The State Board of Education held a one-day meeting on September 11, 2019. Like the Board’s previous meeting in July, the most significant items on the short agenda related to the state’s accountability system. Below you will find a summary of the key issues from the hearing followed by information on the regular hearing agenda items and waiver requests heard by the Board.
- California School Dashboard
The Board approved a method for incorporating the California Alternative Assessment (CAA) into the Academic Indicator, a modified method for calculating the Academic Indicator for DASS schools, and revised Cut Scores for the Graduation Rate Indicator. - Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Revisions
The Board provided CDE feedback on the most recent draft of LCAP template revision. - SBE Seeking Applications for State Commissions
The Board is currently looking to fill openings on the Instructional Quality Commission, Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, California Practitioners Advisory Group, and the Advisory Commission on Special Education.
California School Dashboard
At the September meeting, the Board approved a number of changes to the Dashboard in preparation for launch of the 2019 Dashboard.
Academic Indicator
In an effort to incorporate the assessment results of all students into the state accountability system, CDE has been working with stakeholder groups to develop a methodology for incorporating the CAA into the Academic Indicator. The CAA for English language arts/literacy (ELA) and mathematics is administered to the students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Performance on the Academic Indicator is currently based on “Distance from Standard,” or the distance between a student’s score on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments (SBAC) and the “Standard Met” Achievement Level threshold (i.e. the lowest SBAC scale score for Level 3). However, while students who take the SBAC are placed in one of four achievement levels, students taking the CAA are placed in one of three achievement levels.
As part of this work, CDE analyzed three methodologies for incorporating the CAA:
- Effect Size Approach
This methodology uses the standard deviations between the two assessments to standardize the student score into the units of the SBAC scale, ex. a CAA score that is 0.5 standard deviations from Level 3 is converted to the SBAC score that is 0.5 standard deviations from Level 3. - Middle-of-the-Range Approach
Under this methodology, a student’s CAA score would be substituted with the mid-range score point of the same SBAC achievement level, ex. a student that scored anywhere in Level 2 of the CAA for ELA would receive the midpoint score of the Level 2 range on the SBAC ELA. - Top-of-the-Range Approach
Under this methodology, a student’s CAA score would be substituted with the top score point of the same SBAC achievement level, ex. a student that scored in Level 2 on the CAA for ELA would receive the highest score of the Level 2 range on the SBAC ELA.
CDE ultimately recommended, and the Board approved, the Top-of-the-Range Approach for incorporating the CAA into the Academic Indicator. In rejecting the other two approaches, CDE found that the Effect Size Approach was difficult to communicate and understand and that its results could not be replicated at the local level. Furthermore, it found that the Middle-of-the-Range Approach resulted in sometimes lowering the score a student earned on the CAA and provided a more limited range of SBAC scores available for CAA conversions, compared to the Top-of-the-Range Approach. Alternatively, CDE found that the Top-of-the-Range Approach did not lower students’ earned scores and also took full advantage of three complete ranges of SBAC scores when converting CAA scores.
With the methodology approved, the 2019 Dashboard will now be the first time that both results from the CAA and the SBAC will be reflected in the Dashboard.
Graduation Rate Indicator (GRI)
At the July SBE Meeting, the Board adopted a combined four- and five-year graduation rate for the GRI. This new methodology will result in higher graduation rates and, as a result, the Board asked CDE to look into raising the “threshold” status score used to determine a school’s eligibility for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) under ESSA. The current “threshold” used is “less than 67%”, with schools with graduation rates under 67% being identified for CSI.
CDE ran simulations on two possible new threshold levels, 68% and 70%, using the 2018 Dashboard results. Under the 68% simulation, 41 additional schools would be identified for CSI. Under the 70% simulation, 62 additional schools would be identified for CSI. Based on these results, as well as the fact that the combined graduation rate only resulted in minimal increases to the state’s overall graduation rate, CDE recommended, and the Board approved, raising the “threshold” status score to “below 68%.”
With this new “threshold,” the Board will now need to approve new Status cut scores for both non-DASS and DASS schools to keep LEA and school eligibility for support consistent.
English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI)
CDE also provided an update to the Board on is current work around developing the state’s ELPI.
ELPAC Performance Levels
CDE is currently running data simulations, using English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) Summative Assessment results, to look at the feasibility of splitting the ELPAC Overall Performance Levels 2 and 3 for the ELPI. The intent behind such a split is to make sure that the ELPI accurately shows the “average growth trajectory” of English Learners (ELs) toward proficiency by creating enough ELPI levels to allow for an EL to progress to Overall Performance Level 4 on the ELPAC over a period of 5-7 years. CDE is looking at splitting both Level 2 and Level 3 into a Low Level and a High Level, for a total of 6 Overall Performance Levels.
Status Cut Scores
CDE is also running data simulations to explore options for setting Status Cut Scores for the ELPI, following an analysis of the 2018 ELPAC results that showed that as grade levels increased, the percent of students in overall proficiency Level 1 on the ELPAC also increased. As this trend was particularly evident in grades 9-12, CDE is considering establishing Status cut scores by grade span, for grades 1-8 and 9-12 separately. The Department is currently running date simulations on different grade spans to figure out the most appropriate methodology.
Differentiated Assistance
At the November SBE Meeting, CDE will recommend the Board approve, for the 2019 Dashboard only, the use of the “Very Low” ELPI Status for LCFF differentiated assistance and ESSA school assistance determinations. More information about this recommendation and CDE’s other efforts around the ELPI can be found in its August 2019 SBE Information Memorandum.
Dashboard Alternative School Status (DASS)
To make sure DASS schools are fairly evaluated, CDE has worked with the Alternative School Task Force to identify modified measures for certain indicators. Based on a recommendation from the Alternative School Task Force, the Board approved modified Status cut scores for the Academic Indicator for DASS schools, beginning with the 2019 Dashboard. The modified Status cut scores were recommended after a comparison of the current LEA distribution for Status and the distribution for DASS schools showed significant disparities. Under the current cut scores, 65% to 95% of DASS schools fall in the Very Low Status, compared to 5% to 20% of non-DASS school, depending on the grade level and subject.
The approved modified Status cut scores affect only the Very Low and Low status Status levels and are reflected in the tables below. With these new Status Cut Scores, more schools will now be categorized into the Low Status level, compared to the Very Low Status level under the current Cut Scores.
Approved DASS Cut Scores for ELA – Grades 3-8
| Status Level | Current Cut Scores for All LEAs and Schools | Approved Cut Scores for DASS Schools |
|---|---|---|
| Very Low | -70.1 points or lower | -125.1 points or lower |
| Low | -5.1 to -70 points | -5.1 to -125.0 points |
| Medium | -5 to +9.9 points | -5 to +9.9 points (no change) |
| High | 10 to 44.9 points | 10 to 44.9 points (no change) |
| Very High | 45 points or higher | 45 points or higher (no change) |
Approved DASS Cut Scores for ELA – Grade 11
| Status Level | Current Cut Scores for All LEAs and Schools | Approved Cut Scores for DASS Schools |
|---|---|---|
| Very Low | -45.1 points or lower | -110 points or lower |
| Low | -0.1 to -45 points | -0.1 to 110.0 points |
| Medium | 0 to 29.9 points | 0 to 29.9 points (no change) |
| High | 30 to 74.9 points | 30 to 74.9 points (no change) |
| Very High | 75 points or higher | 75 points or higher (no change) |
Approved DASS Cut Scores for Math – Grade 3-8
| Status Level | Current Cut Scores for All LEAs and Schools | Approved Cut Scores for DASS Schools |
|---|---|---|
| Very Low | -95.1 points or lower | -175.1 points or lower |
| Low | -25.1 points -95 points | -25.1 to 175.0 points |
| Medium | -25 points to less than 0 | -25 points to less than 0 (no change) |
| High | 0 to 34.9 points | 0 to 34.9 points (no change) |
| Very High | 35 points or higher | 35 points or higher (no change) |
Approved DASS Cut Scores for Math – Grade 11
| Status Level | Current Cut Scores for All LEAs and Schools | Approved Cut Scores for DASS Schools |
|---|---|---|
| Very Low | -115.1 points or lower | -185.1 points or lower |
| Low | -60.1 to -115 points | -60.1 to 185.0 points |
| Medium | -0.1 to -60 points | -0.1 to -60 points (no change) |
| High | 0 to 24.9 points | 0 to 24.9 points (no change) |
| Very High | 25 points or higher | 25 points or higher (no change) |
Despite approving these modified Status scores, CDE did not recommend corresponding new Change scores, stating that keeping the current Change cut scores emphasizes the accountability system’s expectations of continuous improvement.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Template
CDE is currently in the process of revising the LCAP Template and at the September Board Meeting, the Department presented the draft LCAP Template to the Board for feedback. The LCAP redesign was prompted by legislation from last year (AB 1840) that required the LCAP Template to be revised to make the information in the plan more accessible to parents and other stakeholders and to modify the manner in which information about actions to help unduplicated students is presented so that it more clearly shows whether those services are being targeted or provided on a broader basis.
The proposed revised LCAP Template includes changes to make the language in the plan understandable to parents, allow LEAs to prioritize state priorities, consolidate expenditures into summary tables, and require additional information about the scope of actions meant to increase or improve services for unduplicated students. The draft LCAP template presented to the Board can be found here.
A number of individuals raised concerns during public comment on the item around the proposed Template’s pieces on stakeholder engagement and services for unduplicated students being too general and not requiring LEAs to provide sufficient details about their efforts in those areas. Specifically, commenters were seeking the inclusion of specific prompts tied to these pieces to better ensure LEAs provide necessary information in their LCAPs. ex. requiring an LEA to show how feedback received through its stakeholder engagement process is reflected in the LCAP.
While Members noted that the proposed Template was a “huge improvement” over the current template, they also sympathized with the concerns raised during public comment. Member Rucker reiterated the sentiment from commenters that the LCAP could do more to create “a clear outline of what the work of the district would be and what the goals of the district are,” and that there was nothing wrong with the LCAP going above and beyond what was required in statute. Multiple Members also encouraged CDE to revisit the Template’s stakeholder engagement piece to make sure that it reflects meaningful engagement of stakeholders and that it helps move LCAPs away from the compliance document it appears to have become.
The revised LCAP Template must be adopted by January 2020 and will go into effect beginning the next three-year LCAP cycle, 2020-21 through 2022-23. The expectation is that the Template will be brought back for adoption at the November State Board Meeting, in order to allow districts sufficient lead time to transition to the revised Template and to make sure CDE can provide guidance and support to districts during the transition.
Additionally, the Template presented to the Board does not include instructions. Instructions for the revised Template, which will include more detailed and technical directions and guidance for completing the LCAP, will be developed by CDE based on the finalized Template and included in an October information memorandum for stakeholder feedback. The instructions would then be presented to the Board for adoption at its November meeting along with the revised template.
Open Commission Applications
The Board also announced that a number of state commissions are currently seeking applications for new members, including:
- Instructional Quality Commission (IQC)
The SBE is seeking applications for three appointments from currently practicing teachers and/or leaders with experience and expertise in arts, health/physical education, mathematics, and world languages. Application Deadline: October 9, 2019 at noon. - Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS)
The SBE is seeking to fill all positions on the ACCS. Applications must currently meet one or more of the following categories: school district superintendent, charter school, teacher, parent/guardian, school district board member, or county superintendent of schools. Application Deadline: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. - California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG)
The SBE is seeking applications to fill four positions on CPAG, to provide input to the SBE on ongoing efforts to establish a single coherent local, state, and federal accountability system. Applicants must currently meet one or more the following practitioner categories: representative of an authorized public chartering agency, educational researcher, specialized instructional support personnel and paraprofessional, or a teacher from traditional public school. Application Deadline: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 5 p.m. - Advisory Commission on Special Education (ACSE)
The SBE is seeking to fill one position on the ACSE. Strong preference will be given to parents of a child or young adult with disabilities and all applicants must provide evidence of demonstrated knowledge of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laws and regulations. Application Deadline: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 5 p.m.
Applications and additional information for all of the openings listed above can be found here.
SBE Agenda Items and Waiver Requests
Information on the other items heard by the Board can be found here. In addition, there were a number of waiver requests discussed at the hearing.
The full SBE meeting agenda can be found here.
CCIS participates in the DASS board development. If you have any concerns you would like to have shared with the task force, please email Mkilgore@ocde.us and we will take those concerns to the next meeting.