ESEA Flexibility Waiver

1. ESEA Flexibility Waiver Florida’s Proposal November 14, 2011

2. Proposal Development Outreach Efforts • Fifty-eight (58) stakeholder groups have been contacted, with specific outreach to: • State Board of Education • Legislators and legislative staff • District superintendents • Leadership Policy Advisory Committee • Assessment and Accountability Advisory Committee • Title I Committee of Practitioners • Teachers and Principals • Website and e-mail hotline launched • Online survey to provide input on draft forthcoming

3. Timeline • Stakeholder Outreach: October-December 2011 • Waiver Proposal Due to USDOE: November 14, 2011 • Peer Review Process: November 2011-January 2012 • Anticipated Announcement of Status: January 2012 • Florida Legislative Session: January-March 2012

4. ESEA Flexibility Major Principles Adopt and implement college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments Design and implement a rigorous statewide accountability system Design, pilot, and implement a system of teacher and leader evaluation based on achievement, over a number of years Evaluate and adjust as necessary state-level administrative and reporting requirements to reduce burden on districts and schools

5. Principle 1 Requirements • College- and Career-Ready Expectations • for All Students • Adopt college- and career-ready standards • Transition to college- and career-ready standards • Develop and administer annual, statewide, aligned assessments that measure student growth in knowledge and skills

6. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 1 • Evidence of: • Florida’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2010 – school districts are implementing now for Kindergarteners • Florida’s membership in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers in 2010 – common assessments first given in 2015

7. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 1 • Transition/implementation plan has been ongoing, including: • Outreach and communication on Common Core content and implementation • Professional Development for Teachers and Principals • Analysis of Linguistic Demands for English language learners • Analysis for Learning and Accommodation Factors for students with disabilities • Alignment of Instructional Materials • Expansion of Rigorous, Accelerated Coursework • College Placement Testing and postsecondary preparatory instruction • Educator Preparation Programs

8. Principle 2 Requirements • State-Developed, Differentiated Recognition, • Accountability, and Support • Develop and implement a state-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support • Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives • Identify Reward Schools • Identify Priority Schools • Identify Focus Schools • Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools • Build SEA, LEA, and School Capacity to Improve Student Learning

9. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 2 • Use school grades alone to categorize all schools • Continue Differentiated Accountability program to target tiered supports and interventions based on school grades • Continue Florida School Recognition Program to reward schools with a grade of A and those improving at least one letter grade • Revise Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

10. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 2 Categorize all schools by school grade

11. C = Prevent Schools • District monitors to ensure positive • achievement trends • District implements interventions in: • Educator Quality • Leadership • Professional Development • Florida Continuous Improvement Model • Monitoring Plans and Processes

12. D = Focus = Correct Schools • District and state monitor to ensure improvement • District implements interventions in: • School Improvement • Leadership • Educator Quality • Professional Development • Florida Continuous Improvement Model • Monitoring Plans and Processes • State oversight increases • A school with three consecutive D grades must implement the district-managed turnaround intervention model

13. F = Priority = Intervene Schools • District and state provide oversight • of improvement plan • District implements interventions in: • School Improvement • Leadership • Educator Quality • Professional Development • Florida Continuous Improvement Model • Monitoring Plans and Processes • State oversight is high • Four intervention models already in law if improvement is not shown • Priority/Intervene Entry and Exit Criteria revised

14. Priority/Intervene Entry and Exit Criteria Revised • Entry Criterion • School grade of F • Exit Criteria • Earn school grade of C • Meet proficiency targets in math and reading set by the State Board of Education • “Hold Status” established • For schools meeting only one of the exit criteria • No longer than two years

15. Florida’s Proposed Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) • AMO-1, School Grade • Provides a comprehensive overview of the performance of the school including subgroup proficiency and student learning gains • AMO-2, Adequate Progress of Students in the Lowest- Performing 25% in Reading and Mathematics • Includes over representation of specific subgroups that are low-performing and focuses schools on raising their achievement and reducing achievement gaps

16. Florida’s Proposed Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) AMO-3, At-Risk Graduation Rate Target for High Schools Focuses on students entering high school below grade level, reducing achievement gaps, graduating these students on time, and readying them for career and college success. AMO-4, Statewide Grade Scale Adjustment Objective (GSAO) A progressive indicator that determines when it is time for the state to raise the rigor of the school grading standards or cut scores. This system will automatically adjust the school grade scale upward, thereby increasing the rigor of the system the following year.

17. Florida’s Proposed Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) • AMO-5, Participation and Performance in Accelerated Courses and Programs • Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Academic International Certificate in Education, Dual Enrollment, and Industry Certification • AMO-6, Comparison of Florida’s Student Performance to the Highest Performing States and Nations • National: NAEP outcomes for reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8 • International: TIMSS, PIRLS, PISA

18. Principle 3 Requirements • Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership through Educator Evaluation • Develop and adopt guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems • Ensure LEAs implement evaluation and support systems

19. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 3 • Evidence of the following guidelines: • Student Success Act – Senate Bill 736, 2011 • Florida Educator Accomplished Practices • Florida Principal Leadership Standards • Race to the Top MOU

20. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 3 • Implementation of revised evaluation systems is supported by: • Statewide guidelines in law and rule • Involvement of teachers and principals in redesign activities (district teams) • Technical assistance at Redesign Academies (111 days) • Optional state model for instructional practices portion • Value-added Model to measure student growth selected by stakeholder committee • Other Race to the Top resources and FLDOE technical assistance

21. Principle 4 Requirements • Reducing Duplication and • Unnecessary Burden • “The state agrees to evaluate and, based on that evaluation, revise its own administrative requirements to reduce duplication and unnecessary burden on districts and schools.”

22. Florida’s Proposal for Principle 4 • Paperwork Reduction Task Force (2005) • House Bill 7087 (2006) • Districts are surveyed annually • State compiles annual report • State provides technical assistance on paperwork reduction as needed