The Committee reviewed broad principles regarding the appropriate structure and characteristics of an accountability system, the measurement of which should provide a comprehensive picture of school quality; drive continuous improvement for all schools; build on strengths and address gaps in current system; and inform areas of technical assistance and school improvement resources.

 

The Committee emphasized that adequate and appropriate state support must be provided for academic outcomes to include achievement on assessments, graduation/school progress, and college and career readiness; as well as providing opportunities to learn including student participation and engagement, access to resources, and parent and teacher engagement.

 

The Committee reviewed mechanisms of accountability that involve reporting to the public and drive continuous improvement.  These mechanisms included:  school quality profiles, state accreditation, the federal Every Student Succeeds Act and the Standards of Quality.

 

If the Committee chooses to recommend the use of a matrix-based system to assess school quality, their feeling is that it must be based on multiple measures and help to drive continuous improvement.  This would require that more than a single school quality indicator be used and that schools be assigned performance levels for each measure.

 

In the process for defining school performance benchmarks, the Committee considered 3 important questions: 

1)    Does the benchmark reflect our objectives and expectations ---aspirational goals versus continuous improvement? 

2)    What are the unintended consequences? 

3)    How will we know if we are moving in the right direction?

 

 

The Committee continued its review of the concept of chronic absenteeism as an accountability measure, which would be defined as missing 18 days of school either excused or unexcused per year (or 10% of a 180 day school year).  

Draft criteria for a measure of chronic absenteeism, and cutoff points for 4 achievement levels were also reviewed as follows:  

The proposed changes in various enrollment criteria levels, including schools that would currently fall within each level were as follows:

 

•    Student is enrolled greater than 50% of the school year (coincides with ESSA threshold)

-    Level 1 Exemplar - 919 schools (50.33%)

-    Level 2 Monitor - 705 schools (38.61%)

-    Level 3 Guide - 158 schools (8.65%)

-    Level 4 Intervene - 44 schools (2.41%;

•    Student is enrolled greater than 30% of the school year

-    Level 1 Exemplar - 836 schools (45.78%)

-    Level 2 Monitor - 756 schools (41.40%)

-    Level 3 Guide - 187 schools (10.24%)

-    Level 4 Intervene - 47 schools (2.57%); and

•    Student is enrolled greater than 10% of the school year (basic level)

-    Level 1 Exemplar - 723 schools (39.59%

-    Level 2 Monitor - 826 schools (45.24%)

-    Level 3 Guide - 222 schools (12.16%)

-    Level 4 Intervene - 55 schools (3.01%).

 

The goal in utilizing the proposed changes in enrollment criteria would be for a 2% decrease in chronic absenteeism each year.  Currently, Virginia ranks 24th of 50 states in chronic absenteeism with a rate of 12.7% compared to a national average of 14.1%.

 

The Committee discussed the following student enrollment considerations for chronic absenteeism:

•    Enrollment calculations are cumulative

•    Are they aligned with federal accountability?

•    Lower thresholds for enrollment capture more transient students in more schools, which leads to questions about the availability of effective interventions for transient students.

 

Discussion by the Committee also addressed the following considerations for improvement criteria for chronic absenteeism:

•    Setting a meaningfully significant benchmark for improvement that ensures schools are not identified by chance;

•    Recognizing that chronic absenteeism rates vary widely from year to year; and

•    Noting that the benchmark for effective interventions is a 10% decrease in chronic absenteeism per year.

 

The Committee has received feedback from stakeholders requesting that consideration be given to students with chronic illnesses or medical needs that cannot be filled at the school.  It was noted that children receiving homebound instruction would not be considered chronically absent.

 

 

The Committee discussed what is involved in developing student achievement indicators.  The goals in developing achievement indicators include:  accurately reflecting student achievement; aligning important elements of achievement; ensuring that they are actionable at the school level; and making the indicators transparent and succinct.  

 

The Committee discussed the definitions of achievement, student growth, and English Learner progress.  Achievement was taken to mean measurement of a pass rate (with recovery) on state assessments for reading and writing, pass rate (with recovery on state assessments for math and pass rate on state assessments for science.  Student growth would involve year-over-year gains in reading based on progress tables and year-over-year gains in math based on progress tables.  Achievement for English Learner progress would be measured by year-over-year gains towards English proficiency based on ACCESS for ELLs assessment.

 

In developing achievement indicators, the Committee considered the following:

•    Combination rate gives equal weight to growth or progress among students who do not pass state assessments;

•    Students are only counted once in the numerator (recovery is the exception); and 

•    Achievement metrics can be reported individually for increased transparency.

 

The proposed achievement indicators considered by the Committee include:

•    Science pass rate:  accreditation pass rate and decrease in failure rate;

•    Math combination rate:  combination of accreditation pass rate with recovery, student growth (Grade 3 through Algebra I) and decrease in failure rate; and

•    English reading and writing combination rate:  combination of accreditation pass rate with recovery, student growth (Grades 3 through 8), English Learner progress and decrease in failure rate.

 

The Committee examined the following proposed achievement indicator criteria for science benchmark for the four levels to include the schools that would currently be at each level:

•    Level 1 Exemplar – Current year or 3-year average pass rate is 93% or higher - 247 schools (14.29%);

•    Level 2 Monitor – Current year or 3-year average pass rate is between 70% and 93% or School in Level 3 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 1,344 schools (77.78%);

•    Level 3 Guide – Current year or 3-year average pass rate is between 69% and 65% or School in Level 4 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 82 schools (4.75%); and

•    Level 4 Intervene – Current year average rate on state assessments in 65% or below.  School has stayed at criteria for Level 3 for more than 3 consecutive years - 55 schools (3.18%). 

 

The Committee also discussed the following proposed achievement indicator criteria for math benchmark selection achievement for the four levels to include the schools that would currently be at each level:

•    Level 1 Exemplar – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is 93% or higher – 310 schools (17.35%);

•    Level 2 Monitor – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is between 70% and 93% or School in Level 3 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 1,381 (77.50%);

•    Level 3 Guide – Current year 3-year average combination rate is between 69% and 65% or School in Level 4 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 48 schools (2.78%); and

•    Level 4 Intervene – Current year average combination 65% or below.  School has stayed at criteria for Level 3 for more than 3 consecutive years – 47 (2.72%).

 

Current and proposed rate calculations for math were compared resulting in the following:

•    Current Pass Rate

-    State Average 2015-16 – 82.87%

-    Level 1 Exemplar – 224 schools (12.54%)

-    Level 2 Monitor - 1,401 schools (78.44%)

-    Level 3 Guide – 68 schools (3.81%) 

-    Level 4 Intervene – 93 schools (5.21%)

•    Proposed Combination Rate (with Growth)

-     State Average 2015-16 – 84.70%

-     Level 1 Exemplar – 310 schools (17.35%)

-    Level 2 Monitor – 1,381 schools (77.50%)

-    Level 3 Guide – 48 schools (2.78%)

-    Level 4 Intervene – 47 schools (2.72%)

 

The Committee further considered the following proposed achievement criteria for English, reading and writing (75%) for the four levels to include the schools that would currently be at each level:

•    Level 1 Exemplar – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is 93% or higher 264 schools (14.78%);

•    Level 2 Monitor – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is between 75% and 93% or School in Level 3 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 1,325 schools (74.19%);

•    Level 3 Guide – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is between 74% and 65% or School in Level 4 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% - 160 schools (8.96%); and

•    Level 4 Intervene – Current year year average combination 65% or below.  School has stayed at criteria for Level 3 for more than 3 consecutive years – 37 schools (2.07%).

 

Currently, the pass rate for English, reading and writing is 75%.  The pass rate for all other subject areas is 70%, so the Committee compared the 75% benchmark and the 70% benchmark for English.  The results were as follows:

 

•    Current Pass Rate (75%)

-     State Average 2015-16 - 81.82%

-    Level 1 Exemplar – 191 schools (10.69%)

-    Level 2 Monitor – 1,239 schools (69.37%)

-    Level 3 Guide - 253 schools (14.17%)

-    Level 4 Intervene – 103 schools (5.77%)

 

•    Proposed Combination Rate with Growth and EL Progress

-     State Average 2015-16 – 84.43%

-    Level 1 Exemplar – 264 schools (14.78%)

-    Level 2 Monitor – 1,325 schools (74.19%)

-    Level 3 Guide – 160 schools (8.96%)

-    Level 4 Intervene – 37 schools (2.07%)

 

The Board further considered the proposed achievement indicator criteria for English, reading and writing (70%):

-    Level 1 Exemplar – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is 93% or higher - 264 schools (14.78%);

-    Level 2 Monitor – Current year or 3-year average combination rate is between 70% and 93%  or School in Level 3 the prior year decreases failure rate by 10% – 1,424 schools (79.73%)

-    Level 3 Guide –Current year or 3-year average combination rate is between 69% and 65% -  61 schools (3.42%)

-    Level 4 Intervene – Current year average combination 65% or below.  School has stayed at criteria for Level 3 for more than 3 consecutive years 37 schools (2.07%)

 

The benchmark comparison for English Reading and Writing Rate was as follows:

•    Proposed Combination: 75% Benchmark

-    Level 1 Exemplar – 264 schools (14.78%)

-    Level 2 Monitor – 1,325 (74.19%

-    Level 3 Guide – 160 schools (8.96%)

-    Level 4 Intervene – 37 schools (2.07%)

•    Proposed Combination Rate:  70% Benchmark

-    Level 1 Exemplar – 264 schools (14.78%)

-    Level 2 Monitor – 1,424 (79.73%)

-    Level 3 Guide – 61 schools (3.42%) 

-    Level 4 Intervene – 37 schools (2.07%)

 

The Board discussed the following considerations for achievement indicators:

•    Combination rate gives equal weight to growth or progress among students who do not pass state assessments;

•    Students are only counted once in the numerator (recovery is the exception); and

•    Achievement metrics can be reported individually for increased transparency.

 

 

There are 7 reporting groups in the achievement gap indicator; i.e., Asian, Black, Hispanic, Disabled, Economically Disadvantaged, White, and English Language Learners.  The number of reporting groups per school could vary year by year based at least in part on changes in group sizes.  

 

Committee discussion regarding achievement gaps included the following considerations:

•    Defining the gap—state benchmarks versus all students;

•    Focusing on size of gap or closing of gap, for all groups or certain groups;

•    Measuring change over time when number of reporting groups vary across schools and from year-to-year.

 

Methods under review include:

•    Average achievement gap across all reporting groups;

•    Achievement gap among de-duplicated count of students with historically large gaps; and

•    Largest achievement gap among all reporting groups.

 

At its April 27 meeting, the Committee will continue its discussion of achievement on assessments by focusing on achievement gaps.  A college and career readiness index will also be addressed at this meeting. 

 

 

 

The Board approved proposed draft Regulations Governing the Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Virginia for further action as governed by the requirements of the Administrative Process Act.  

 

There is anticipated to be a significant administrative impact on the Virginia Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Student Services as a high volume of public comment is likely to be received on this draft proposal. 

 

In addition, local school divisions and the Virginia Department of Education are both anticipated to incur significant costs in terms of training and reporting as a result of these draft changes.

 

The following is a summary of the changes made based upon guidance provided by the Board at its February 23, 2017, meeting:

 

Decision Point 1: “Seclusion” means the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving until the student no longer presents an immediate danger to self or others.

•    Approved Action:  DRAFT language was retained.

 

Decision Point 2: Definition of Seclusion – “Seclusion” means the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving until the student no longer presents an immediate danger to self or others.

•    Approved Action:  Language was modified to include that seclusion in this instance should be restricted to events such as those involving altercations, drugs, and weapons.

 

Decision Point 3:  Definition of Seclusion - Contains certain exceptions to the definition of seclusion; one of the exceptions contains the caveat “so long as the student is not physically prevented from leaving.

•    Approved Action:  Exclusions to the definition of seclusion apply so long as the room is not locked.

 

Decision Point 4:  Standards for Seclusion Rooms – Draft regulations included specifications on size of room, ability to monitor space, light fixtures and controls, materials, 

contents, etc.

•    Approved Action:  Eliminated the detailed specifications, but retained the concept of safety and dignity.  

 

Decision Point 5:  Prone and Supine Restraints -   Current draft bans both techniques.

•    Approved Action:  Language from the federal 15 Principles was included.

 

Decision Point 6:  Notification and Reporting to Parents – Current draft required that reasonable efforts be made to notify parents of an incident involving restraint or seclusion within one calendar day of the incident.

•    Approved Action:  Provided for reasonable effort to notify parent on the day of the incident.  

 

Decision Point 7:  Notification and Reporting – Incident Report Timing:  Draft required written report within two school days.

•    Approved Action:  Current language was retained.    

 

Decision Point 8:  Notification and Reporting – Content:  Draft required that the incident report address fifteen items.

•    Approved Action:  Items were included as examples, but not mandated.

 

Decision Point 9:  Notification and Reporting – Student Debriefing – Draft regulations required that the student and principal or designee meet to debrief about the incident.

•    Approved Action:  Current language was retained.

 

Decision Point 10:   Prevention; Use of Multiple Instances of Restraint and Seclusion – Non IEP/504 Students – Required that a school team convene after two incidents to consider, among other things, behavioral supports and the possibility of a referral for evaluation.

•    Approved Action:  Current language was retained.

 

Decision Point 11:  Prevention; Use of Multiple Instances of Restraint and Seclusion – Trigger – Current language requires debriefing after two instances of restraint and seclusion.

•    Approved Action:  Provided that the review occurs after the second school day on which restraint or seclusion occurs. 

 

Decision Point 12:  Training – Requires training for all school personnel (defined in the regulation in de-escalation, and the restraint and seclusion regulations; requires advanced training for personnel employed in self-contained special education settings.    

•    Approved Action:  Change was made to clarify that there must be initial training and that the training relates to personnel as defined in the regulation.

 

Additional approved revisions of significance include: 

•    Added clarity related to the intended scope of the regulation to the section on Applicability;

•    Moved definitions of permitted and prohibited actions to a single section to assist with clarity;

•    Added definition of corporal punishment because the previous draft cross-referenced the applicable code section, but did not include the wording from the statue;

•    Clarified that restraint and seclusion may be used, but only in accordance with the regulations;

•    Provided that school divisions must include within their policies provisions relating to the appropriate use of seclusion with regard to the student’s age and development for the purpose of allowing some local flexibility, but at the same time address concerns over issues such as differentiation among student groups as to the appropriate use and duration of seclusion;

•    Added additional means of parent notification, such as email to recognize that in person or telephonic notification may not always be possible;

•    Added the requirement that school divisions utilizing school resource officers enter into a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement addressing the use of seclusion and restraint by law enforcement in the school setting;

•    Provided that in developing policies and procedures, school divisions must give due consideration to the best practice of parent involvement;

•    Provided that one administrator and any other personnel providing services to student likely to be restrained or secluded must receive tier 2 or advanced training in order to more appropriately address the issue of which personnel should be required to receive advanced training; and

•    Excluded applicability of the regulations to the Department of Juvenile Justice in recognition of the agency’s unique circumstances.

 

The full text of the proposed Regulations Governing the Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Virginia (Proposed Stage) can be found at:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2017/03-mar/agenda-items/item-a.pdf.

 

 

The Board approved the Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure’s recommendation to revise the definitions of “at-risk of becoming low-performing” and “low-performing” institutions of higher education in Virginia as required by Title II of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA).  These changes will put Virginia in compliance with the Title II regulations that require all states to implement a system to assess the quality of each teacher preparation program. Title II federal reporting is required by states in October of each year.

 

 

The Board received a report on Fine Arts professional development initiatives.