ESSA Workgroups Meet: School Improvement

This is the third of four posts regarding the ESSA workgroups meeting in Oregon to create Oregon's new system under ESSA. These are summaries released from each workgroup. Today we post the School Improvement Workgroup's recap/next steps.   More on the fourth workgroup to come.

School Improvement Workgroup:
Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going
WHERE WE’VE BEEN
The School Improvement Workgroup has been charged with developing a proposed framework of supports for schools identified for comprehensive and targeted improvement as well as developing a proposed framework for determining how and when schools will exit identification. To accomplish this, the group established a common understanding of the various stages of Oregon’s current improvement cycle and the impact on schools currently undergoing improvement efforts.

Work Group Progress
The workgroup has developed strong frames around the need to remove the stigmatization of schools identified for additional supports. This requires balancing a level of flexibility and differentiated approaches that embrace the various contexts for schools and districts as well as holding parties accountable for significant and sustained improvement.
There is also consensus within the group that “school improvement” should not be limited to Federally mandated requirements and that there is great opportunity to go above and beyond the minimum.

Ongoing Discussions
At the April 26th meeting, workgroup members engaged in discussions focusing on the four major areas of the improvement cycle and discussed guiding principles that might be incorporated into Oregon’s next iteration of its improvement process. Each major area was framed by essential questions and considerations.

Identification: How might schools be identified for improvement supports? Guiding principles discussed were:

•   *Inclusion of data that include measures of teacher quality / effectiveness
•   *Multiple measures of student achievement / academic performance (not just Smarter
     Balanced)
  
•   *Broader data around school climate and culture (TELL or similar collection)
  
•   *Measures that compare how schools / districts serve and support underserved student
     populations, noting the current model compares academic peers, but does not compare
     similar underserved student populations in the same manner
  
•   *School-level measures that lead to district identification for improvement supports
  
  Diagnostic Review and Planning: What role might ODE / LEAs play in the diagnostic review / needs assessment? What are the opportunities and barriers in conducting high- quality, in-depth diagnostic reviews? How might stakeholders be meaningfully and productively engaged in the review process? Guiding principles discussed were:
  
•   
•  *Diagnostic review is the key to success – more authentic review yields better plans
•   *Stronger input and engagement from teachers in planning and implementation
  
•   *More engagement from community stakeholders throughout the process
  
•   *More engagement from school boards and superintendents including active participation
     in the review, planning and monitoring processes
  
•   *Alignment of state expectations, district plans and actions, and school plans and actions
  

Monitoring: What (additional) data might be used for in-year / implementation monitoring? What resources might be developed in order to support improvement efforts? How might plans be evaluated and approved on an annual basis? Guiding principles discussed were:

•   *Emphasis on district and school interim monitoring plans
  
•   *Differentiated financial resources based on monitoring routines and outcomes
  
•   *Reduce paperwork / burden to submit updates and reports
  
•   *Review of systems working together: teacher observation / evaluation  assessment 
     RTI / PBIS  climate / culture
  
•   *Stronger development of implementation evidence – What will this look like when it’s
  working?
  
  Exit Criteria and Progressive Interventions: How might we define improvement? Does exit criteria need to mirror identification criteria? Can schools exit improvement status before the end of the identification period? How might we support sustained improvement? What might progressive interventions include for schools who do not demonstrate improvement? Guiding principles discussed were:
  

•   *The desire to “exit” is based on the punitive / shaming stigma; if there’s no stigma,       districts / schools might not want to exit
  
•   *Schools who demonstrate improvement should be able to exit with continued financial supports
  
•   *The notion of “what gets you in, gets you out” works with some added flexibility / adaptability
  
•   *Schools should create portfolios of evidence to establish improvement and change
  
•   *Broader indicators than identification – test scores might get a school identified, but
  more should be required to establish improvement
  
•   *Multiple indicators aligned to systems health / improvement
  
•   *Stronger ties to educator effectiveness and instruction
  
  WHERE WE’RE GOING
  At our May 18th meeting, the School Improvement Workgroup will continue to engage in discussions focusing on the various elements of the improvement process including further refinement of the principles discussed in April. Additionally, the workgroup will engage in discussions on some of the federal requirements and flexibility with set-aside funds to support direct services to students.
  
  By the end of the day, we hope to have some strong proposals for frameworks in each of the four areas as well as clear proposed actions for direct services to students. This process will continue through our final meeting on June 28th.
  

You can read the update from the Accountability work group . Read the Standards and Assessment update . 

ESSA Workgroups Meet: Standards and Assessment

This is the second of four posts regarding the ESSA workgroups meeting in Oregon to create Oregon's new system under ESSA. These are summaries released from each workgroup. Today we post the Standards and Assessment Workgroup's recap/next steps.   More on the other workgroups to come. 

Standards & Assessment Workgroup: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going
WHERE WE’VE BEEN
The Standards & Assessment Workgroup has been charged with considering how best to support districts in implementing the state’s rigorous content standards and how best to tailor our state’s assessment system to meet both the requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the needs of students and educators to improve student outcomes throughout students’ PK-20 experience.

Work Group Progress
The Standards & Assessment Workgroup identified a long-term vision for how Oregon’s assessment system can best meet the needs of all students and reached a shared understanding of the purpose of different types of assessments:
 
*Our Long-Term Vision: To most effectively ensure the right fit of assessment tools to the desired outcome, we need a comprehensive and balanced assessment system that includes formative and interim assessments to inform student-level instructional decisions in addition to our current summative assessments that measure systems-level outcomes. To get there we need:
o More time, professional development, and state support around formative and interim assessment practices (not tied to systems accountability)
o Reduced emphasis (and time spent) on the statewide summative assessment (supports systems accountability)

*Summative Assessments (such as Oregon’s current statewide tests) are designed to determine how much knowledge and skills groups of students (e.g. programs, schools, districts, and states) have acquired over a long period of time and are administered after instruction has occurred. These assessments are primarily used for systems (e.g., schools and districts) accountability purposes but may also be used in some instances to measure student-level outcomes.

 *Interim assessments are designed to determine the progress of groups of students based on focused elements of content. While their structure may be similar to summative assessments, they typically focus on a narrower set of content or skills and are administered periodically throughout the year (e.g., at the end of a particular unit).

*Formative assessments are a process that supports learning and is used while a student is still engaged in instruction. Formative assessments are often thought of as assessments for learning rather than assessments of learning.

Ongoing Discussions

At the April 26th meeting, workgroup members engaged in break-out discussions focusing on the following areas for short- or near-term action to help us realize our long-term vision for Oregon’s statewide assessment system:

 *Standards Implementation Resource Needs

At our April 26th meeting, this breakout discussion focused on:
o Ways to increase stakeholder engagement in the creation, revision, and review of standards during the adoption process
o Remaining implementation gap that exists for Oregon’s adopted standards

 *High School Flexibility
At our April 26th meeting, this breakout discussion focused on:
o Implications for ensuring equitable opportunities (not just equal opportunities) and accessibility supports for all students, regardless of which assessment their district administers
o Implications of offering flexibility to higher education entrance and/or placement determinations
o Implications for reducing the summative assessment testing footprint
o Implications for transparency and comparability across school districts
o Values we want to ensure are reflected in the evaluation process should Oregon
decide to approve additional assessments for high school flexibility  
*Accessibility Support Needs
At our April 26th meeting, this breakout discussion focused on:
o Implications for students in poverty, not just students with disabilities or ELs o The need to ensure that test content is culturally familiar for all students
 *Summative Assessment Administration Policies
At our April 26th meeting, this breakout discussion focused on:
o Ways to possibly reduce test length / testing time for individual students
o Possibly shifting the high school grade of accountability from grade 11 to grade
10, or alternatively providing an early testing option for eligible 10th graders
o Possibly allowing eligible students to target down to an earlier grade for those
students for whom the grade-level assessment is too rigorous and the alternate
assessment is not appropriate
 *Formative & Interim Assessment Resource Needs
At our April 26th meeting, this breakout discussion focused on:
o The need to build capacity for formative and interim assessment practices so
they play a larger role than summative assessment in Oregon’s statewide
assessment system
o The need for including educators in the local development and scoring of
interim assessments
o The implications of incorporating interim assessments into Oregon’s
accountability system down the road

WHERE WE’RE GOING
At our May 18th meeting, the Standards & Assessment Workgroup will continue to engage in break-out discussions focusing on the following areas for short- or near-term action:

•   *Standards Implementation Resource Needs
  
•   *High School Flexibility
  
•   *Summative Assessment Administration Policies
  
•   *Formative & Interim Assessment Resource Needs
  
  Given the overarching impact and importance of accessibility across these areas, accessibility will be discussed in each of these breakouts moving forward rather than as a stand-alone breakout group. As the discussions in each of these four breakout areas evolve, the full workgroup will have opportunities to share with one another across breakout discussion areas. By the end of the day, we hope to begin formulating considerations for how best to build out Oregon’s statewide assessment system through our State Plan and our implementation of ESSA. This process will continue through our final meeting on June 28th.