Accountability Work Group February 22, 2016 1

Accountability Work Group
February 22, 2016
1
Agenda
 Welcome, Agenda and Updates
 Every Student Succeeds Act Integration
 Overview of ESSA Accountability
 Conversation “Other indicator for school quality/student success”
 Assessment Pilot
 Lunch
 Spring and Fall Reports
 Overview of decisions
 Report template feedback and trade-offs
 Resources needed
 Wrap up
Charge for the AWG
 Provide recommendations to the Commissioner for
the next iteration of the School and District
Performance Frameworks (SPF/DPF 2.0) for release in
the fall of 2016.
 Specifically, around the topics included for the small
work group recommendations
 The TAP (Technical Advisory Panel for Longitudinal
Growth) will also weigh in on these topics from a
technical perspective.
 Equity and high expectations for all students.
3
Norms
 Participate – be present and contribute
 Represent your colleagues and your state (and other voices not in the







4
room)
Speak your mind – this is a safe space
Be a problem-solver
Honor thoughts of all
 Everyone and every idea is respected
 Control your sidebars and your technology
Balance listening and speaking to help ensure that all voices are heard
Provide feedback on the process and product
Create talking points to ensure consistent communication
Take care of your own needs
Decision-Making
 Reach consensus, no votes
 “I can support the general view of the group, even if I don’t agree
with every specific point”
 If need be, we can produce a “minority opinion”
5
Purpose Statement
The purpose of Colorado’s state school and district
accountability system is to provide valid and actionable
information to enable districts, schools and stakeholders
to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their
programs, with the goal that all students, regardless of
background or learning need, meet state expectations for
academic achievement and growth and are prepared for
post-secondary and workforce success.
6
Updates- People
 Commissioner Rich Crandall
 Katy Anthes- Chief of Staff
 Associate Commissioners- press release this
week
 Alyssa Pearson- will be transitioning back to
Accountability unit only (as leadership is
identified)
 Elliott Asp
7
Updates- Legislation
 SBE supporting HB16-1131
 Removes requirement to participate in a consortium
 Removes 9th grade assessment requirement
 Removes 5 year timeline for review of 10th and 11th grade test
and requires SBE to select the assessments.
 Assessment options/pilot project
8
Updates -Timeline
February 2016
TCAP and CMAS
PARCC Percentile
Achievement
Reports released
(www.cde.state.co
.us/schoolview/pe
rformance)
Spring 2016
SPF/DPF 2.0
Informational Reports
Released to Districts
Fall 2016
(September)
New school plan
types and district
accreditation
ratings will be
released
(preliminary).*
November/
December 2016
School plan types
and district
accreditation
ratings finalized.*
CDE, with stakeholder input, will
begin
to
integrate
ESSA
requirements. But it seems like full
ESSA integration may not be
required until Fall 2018.
* Based on current state law
9
Updates: Future AWG Meeting Dates
and Anticipated Outcomes
 April 18th:
 Review informational reports; communication materials
 Others TBD
10
ESSA Integration
11
ESSA Integration
Overview of Accountability
12
Overview
 Single or multiple accountability systems
 Comparison of State Frameworks 2.0 & ESSA
 Indicators
 Scoring
 Weighting
 Outcomes
 English Learners
 Subgroups
 Participation/achievement
 School quality/student success indicator
13
Colorado Statute 22-11-102(1)
 "an effective system of statewide education
accountability is one that… (d) Holds the state, school
districts, the institute and public schools accountable
for performance on the same set of indicators and
related measures statewide, ensures that those
indicators and measures are aligned through a single
accountability system, to the extent possible, that
objectively evaluates the performance of the thorough
and uniform statewide system of public education for
all groups of students at the state, school district or
institute, and individual public school levels, and, as
appropriate, rewards success and provides support for
improvement at each level."
14
Federal ESSA Statute
SEC 1005- (c)(4)(C)
 "Establish a system of meaningfully differentiating, on an
annual basis, all public schools in the State, which shall-- (i) be
based on all indicators in the State's accountability system"
15
Single or Multiple
Accountability Systems
 The new requirements of ESSA will require modification of
Colorado’s existing performance frameworks to ensure
alignment, philosophically will the AWG recommend:
 A) Two separate accountability systems: one for federal
requirements and a separate system to meet state requirements.
 B) Align the single existing accountability system to meet both state
and federal requirements.
 What are some high-level pros and cons for each option and
the rationale for the AWG’s recommendation?
16
Comparison of Indicators
Colorado Frameworks 2.0
ESSA Requirements
Academic
Achievement
- % at Benchmark or Mean SS
- Elementary, Middle, High
- ELA, Math and Science
- All Students and By Subgroup
(or super subgroup)
- “As measured by proficiency”
- Elementary, Middle, High
- ELA, Math and Science
- All Students and By Subgroup
Academic
Growth
- SGP (no AGP)
- Elementary, Middle, High
- ELA, Math, English Language
Proficiency
- All Students and By Subgroup
(or super subgroup)
- “A measure of student growth”
- Elementary and Middle
- High School growth optional
- ELA and Math
- “Progress in achieving English
language proficiency” for ELs
- All Students and By Subgroup
17
Comparison of Indicators
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
Indicator of
School Quality
or Student
Success
18
Colorado Frameworks 2.0
ESSA Requirements
- Best-of 4,5,6,7-year graduation
rate (or completion rate)
-- All Students and By Subgroup
(or super subgroup)
- Dropout rate
- Average ACT score
- Matriculation Rate
- 4-year graduation rate
- 5,6,7-year grad rates optional
- All Students and By Subgroup
- State determined, applicable and
valid for all schools by EMH level
- May include measures of-- student
engagement; educator
engagement; student access to and
completion of advanced
coursework; postsecondary
readiness; school climate and safety
- All Students and By Subgroup
Comparison of Indicators
Participation
19
Colorado Frameworks 2.0
ESSA Requirements
- Participation rates reported for
all students by EMH
- Previously a penalty was applied
for schools/districts that missed
the 95% participation target in
two or more subject areas
- SEC 1005- (c)(4)(E)(i): "Annually
measure the achievement of not
less than 95 percent of all
students, and 95 percent of all
students in each subgroup of
students, who are enrolled in
public schools on the assessment"
Comparison of Scoring
Colorado Frameworks 2.0 ESSA Requirements
Targets &
Ratings
20
- Colorado approved by USDE
to waive AYP targets (which
would have been 100% of
students scoring proficient or
meeting safe harbor)
- Framework Achievement
and Growth ratings set at 1550-90, with percentiles
baselined in first year.
- Framework PWR ratings
based on state average and
external criteria.
-SEC 1005- (c)(4)(A): "Establish ambitious
State-designed long-term goals, which
shall include measurements of interim
progress toward meeting such goals" for
(I)(aa) "academic achievement as
measured by proficiency on the annual
assessments“
-SEC 1005- (c)(4)(A)(i): (II) Timeline for
goals should be the same for all student
groups/subgroups, and (III) for
subgroups of students behind on
academic achievement or HS grad "take
into account the improvement necessary
on such measures to make significant
progress in closing statewide proficiency
and graduation rate gaps"
Comparison of Weighting
Weighting of
Indicators
21
Colorado Frameworks 2.0
ESSA Requirements
Proposed Weightings:
- Elementary & Middle Schools• 40% Achievement
• 60% Growth
- High Schools & Districts• 20% Achievement
• 40% Growth
• 40% PWR
- SEC 1005- (c)(4)(C)(ii):
"afford-- (I) substantial weight to
each such indicator" (II) with
much less weight given to the
school quality/success indicator "include differentiation of any
such school in which any
subgroup of students is
consistently underperforming"
-SEC 1005- (e)(1)(B)(iii)(IV):
The Secretary of Education
cannot prescribe "the weight of
any measure or indicator used to
identify or meaningfully
differentiate schools“
Comparison of Outcomes
Ratings
22
Colorado Frameworks 2.0
ESSA Requirements
- District Accreditation Ratings
and School Plan Types
• Turnaround
• Priority Improvement
• Improvement
• Performance
• Distinction (Districts only)
- School Ratings
- Comprehensive support and
improvement plan
• lowest 5 percent of all schools
receiving funds
• all public high schools failing to
graduate one third or more of
their students
- Targeted support and
improvement plan
• schools where "any subgroup
of students is consistently
underperforming"
ESSA Accountability for
English Learners
 Requires states to develop a state plan that will incorporate Title III
23
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) into the
statewide school accountability system
 AMAO 1: EL growth on English language proficiency, now its own
indicator as SEC 1005- (c)(4)(B)(iv) : "progress in achieving English
language proficiency… within a state determined timeline for all
English learners-- (I) in each of the grades 3 through 8" and (II) in one
or more HS grades
 AMAO 2: Percent of students scoring Fluent English Proficient in the
current year (with increasing targets over time). Unclear if or how this
will be required.
 AMAO 3: Percent of ELs proficient in each core content area is now
required as part of the Achievement indicator broken out by EL
subgroup
Newly Arrived ELs
 Choice between 2 options offered in ESSA SEC 1005- (b)(3)(A)
 EL in US less than 12 months can be exempt from one
administration of ELA assessment, and/or have results not count
towards state accountability in year 1
OR
 EL can test first year in US and for state accountability the first two
years of achievement results can be excluded, with ELP growth
reported for year 2, and achievement starting in year 3.
24
Colorado Subgroups
 22-11-103(34): "'Student groups' means the grouping
of students based on sex, socioeconomic status, race
and ethnicity, disability, English language proficiency,
and gifted and talented status"
 AWG and district stakeholders recommended use of an
“aggregated student group” for assigning points in 2.0
accountability calculations.
 Would include: students that are English learners,



25
minorities, eligible for free/reduced lunch, or have an IEP.
Performance would be reported for all disaggregated
groups of students.
This may result in a sufficient N size for accountability that
wasn’t previously included in the frameworks.
Minor impact on framework ratings
ESSA Subgroups
 SEC 1005- (c)(2): "the term 'subgroup of students' means- (A) economically disadvantaged students,
 (B) students from major racial and ethnic groups,
 (C) children with disabilities,
 (D) English learners”
 For all accountability indicators (achievement, growth,
graduation rates), state’s should measure results
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(A)(i): "for all students and separately for each
subgroup of students in the state“
26
Potential Method for Including
Subgroups in Accountability
For Achievement and Growth Sub-indicators
All Students
Points
Aggregated Subgroup
Points
Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
Minority Students
English Learners
Students with Disabilities
27
Contribute points to
accountability rating
Do not contribute points
to accountability rating,
but used to identify for
targeted support (ESSA)
Participation in Colorado
Statute and State Board Motions
 22-11-204(6)(c): "The department may adjust the calculations
specified in this section as necessary to take into account
students for whom no score is recorded on the state-wide
assessments or the… college entrance examination“
 State Board of Education motion to:
“not hold districts liable for the decisions of parents when
these parents decide not to allow their children to take
PARCC.”
28
Participation in ESSA
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(E)(i): "Annually measure the achievement of
not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all
students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in
public schools on the assessment“
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(E)(iii): "provide a clear and understandable
explanation of how the State will factor" the 95% participation
requirement“ into the statewide accountability system“
29
Participation Impact on
Achievement
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(E)(ii): For the achievement indicator "include
in the denominator the greater of-- (I) 95 percent of all such
students or 95 percent of all such students in the subgroup, as
the case may be; or (II) the number of students participating in
the assessments“
 This seems to indicate non-participants will have to be
counted as “not at-benchmark” for all achievement and
achievement subgroup calculations.
 Preliminary statements from USDE indicate parent refusals will
count as “non-participants”.
30
No Child Left Behind- required testing for all students (95%). Through the
waiver, participation must be included in the accountability system.
State Law (22-7-409(1.2.a.1.d.I)
State Board of Education Motion
Required all students in
tested grades to take the
state assessment.
HB15-1323
Districts and schools would
not be held liable for parent
Acknowledged the right of
refusals.
parents to excuse children
from testing.
Prohibited schools/districts
for penalizing parents or
students, or encouraging
students not to take the
assessments.
Every Student Succeeds Act- 95% of students must be assessed. Opt-out laws
are recognized. States decide how participation factors into accountability, but
non-participants below 95% are considered non-proficient.
31
Parent Refusal in Colorado
Statute
 22-7-1013.(8): "(a)EACH LOCAL EDUCATION PROVIDER SHALL ADOPT AND
IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN POLICY AND PROCEDURE BY WHICH A STUDENT'S
PARENT MAY EXCUSE THE STUDENT FROM PARTICIPATING IN ONE OR
MORE OF THE STATE ASSESSMENTS (b) IF A PARENT EXCUSES HIS OR HER
STUDENT FROM PARTICIPATING IN A STATE ASSESSMENT, A LOCAL
EDUCATION PROVIDER SHALL NOT IMPOSE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES,
INCLUDING PROHIBITING SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, IMPOSING AN
UNEXCUSED ABSENCE, OR PROHIBITING PARTICIPATION IN
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, ON THE STUDENT OR ON THE PARENT. (c)
A LOCAL EDUCATION PROVIDER SHALL NOT IMPOSE AN UNREASONABLE
BURDEN OR REQUIREMENT ON A STUDENT THAT WOULD DISCOURAGE
THE STUDENT FROM TAKING A STATE ASSESSMENT OR ENCOURAGE THE
STUDENT'S PARENT TO EXCUSE THE STUDENT FROM TAKING THE STATE
ASSESSMENT."
32
Parent Refusal in ESSA
 SEC 1005- (b)(2)(K): "Rule of construction on parent rights--
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a
State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not
have the parent's child participate in the (state-required)
academic assessments“
33
ESSA Integration
Other Indicator for School
Quality/ Student Success
34
Updates -Timeline
February 2016
TCAP and CMAS
PARCC Percentile
Achievement
Reports released
(www.cde.state.c
o.us/schoolview/p
erformance)
Spring, 2016
SPF/DPF 2.0
Informational
Reports
Released to Districts
Fall 2016
(September)
New school plan
types and district
accreditation
ratings will be
released
(preliminary).*
November/
December 2016
School plan types
and district
accreditation
ratings finalized.*
CDE, with stakeholder input, will
begin
to
integrate
ESSA
requirements. But it seems like full
ESSA integration may not be
required until Fall 2018.
35
* Based on current state law
Timing Considerations
 Based on timeline, the indicator of school quality or student
success will need to be in place by the 2017-2018 school year.
 Lots of possibilities for this indicator, consider what can be
realistically and reasonably gathered in time for 2017-2018
and what could potentially be tried out or piloted for future
years (e.g., for Accountability 3.0).
“School Quality or Student
Success” Indicator in ESSA
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(B): "for all students and separately for each
subgroup of students"
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(B)(v)(I): "not less than one indicator of school
quality or student success that--- (aa) allows for meaningful
differentiation in school performance: (bb) is valid, reliable,
comparable, and statewide (with the same indicator or
indicators used for each grade span)"
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(B)(v)(II): "may include measures of-- (III)
student engagement; (IV) educator engagement; (V) student
access to and completion of advanced coursework; (VI)
postsecondary readiness; (VII) school climate and safety“
What states have done to
include this new area in
accountability
 GA: Basket of indicators: school climate perceptions, student
discipline, schoolwide attendance, safe and substance-free
learning environment indicators. Each school receives a 1-5 star
rating on this which is reported separately and does not impact
accountability ratings.
 UT: Alternative schools accountability – school climate survey;
certify that action plan in place. Has a 10% influence in the
model.
 NV: School climate improvement actions, credit earning for 9th
and 10th graders, attendance. Credit earning part of PWR, school
climate and attendance grouped as “other” and weighted at 10%
in the model.
 CO: AEC frameworks – Student engagement consisting of truancy
and attendance. Has a 20% influence in the model.
What is the Student
Centered Accountability
Project including?
39
Important points to consider…
 SEC 1005- (c)(4)(B): "for all students and separately for each
subgroup of students"
- This means the district providing the data will have to
disaggregate the data by subgroup.
 Which subgroups?
SEC 1005- (c)(2): "the term 'subgroup of students' means- (A) economically disadvantaged students,
 (B) students from major racial and ethnic groups,
 (C) children with disabilities,
 (D) English learners”
Important Points to Consider…
 …(aa) allows for meaningful differentiation in school
performance: (bb) is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide
(with the same indicator or indicators used for each grade
span)“
 Possibility for additional measures to be included in
accountability, beyond the ESSA requirements
 We want a meaningful accountability system first (our purpose
statement). ESSA “compliance” should support that and not be
the driving force.
How much weight should this
new area have in the
frameworks?
 CDE, in consultation with this group and other stakeholder
groups, will make a recommendation about how much
weight should be attributed to this new area.
 Ultimately, this will be included in our state plan to the USDE,
which the state board of education approve before it is
submitted.
For HS, current measures may
meet requirements
 Why? Because we have a PWR indicator for HS that
consists of more than one sub-indicator and this would
fulfill the requirements as long as we disaggregate those
sub-indicators.
 For ES and MS, we’d have to consider at least 1 new
indicator/sub-indicator that’s not currently included on
the SPF 2.0
What we’d like for you to do…
 In small groups, review a list of indicators that meet the ESSA
requirement for this new area and are already collected by
CDE.
 Provide recommendations on if additional indicators should be
included in HS (outside of those identified for PWR).
 Identify which, if any, indicators collected by districts should
be considered for E, M and H.
 Share out to larger group.
 We will collect your input as part of the documentation work
to track stakeholder recommendations.
Four Areas to Consider in
Your Review
As your group reviews the list of indicators, consider each of the
following:
 Stakes
 Should the indicator(s) ‘count’ toward school ratings?
 If so, to what degree?
 Will reporting for accountability lead to unintended negative
consequences?
 How much weight would should be assigned to the indicator
 What actions can be taken to mitigate unintended consequences?
 Operational burden to state, districts, and/or schools
 Making outcomes useful and actionable
 The selection/s should align with the purpose statement
Potential Unintended
Consequences of Indicators
 Will reporting these indicators for accountability result in
unintended negative consequences?
 How much weight would should be assigned to the indicator?
 What actions can be taken to mitigate unintended consequences?
Example: Identifying “Persistently Dangerous Schools” under NCLB
 Per NY Times: systemic under-reporting of school crime and
dropouts found in Virginia, Georgia and Texas.
 One major source of under-reporting: “…damage they say can be
inflicted on the careers of principals who accurately report a high
incidence of disciplinary problems, and to the financing sacrificed
by schools that lose student population to expulsion.”
Operational burden to state,
districts, and/or schools
 For each indicator, consider if considerable investments in time and
resources must be made to collect and undertake QAs of the data.
Example: Using NEPC’s Schools of Opportunity Framework
 Requires schools to gather different types of evidence ranging from
“wise use of technology and access to internet and libraries” to
meeting “the needs of students with disabilities in an environment
that balances challenge and support”.
 All criteria evaluated by raters using rubrics that rate schools along a
continuum of “early planning and implementation” to “exemplary
implementation.”
 Is it reasonable to expect that these types of data be systematically
gathered by all schools?
 Who should rate all of these schools?
Four Areas to Consider in
Your Review
As your group reviews the list of indicators, consider each of the
following:
 Stakes
 Should the indicator(s) ‘count’ toward school ratings?
 If so, to what degree?
 Will reporting for accountability lead to unintended negative
consequences?
 How much weight would should be assigned to the indicator
 What actions can be taken to mitigate unintended consequences?
 Operational burden to state, districts, and/or schools
 Making outcomes useful and actionable
 The selection/s should align with the purpose statement
Large Group Discussion
 Each group to share out:
a. Good candidates
b. Possibilities
c. Whether you recommend additional indicators for HS
beyond what’s currently in PWR
d. Whether you’re interested in seeing a few get piloted first
before incorporating into the SPF/DPF
e. Input on weighting this new area in the performance
framework
ESSA Integration
Assessment Pilot
50
ESSA Assessment Pilot (Sec
1204)
 Up to 7 states eligible (individually or within a consortium)
 Innovative Assessment System
 Competency-based; instructionally embedded; interim; cumulative
year-end; performance based assessments that combine into an
annual summative determination
 Application to the Secretary of Education
 Assessments will meet section 1111(b)(2)(B) requirements, align
with standards (content and rigor), generate valid, reliable and
comparable results, usable for state accountability and reporting
 Plans to scale
 Evaluation of pilot
Future of Assessment and Accountability
What would the pilot allow schools and districts to do?
 Some districts have an interest in exploring a different
52
approach to making annual determinations of student
performance (assessment).
 Use of common set of performance tasks across grade levels
in Language Arts and Math in place of the state test in some
grade levels
 These would be given locally, assessed locally, and used by
teachers to make an annual determination per student.
 These annual determinations could be validated two ways:
 Compare to state test given every few years
 Audit/Review
How would the pilot work?
Pilot Schools/District Selection based on Commitment and
Capacity
 Tier 1 schools/districts: can demonstrate both commitment and
capacity
 Tier 2 schools/districts: can demonstrate commitment and
some capacity
53
Lunch
54
Spring and Fall Reports
55
Updates -Timeline
February 2016
TCAP and CMAS
PARCC Percentile
Achievement
Reports released
(www.cde.state.c
o.us/schoolview/p
erformance)
Spring, 2016
SPF/DPF 2.0
Informational
Reports
Released to Districts
Fall 2016
(September)
New school plan
types and district
accreditation
ratings will be
released
(preliminary).*
November/
December 2016
School plan types
and district
accreditation
ratings finalized.*
CDE, with stakeholder input, will
begin
to
integrate
ESSA
requirements. But it seems like full
ESSA integration may not be
required until Fall 2018.
56
* Based on current state law
Achievement Percentile Rank Report
w w w. c d e . s t a t e . c o . u s / s c h o o l v i e w / p e r f o r m a n c e
Guidance is
posted at:
www.cde.state
.co.us/account
ability/achieve
ment_percenti
le_rank_repor
t_guidance_do
cument.
Spring Informational Reports
 Provide an opportunity to view proposed measures and
metrics for 2016 (with 2015 data where available)
 Informational only, no accountability
 May have ratings for individual sub-indicators and indicators
 Will not include an overall rating/plan type
 Chance to collect feedback from the field and make revisions
for the fall
58
Spring Report Decisions
 Achievement
 Overall and “aggregated group” results for points
 Disaggregated groups reported
 ELA, Math, Science (not social studies)
 Growth
 Median Growth Percentiles only
 Data may not be included (transitional growth percentiles)
 Overall and “aggregated group” results for points
 Disaggregated groups reported
 PWR
59
 Graduation rates
 Dropout rates
 Matriculation rates (if possible)
 CO ACT composite score
Fall School and District
Performance Framework Reports
 Review questions that will help with report development
 Review preliminary mock-ups – chance to provide reactions,
ask questions, and share concerns
 Determine next steps
60
Reporting Recommendations
 Envisioning 3 levels of SPF/DPFs
 Mockups are Level 2
Public Facing
High Level
(Level 1)
• High level
information
• Quick and easy
indicator
• May include
additional data
about
school/district
61
SPF/DPF
Moderate Detail
(Level 2)
Improvement Planning
Analytic Details
(Level 3)
• All results included
in SPF/DPF
• May include a
deeper level of
disaggregation for
some indicators
• Deep dive into the
state level data to
provide the state data
needed for
comprehensive data
analysis for UIP
Why so many questions?


Support the understanding of the framework data
Provide information so that we can design with users
questions/uses in mind
Orient information for real-life tasks
Balance visual information and amount of data
Design elements/reports that will help users convert
information to knowledge





62
Determine those design elements
Determine where users have a hard time understanding or
explaining the information contained in the reports
Design Questions








63
How are users currently using the performance framework
reports? Expected uses in the future?
 For analysis, engagement, comparison
What are the key points the DPF/SPF document should
answer/communicate to its audience?
What are the key points users should recognized immediately
from the reports?
How should users access the reports?
How important is printability?
What key information is not currently provided on existing
reports?
What ’s really difficult to understanding on the existing
reports?
Others?
Design Considerations
 Preliminary design considerations were:







Printability
Static
Comprehensive information related to the frameworks
Clearly and concisely communicate performance levels
Simplify
Audience: district leaders and interested stakeholders
Incorporate new measures





64
Mean scale score
Disaggregated achievement
Growth just based on MGPs not AGPs
Matriculation rate
Aggregated group data
65
66
67
68
Small Group Conversation
Resources Needed
 What resources do you need CDE to create for you for the
spring and fall reports?
 Powerpoints
 One-pagers
 Updated accountability handbook
 Annotated reports
 Interactive online tutorials
 On-site training sessions
 Office hours
 Others?
69
Wrap- Up
70
Talking Points to Share
 At the February 22nd, AWG meeting, we:
 Discussed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements for
accountability and how that relates to Colorado’s accountability
system; including the estimated timeline of implementation (fall 2018)
 Determined that there are advantages to a single state/federal
accountability system, as opposed to two distinct systems
 Spent time thinking about possible student success/school quality
measure, as defined by ESSA
 Discussed the release of spring informational reports to district
accountability contacts and provided feedback on the reports and
tools needed for the fall release
 Heard that CDE and the state board are planning to apply to be part of
the seven state ESSA assessment pilot
71

Meeting Evaluation
 What worked?
 Presentation was well
thought out and
supporting documents
made it clear what AWG
tasks were
 Elliott’s leadership (he’ll
be back for the April
meeting)
72
 What would make the
meeting more effective?
Upcoming Meetings Dates
 April 18, 2016, 10 am – 2:30 pm
 Other TBD
73
74