We want to make you aware of an important opportunity to provide input on the development of the state’s school accountability system.
As you know, the State Board of Education is currently in the process of attempting to develop a single, coherent accountability system that aligns local, state, and federal requirements and consists of multiple measures. The Board is also in the process of revising the LCAP template to incorporate the new federal requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In order to accomplish both well, the Board recognizes that they must actively involve the field.
Attached are some documents created by the Board’s staff to provide an opportunity for your input, including any questions or comments you would like shared with the Board. The documents relate to the proposed architecture of the accountability system, key and local indicators, and revisions to the LCAP Template. The documents are also provided as an update on the current process in the event that you choose not to send us feedback at this time.
Attached are two graphics for your review. The first illustrates the proposed structure of a single coherent system. The second depicts the annual interaction envisioned between the LCAP, the Evaluation Rubrics, and the Assistance and Support Process. While we recognize these graphics are quite general, we are interested in any feedback regarding the structure of the accountability system and the proposed process to move from LCAPs to evaluation to possible assistance and support. More specifically, is the suggested timeline for LCAP/Annual Update through completing the Evaluation Rubric workable?
ESSA requires that states use a minimum of five indicators for accountability purposes and identifies three of the five indicators that must be used: student test scores, progress of English learners toward English language proficiency, and high school graduation rate. As California’s state education agency, SBE must select at least two additional indicators under ESSA: another academic indicator for K-8 and one other indicator (which can be non-academic) that applies to all grades.
Below are the options currently under consideration. To be considered, an indicator must meet the following criteria: have data that is currently collected and available for use at the state level using a consistent definition, that can be disaggregated to the school and subgroup level, and is supported by research as a valid measure.
Additional K-8 Indicator
- Middle School Dropout Rate
- LCFF statutes refer to “dropout rates for pupils who drop out of school while enrolled in grade 8 or 9.” Because the definition includes grade 9, it is not clear if it would be an appropriate K-8 indicator
- Composite Index of Two Indicators for Proficiency on Grade 3 reading and Grade 8 Math
- It is suggested that this index would illustrate whether students are on track to be "College and Career Ready”
One Other Indicator
- Williams Settlement Legislation Requirements
- Note: the underlying legal standards from the Williams settlement legislation do not apply to charter schools unless they have opted in
- College and Career Ready
- Must contain multiple measures
- Suspension Rate
- Local suspension policies and practices vary, so there is some question about comparability
- Chronic Absence is a candidate for inclusion as a key indicator in the future, pending verification of the quality and reliability of the underlying data after state-level collection begins
Do you have preferences among the options listed above, and/or specific concerns with any of the options? Do you have suggestions for other options that meet the criteria noted above and would be better key indicators?
The Board is also considering how best to incorporate local data into the Evaluation Rubrics and is seeking specific recommendations regarding potential data indicators. Attached for your review is a draft metric selection tool the Board will be reviewing which includes possible local metric options related to each of the eight state priorities. Which indicators/metrics do you believe make the most sense in terms of assessing progress towards intended outcomes or objectives related to the eight priorities? If you have more general concerns about the Board’s approach to Evaluation Rubrics, please share those concerns with us as well.
LCAP Template Revisions
With the passage of ESSA, the LCAP template must now be modified to incorporate the new federal requirements. The Board is taking the opportunity to consider what, if any, other changes should be made. You have likely just finished, or are in the process of finalizing, your proposed LCAP for 2016-17. Recognizing that major revisions would require legislative action and, therefore, are not likely an option in the near future, what changes could the Board make to the template to make it more usable and less time-consuming? Please share other general observations or concerns with the LCAP template and the LCAP/Annual Update development and implementation process.
Lee Angela Reid, Senior Legislative Advocate Capitol Advisors Group