academic progress or that include one or more SURR schools or schools in NCLB improvement status must develop district improvement plans that specify how all funding (State, federal and local) will be used to support schools that have been identified as in need of improvement or requiring academic progress
• C4E districts are accountable for achieving targets established in their plans related to improving the performance of students with the greatest educational need. Attainment or lack of attainment of these targets will influence how future contract funds may be used.
• C4E districts are accountable for ensuring that the district and its schools make Adequate Yearly Progress. Schools and Districts must cooperate with School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention Teams, and Distinguished Educators who may be assigned to assist and/or oversee the development and implementation of improvement plans. Failure to make progress subjects districts and schools to increasing levels of intervention, which can result in the closure of schools.

 

As the provisions of the Regents P-16 Action Plan and Chapter 57 are fully implemented the Regents will be establishing a robust educational system with world class standards, assessments that can measure the growth of groups of students over time towards proficiency in relation to those standards, an information system that supports decision making by tracking performance of students from pre-kindergarten through college, a process by which districts direct resources to implement research based programs in those schools that educate students with the greatest needs, and a system of supports and interventions for those schools where results are not satisfactory. Together these steps will implement the Regents vision of ensuring that New York has the best educated citizenry in the world.