Nevada Department of Education www.doe.nv.gov

1. Nevada’s Education Performance System: Measuring and Supporting PreK-16 SuccessAn Overview of the state’s next generation accountability and support system, as approved through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver Nevada Department of Education www.doe.nv.gov

2. These Slides Describe… • Nevada stakeholder engagement in creating a values-based next generation education performance system for the state • The three content areas addressed in NV’s ESEA waiver application • The Education Performance System now in place for Nevada • How school performance will be assessed and labeled under the new Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) and per federal requirements for Reward, Focus, and Priority Schools • How needs will drive services at the state, district, and school level through a Response to Intervention (RTI) philosophy • How schools will be supported and rewarded through a “loose-tight” paradigm of autonomy and management • The relationship of educator effectiveness to student performance • The interconnectedness of state, district, and school efforts to support student learning

3. The Purpose of Nevada’s new Education Performance System • Preparing every student to be college and career ready is achieved through effective instruction and the systems that support it. Through the opportunity to seek flexibility from the requirements of No Child Left Behind (i.e., ESEA Waiver), Nevada has created a new Education Performance System to achieve this goal.

4. The Need for Change • The system under NCLB did not adequately support every Nevada student to be college and career ready, nor were Nevada core content standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics sufficiently rigorous to prepare students to graduate ready for 21st century success. • Under NCLB, student improvement (growth) was not reported or used to judge school success, and schools were judged to be either failing or succeeding, without attention to the nuances of any school challenges. • The AYP-based accountability model didn’t help schools, districts, and the state to systemically prioritize school and district supports and rewards, nor were those supports routinely aligned to data-driven needs.

5. The New Education Performance System • To increase expectations for Nevada students, the Common Core State Standards were adopted for English Language Arts and Mathematics. The CCSS expect students to master more rigorous content, and to develop skills in problem-solving and to deepen their abilities to meaningfully think about their thinking and learn about the ways they learn • The new performance system is built upon locally determined values, and is designed to be fair, credible, defensible, accurate, feasible, and transparent. • Nevada’s System now looks at student performance in a number of areas, using multiple measures of student data including student growth, proficiency, graduation rates, college and career readiness, and attendance rates. • Through the Education Performance System, supports for schools will be prioritized and resources will be aligned based on identified priorities as established through data-driven needs. • The System is designed to support the alignment of PreK-12 standards, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, personnel evaluation, and professional development.

6. Nevada’s New Education Performance System, continued • The Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) is an integral component of the Education Performance System, shifting the state away from AYP, to a five-star classification approach, with each school earning a rating of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars. • For elementary and middle schools, star ratings in the NSPF are based on student growth, proficiency, subpopulation performance gaps, and other indicators. High school ratings are based on student proficiency, subpopulation performance gaps, growth, graduation, career and college readiness, and other indicators. • For all schools, the NSPF will provide actionable feedback to schools and districts to help determine if current practices are aligned to improve educational outcomes for students. • The NSPF increases the focus on student subpopulations, lowering the minimum student n-size from 25 to 10. When a school has fewer than 10 students who receive free and reduced lunch (FRL), are English language learners (LEP), or have disabilities (IEP) subgroups, the students are combined to create a “supergroup,” allowing the school to be held accountable for more students than under AYP.

7. Nevada’s New Education Performance System, continued • In addition to star ratings, a small number of schools have also been designated as Focus Schools or Priority Schools. • Focus schools are those Title I schools with challenges in the achievement of one or more subsets of students, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and/or students receiving free and reduced lunch. • Priority Schools are those Title I schools with very low graduation rates and/or low performance for all groups of students.

8. Main Components of the New System Three Waiver Principles: • College and Career Readiness as undergirded by Common Core State Standards & measured through Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium • Identifying, Rewarding, and Supporting School Performance • Measuring and Supporting Educator Effectiveness

9. Accountability Has Not Been “Waived” • The Waiver allows for a new system of accountability, built on multiple measures, to support student readiness for college and career • The performance of more students is captured under the new system • This next generation accountability system will increase accountability to yield greater student performance

10. Nevada Application Development— Stakeholder Engagement — • Specialized Committees Formed • Accountability Redesign Committee (47 members; 17 districts invited; higher education; Charter Authority) • Waiver Core Group (large, medium & small districts, charter authority, higher education) • Feedback and Input • Teachers, administrators, parents, advocates, community members, higher education, policy makers • Face-to-face and phone meetings with organizations & entities • Presentations at established meetings and conferences • Phone conversations and email exchange of documents and ideas • Statewide Survey with more than 1500 responses

11. Nevada Application DevelopmentFormal Organizations Engaged • Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) • Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA) • Latin Chambers of Commerce • Nevada Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) • Parent Teacher Association (PTA) • Nevada Teachers and Leaders Council • Nevada Governor’s Office • Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) • State Board of Education • Nevada State Education Association • Nevada Association of School Superintendent (NASS) • Title III & Special Education District Administrators • Native American Tribal Leaders • Title I Committee of Practitioners • State Public Charter School Authority

12. Cornerstone Values for Nevada’s Education Performance System • Underlying Values upon which system is built: • credibility, defensibility, fairness, accuracy, feasibility, transparency • Nevada’s next generation accountability system is: • coherent, with systems alignment to ensure interdependent functionality; • actionable, providing feedback to support effective instruction; • focused on narrowing achievement gaps; • built with growth as a priority measure; • supportive of college- and career- readiness; • differentiated for school supports and rewards following a “loose-tight” paradigm for empowerment and management of school performance; and • purposeful in engaging and reinforcing stakeholders in system design and implementation

13. Theory of Action Guiding Nevada’s Education Performance System • The purpose of public education in Nevada is to meet the learning needs of all students in order to prepare them to be college- and career-ready. • This purpose is supported by an integrated and comprehensive accountability system, which has two essential aims – to ensure educators meet professional responsibilitiesand to support capacity building. • The system achieves this goal through alignmentof PreK-12 standards, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, personnel evaluation, and professional development.

14. Nevada Education Performance System Principle 1— College & Career Readiness

15. High Expectations for 21st Century Citizenship • Mastering Reading, Writing & Mathematics is an essential foundation for college and career readiness • To increase expectations for Nevada students, the Common Core State Standards were adopted for English Language Arts and Mathematics • Common Core State Standards (CCSS) provide for: • More rigorous content than Nevada standards • Development of strong skills in problem-solving • Deepened abilities for students to meaningfully think about their thinking and learn about the ways they learn

16. Supporting CCSS for Diverse Learners • Some learners need focused supports to master rigorous content, so Nevada partnerships include: • World-Class Instructional Design & Assessment (WIDA) Standards for English Language Learners (ELL) • National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) GSEG for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities • CCSS Timeline can be found at: https://bighorn.doe.nv.gov/sites/CommonCore/default.aspx

17. Nevada-Specific Efforts for College & Career Readiness • The State Board of Education has adopted a regulatory definition of College Readiness • See Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) §389.830 • An Advisory group is meeting fall 2012 to inform the definition of Career Readiness and perhap expanding the College Readiness definition • Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Stakeholder Committee & Subgroups are being operationalized • Nevada successfully competed for a Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) Grant to support literacy efforts • Four districts successfully competed for targeted support: Clark, Douglas, Lyon, and Washoe • Statewide resources will be developed through the grant

18. Assessing Mastery of Common Core • Two national consortia exist to assess students’ performance in Common Core State Standards (CCSS) • Student performance will still be assessed in grades 3-8; 11 • Nevada is a Governing State in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium • Nevada stakeholders help in test development • Nevada administrators influence policy in the development and rollout of the Smarter Balanced tests • Coordination exists with higher education for assessing college readiness & preparing teachers

19. Nevada Education Performance System — Principle 2 — Classifying and Supporting School and District Performance

20. Main Elements: Identifying, Rewarding and Supporting School Performance • NV School Performance Framework (NSPF) • Shift from Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to multiple measures of student achievement • Five Star School Classification System for all schools • Identification of Reward, Focus, and Priority Schools per Federal Requirements • Recognizing School Success • Reinforcing & Supporting Improvement • State, Districts, Schools, Students

21. Shift from AYPto the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) • School index approach Several indicators, that when combined, demonstrate a whole picture of the school’s success The sum of the parts is greater than the whole

22. Characteristics of the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) • The framework values Growth and Proficiency • Elementary and middle school analysis on growth, proficiency, subpopulation performance gaps, and other indicators • High school analysis on proficiency, subpopulation performance gaps, growth, graduation, career and college readiness, and other indicators • Weighted formula to assign schools a point-based rating • 100 point index = basis of accountability reporting for all schools

23. Elementary and Middle Schools— Index Point Weighting —

24. Subpopulation Considerations • Focused Attention on Subpopulations • Minimum N-Size changed from 25 to 10 • Statistical reviews will exist to ensure reliable classification • When N-size not met for FRL, LEP or IEP subgroups, analysis is made using “supergroup” • Supergroup is a combination of these three subgroups • Within the supergroup, students are counted one time (i.e., not a duplicative count) • If any 1 of 3 subgroups is less than 10, a supergroup is created, even if 1 or 2 both others are more than 10

25. A Note About Race/Ethnic Groups • AYP required analysis of ELL, IEP, FRL and each race/ethnic group • NV School Performance Framework (NSPF) doesn’t calculate star ratings on ethnicity, because data show that poverty is the biggest issue affecting students in minority groups • Data will still be disaggregated and attention paid to performance by student ethnicity

26. OR SGP = Student Growth Percentiles AGP = Adequate Growth Percentiles ADA = Average Daily Attendance Elementary and Middle Schools Index Point Distribution

27. High School Index Point Weighting

28. OR OR SGP = Student Growth Percentiles; AGP = Adequate Growth Percentiles; ADA = Average Daily Attendance High School Index Point Distribution

29. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) — for Reporting & Planning • AMOs Built into Performance Ranges in NSPF Index • Ranges of performance determine point values for each indicator within the NSPF • Range of values related to highest and lowest ends mitigate misclassification of points • Rigorous but attainable targets for each indicator are set based on Statewide descriptive statistics • Unlike NCLB, evidence exists that schools can meet these targets

30. Other Indicators • Technical Advisory Group (TAG) has been created to help shape a list of options • NV Dept. of Education & School District Personnel • Districts will be able to apply to substitute one (or possibly more) additional other indicator • Possible examples for illustrative purposes: • School climate, family engagement, others…

31. Classifying Schools • Priority, Focus, Reward Schools • Federally required • Nevada School Performance Framework • 5-Star classification system developed by Nevada

32. Reward, Focus, and Priority Schools • Federal Requirements prevail for identification • Proficiency rates & improvements in proficiency rates • Priority & Focus schools identified using 2010-2011 data & announced in waiver application • Focus schools implement interventions no later than November 30, 2012 • Priority school implement turnaround principles in 2013-2014 school year • Only identified every three years

33. Priority, Focus and Reward Schools • Priority Schools (total of 9) • Bottom 5% based on proficiency and growth • Focus Schools (total of 24) • Subpopulation gaps; not whole school failure • Reward Schools (total of 6) • High proficiency and/or high growth • Not a complete alignment to 5-Star rating system due to rigid federal definitions • Some parallel identification components • Similar school support mechanisms in place

34. School Classifications: NSPF • Schools grouped from highest to lowest in terms of index values • Five-Star Schools: school index values at 90th percentile • Four-Star Schools: 75th to 89th percentile range • Three-Star Schools: 25th to 74th percentile range • Two Star-Schools: 5th to 24th percentile range • One Star-Schools: less than 5th percentile range To mitigate misclassification of schools due to measurement variations, NSPF provides for conservative identification of 5-Star and 1-Star schools

35. NSPF Rollout • All schools rated 1-5 stars based on index scores • Currently defining business rules • Making sure system operates as intended • Addressing special schools (correctional, sped, tiny n sizes) • NSPF will be beta tested fall 2012 • Five star ratings launched publicly February 2013 • Similar construct to Clark County School Performance Framework • With some differences in the index point weightings

36. Differentiated Supports & Rewards Response to Intervention Orientation - Needs Drive Support

37. “Loose-Tight” Paradigm Managed Performance Empowerment ★★★★★ ★ One-Star Schools Five-Star Schools

38. Managed Performance Empowerment • Greater degrees of autonomy provided to schools with demonstrated achievement of targets • Increasing levels of managed support provided to schools with demonstrated needs for improvement • Loose-tight paradigm allows for concentration of resources where identified needs exist

39. School Supports: NSPF Ratings • Core instructional supports for all schools • School-level Response to Intervention (RtI) Systems • Statewide literacy initiative supported through Nevada Striving Readers where applicable • Expansion of Coaching and Mentoring through SEA and LEA initiatives • School Improvement Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring, with degree of autonomy dependent on five-star ranking

40. School Supports: Focus Schools • 24 Title I served schools with significant subpopulation performance gaps • District leadership & NDE determine intensive interventions based on data - summer/fall 2012 • Interventions starting no later than 11/30/12 • NCCAT-S and other data identify aligned interventions • Targeted professional development for school staff; and/or • Coaching and mentoring to support implementation of professional development; and/or • Targeted technical assistance to support effective resource alignment and administrative practices

41. School Supports: Priority Schools • 4 current School Improvement Grant (SIG) schools • 4 Title I- eligible High Schools with <60% graduation • 1 school among the lowest 5% of title I-served schools • Improvement models selected and implemented • Turnaround, transformation, closure, restart • Aligns with lessons learned from implementation of efforts in School Improvement Grant (SIG) schools

42. NSPF School Rewards • Autonomy in school improvement planning • Public recognition • Pay for performance • Financial incentives • Flexibility in decision making on budgeting, use of allocations, implementation of core instruction • Highly effective professional development to transform instructional and leadership practices

43. NSPF School Supports • Understanding of policies and practices influencing performance, via research-based needs assessment • Implementation of uniform school improvement planning process for schools (SAGE), with tiered support • Sanctioned interventions for schools based on need • Leadership development for turnaround principals and district & state administrators • Comprehensive monitoring of school improvement through diagnostic school reviews

44. NV School Performance Framework (NSPF)Recognition, Supports, and Interventions 5-Star Schools • Autonomy in school improvement planning, creating a 5-Star Performance Plan • Flexible use of allocations within parameters of school board policies • Site based decision making on use of core instructional materials • Pay for performance/financial incentives • Public recognition

45. NV School Performance Framework (NSPF)Recognition, Supports, and Interventions 4-Star Schools • Autonomy in school improvement planning with school district review, creating a 4-Star Performance Plan • District to school negotiated flexibility between school district and school in use of allocations • Site based decision making on use of core instructional materials • Pay for performance/financial incentives • Public recognition

46. NV School Performance Framework (NSPF)Recognition, Supports, and Interventions 3-Star Schools • Participation in statewide Student Achievement Gap Elimination (SAGE) school improvement planning process, creating a 3-Star Improvement Plan • District to school negotiated flexibility in use of allocations • Negotiated flexibility between school district and school with core instructional materials • Optional visits to model sites • Public recognition, when appropriate (for example even though total school performance may not be exceptional, there will be schools in which specific interventions have demonstrated improvement among one or more subpopulations and these will be recognized and promoted to support scale up in other schools as well as to reinforce success at the recognized school)

47. NV School Performance Framework (NSPF)Recognition, Supports, and Interventions 2-Star Schools   • Participation in statewide SAGE school improvement planning process, creating a 2-Star Improvement Plan • Required engagement of district leaders to support school in uniform school improvement planning and monitoring of implementation through the NDE’s established eNOTE system (i.e., WestEd Tracker platform) • District prescribed use of core instructional materials • District prescribed scheduling • Collaboration with districts and local educational associations to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and engage national resources for school turnaround • Required visits to model sites and provision of embedded professional development that aligns with strategies, including coaching and mentoring if determined necessary through data analysis • Differentiated supports negotiated by the NDE and the LEA, with a focus on capacity building of school and LEA educational leaders

48. NV School Performance Framework (NSPF)Recognition, Supports, and Interventions 1-Star Schools • Participation in statewide SAGE school improvement planning process, creating a 1-Star Improvement Plan • Required engagement of district leaders to support school in uniform school improvement planning and monitoring of implementation through the NDE’s established eNOTE system (i.e., WestEd Tracker platform) • District prescribed use of core instructional materials • District prescribed scheduling • Collaboration with districts and local educational associations to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and engage national resources for school turnaround • Required visits to model sites and provision of embedded professional development that aligns with strategies, including coaching and mentoring if determined necessary through data analysis • Differentiated supports negotiated by the NDE and the LEA, with a focus on capacity building of school and LEA educational leaders, including engagement in University of Virginia school turnaround leadership program • Personnel changes including teaching faculty and/or leadership as recommended by LEA and approved by the NDE • Imposed turnaround principles • Reopening of schools using different delivery models • School closure based on chronic failure

49. District Implications • If a district has one or more identified Priority or Focus schools, or large proportion of 1 or 2 Star schools: • NDE will require implementation of the Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Districts (NCCAT-D) to assist in determining district capacity to meet the needs of its struggling schools

50. Elimination of SES and Choice • Supplemental Education Services (SES) and School Choice are no longer required • For students who began to access choice starting last year or earlier, district must continue to let student attend school of choice through the end of the school grade span • Payment for transportation costs no longer mandated