July SBE Hearing – Major Changes in Accountability, Assessment, and Curriculum

Evaluations Rubrics Top Level Display

July SBE Hearing - Major Changes in Accountability, Assessment, and Curriculum


Evaluation Rubrics

Day 1 of the SBE hearing focused largely on furthering the development of the evaluation rubrics. Presentation and Board discussion of the item alone lasted nearly four hours. In addition, there was public testimony from over 200 people.

While a number of actions were taken during this meeting, the evaluation rubrics continue to be a work in progress.  The Board intends to approve the evaluation rubrics at the September 2016 hearing in order to meet the October 2016 statutory deadline. While the Board’s actions at the July hearing moved the rubric development forward substantially, it is also clear that work will need to continue beyond October. As part of the motion on the accountability item, the Board directed staff to develop, in advance of the September 2016 meeting, a proposed timeline through the end of the 2017 calendar year that addresses the further developmental work after approval of the initial phase of the evaluation rubrics, including, but not limited to:

  • the state and local indicators
  • standards for the state indicators and/or LCFF priorities
  • the statements of model practices, and the alignment of elements included in the ESSA state plan with the LCFF evaluation rubrics

College and Career Indicator (CCI)

The Board approved adding a measure of college and career readiness as a state indicator.

The College and Career Indicator (CCI) will combine Grade 11 test scores on English Language Arts (ELA) and Math and other measures of college and career readiness. The CCI will be also used to establish standards for State Priority 7 (Access to Broad Course of Study) and Priority 8 (Outcomes in a Broad Course of Study).

Because Grade 11 scores are now included in the CCI, the Board removed Grade 11 scores from the state indicator for student test scores on ELA and Math (Priority 4 – Pupil Achievement), that had been approved at the May 2016 Board meeting. This was done to avoid double-counting those test scores in two state indicators.

I have attached the draft model CCI proposed for your review. However, from the Board discussion, it was clear that modifications are coming. Staff will be reviewing alternative methodologies as well as responding to concerns from Member Rucker that more career readiness/preparation elements are needed and from Member Burr that the indicator is too “high school heavy.” Development of earlier indicators of readiness, particularly an 8th grade indicator of high school readiness, is likely. Staff will prepare a recommendation for the September 2016 Board meeting on the final technical specifications for the CCI.


At the May 2016 SBE hearing, the Board approved a methodology for calculating performance as a combination of status and change for the state indicators in order to differentiate performance at the LEA and school levels, and for student subgroups. The state indicators currently are: Graduation Rate, Academic Indicator (based on test scores for ELA and Math), Suspension Rate by grade span, Progress of English Learners toward Proficiency, and College and Career Readiness. (The English Learner Indicator will incorporate reclassification rates and Long-Term English Learner [LTEL] data as it becomes available).

“Status” will be determined by the current year performance and “Change” is the difference between the performance of the first year and the prior year or between the current year and a multi-year average (for example, current graduation rate and the three-year average). Both will be equally weighted to make an overall determination for a “Performance Category,” that will be represented by a color, for each indicator.

At the July hearing, the Board approved a methodology for establishing standards for the remaining state priorities:

  • Priority 1 (Appropriately Assigned Teachers, Access to Curriculum-Aligned Instructional Materials, and Safe, Clean and Functional School Facilities)
  • Priority 2 (Implementation of State Academic Standards)
  • Priority 3 (Parent Engagement)
  • County Office of Education (COE) Priority 9 (Coordination of Services for Expelled Students)
  • COE Priority 10 (Coordination of Services for Foster Youth)

While still a work in progress, the methodology structure would include the evidence for assessing progress relative to the standard and the criteria that LEAs would use to assess progress toward meeting the standard (Met/Not Met/Not Met for Two or More Years). The goal of this approach is to emphasize the importance of these priorities and to establish a baseline of locally-reported data to inform future policy actions.

The Board also approved the inclusion of a standard for the use of local climate surveys to support a broader assessment of performance on Priority 6 (School Climate) beyond suspension. The Board is going to establish a working group to assist with development of additional means for assessing school climate; however, for the first year, the Healthy Kids Survey will be used.

Rubric Design

The rubrics will include the following additional components:

Top-Level Summary Data Display – A summary report for use by LEAs and schools illustrating performance relative to the standards established for all LCFF Priorities. The display includes a narrative section where indicator results can be explained and an Equity Report, which will identify instances where any student subgroup is in the two lowest performance categories (currently Red or Orange) on a state indicator. A proposed draft is attached for your review; however, there were a number of questions concerning the display, and, in particular, the Equity Report, which suggest further refinement is needed.

Data Analysis Tool – Users will be able to generate more detailed data reports that include both state and local indicators

Statements of Model Practices – Descriptions of research-supported and evidence-based practices that will correspond to the indicators from the data analysis tool. (Optional for use by LEAs)

Additional detail on the various pieces of the rubrics discussed at the Board hearing can be found here: Item 2

Revised LCAP Template

Staff provided an update on the work being done to redesign the LCAP template to align with the federal requirements under ESSA, and to be more user friendly. The new template will be a three-year inclusive plan. The revised template is seen as a vast improvement over the current template. However, some questions still remain, including whether the LCAP e-template will be mandated rather than optional, and whether all of the proposed additions are making the LCAP less of a plan and more of a compliance document.  The final version will be presented to the Board for approval at the September 2016 hearing. More detail can be found here: Item 03


California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System Update

California Alternate Assessment for Science

The Board approved the new conceptual design for the CA NGSS alternate assessment. The new assessment will be a collection of embedded performance tasks where tasks and assignments used to evaluate students are integrated with, or embedded in, classroom work. The new design will be used for the 2016-17 pilot administration of the assessment.

CAASPP Public Reporting Site

The redesigned CDE CAASPP page is scheduled to be released in August.

Interim Assessments

CDE will make available 11 new mathematics and 18 new ELA Interim Assessment Blocks in 2016-17. The 2016-17 school year interim assessments are expected to be available at the beginning of September.


History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, 2016

After almost six hours of staff presentation, public comment (over 320 people signed up to speak), and Board deliberation, the State Board of Education approved the History/Social Science Framework. This is the first revision of the framework since 2005.

The revised framework adds considerable information on financial literacy, voter education, civic learning, genocide, and the contributions of LGBT Americans and people with disabilities to the history of California and the United States.

The Board also approved the proposed timeline, as well as the online application draft that will be used to recruit applicants to serve as reviewers, for the 2017 History–Social Science Instructional Materials Adoption.

More information on the framework, timeline, and the reviewer application can be found here: Item 07

Proposed Regulations – Courses without Content

Assembly Bill (AB) 1012 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 703, Statutes of 2015, prohibits a school district that serves any grades 9 to 12, from assigning students to a “course without educational content” for more than one week in any semester, and prohibits the assignment of any student to a course that the student has previously completed and received a satisfactory grade, unless specified conditions are met.

Effective beginning the 2016–17 school year, AB 1012 requires a principal or assistant principal to state in a written document to be maintained at the applicable school that, for the relevant school year, no students are assigned to courses without educational content or previously completed courses unless the school has met the specified conditions.

AB 1012, also requires the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop regulations for adoption by the Board of regarding the procedures governing placement of pupils in the aforementioned courses, including the form of the written statement.

Lee Angela Reid, Senior Legislative Advocate CAPITOL ADVISORS GROUP