Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

AAV of Prep: College, Career, Life & Leadership

Alternative Accessible Version (AAV) of the Preparing All Students for College, Career, Life, and Leadership in The 21st Century document by the Superintendent's Advisory Task Force on Accountability and Continuous Improvement.

This page is the Accessible Alternative Version (AAV) of selected portions of the Account Reports, FY 2016 document by the Superintendent's Advisory Task Force on Accountability and Continuous Improvement. This AAV represents pages 5,6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 30.

Page 5 of 41

THE PROPOSED NEW ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM: A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION

This graphic presents the core features of the proposed new Accountability and Continuous Improvement System. The full report uses this as a roadmap, with each component highlighted separately to explain each feature of the system –below is a summary description of each feature.

State and Federal Policy Context

Stakeholders and Communities

Schools and Districts; CDE, COEs, CCEE; Stakeholders and Communities; SBE, Legislature, U.S. ED.

Cycle of Continuous Improvement

Improvement and Shared Learning for All Districts and Schools

Focused Improvement Support

Intensive Improvement Support

School and District Indicators: Conditions and Outcomes for Equity (Disaggregated) and Performance (Aggregated).

Equitable Learning Conditions: Indicators demonstrating that schools and districts provide the supports and resources that will allow students to take advantage of educational opportunities and succeed in school (Disaggregated).

School and District Whole Child Outcomes: Indicators demonstrating the extent to which all children are healthy, safe, engaged, supported, challenged, and valued.

School and District Academic Outcomes: Indicators demonstrating the extent to which students achieve meaningful learning outcomes, including the acquisition of the knowledge, language, and lifelong learning skills needed to succeed in today’s world, as outlined by the California standards.

Aggregated, Disaggregated - Improvement Indicators

Foundation - California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Guiding Principles, California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Vision, The California Way and the Right Drivers.

This is expansion text.

Page 6 of 41

School and District Indicators

California seeks to develop a system that incorporates multiple measures to present a holistic picture of performance, equity, and improvement for schools, LEAs, and the state. The new system, rooted in and part of LCFF and LCAP, will examine school/district learning conditions to understand if the system is providing equitable resources and opportunities for all students. It will also examine academic and non-academic outcome indicators to understand student performance; and it will disaggregate these indicators by student groups as a measure of equity. The new system will examine the rate of improvement across these indicators as a means of highlighting and building on successful practices, and identifying where additional improvement support is needed.

Cycle of Continuous Improvement

California recognizes that its accountability framework is only helpful to the extent that it is integrally tied to a system of continuous improvement and support. By looking at measures of performance, equity, and improvement, with regard to both whole child and academic indicators, schools and districts will be able to self-identify their strengths, areas where support is needed, and where support is available within the greater ecosystem of peer learning. This will allow for a system of differentiated improvement supports at three levels that recognizes success and shares promising and successful practices between LEAs throughout the state.

Image is a table showing the cycle of continuous Improvement. Line 1: State and Federal Policy content Line 2: Stakeholders and Communities Line 3: Improvement and Shared Learning for all Districts and Schools Line 4: Focused Improvement Support Line 5: Intensive Improvement Support. Inner Square: School and District Indicators: Conditions and Outcomes for Equity and performance – Equitable Learning Conditions Arrow down to: School and District Whole Child Outcomes – Aggregated, Disaggregated, improvement Indicators Second Arrow down to: School and District Academic Outcomes - Aggregated, Disaggregated, improvement Indicators. On the side Roles: Schools and Districts, CDE, COE, CCEE, Stakeholders and Communities and SBE Legislation US EO. Bottom of table: Line 1: California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Guiding Principles Line 2: California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Vision Line 3: California Way and the Right Drivers.

Foundation

As a state, we seek to realize our vision to provide a world-class education for all students, from early childhood to adulthood, and prepare students to live, work, and thrive in a multicultural, multilingual, and highly connected world. We pursue rigorous learning and achievement in every classroom and every school.

We will embrace the California Way, which rests on the belief that educators want to excel, trusts them to improve when given the proper supports, and provides local schools and districts with the leeway and flexibility to deploy resources so they can improve.

To do this, California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System will:

Demonstrate a commitment to equity

Emphasize the importance of educating the whole child

Focus on building collaboration, engagement, and professional capital Recognize that improvement and learning are continuous

Value the knowledge and expertise of educators and communities

Rely on reciprocity and subsidiarity

Embrace students, parents, and families as critical   stakeholders Identify and recognize districts, schools, and classrooms that can serve as models and those that need support

The proposed system builds on State Board of Education guiding principles.

Roles

California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System must include clearly defined roles for federal, state, and local stakeholders. Each level of the system should be held responsible for the contributions it must make to support learning and development for every child.

Policy Makers: Policy makers at the state and federal level should establish policies and standards that support continuous improvement, set clear expectations for outcomes and improvement provide adequate resources, support the elimination of opportunity and achievement gaps, and foster innovation.

Stakeholders and Communities: One of California’s greatest assets is its large base of supportive and committed stakeholders. From advocates, professional organizations, unions, institutions of higher education, philanthropy, parent groups, community voices, business organizations, early learning and care, and beyond, this coalition of supportive stakeholders will be instrumental in the successful communication about, transition to, and implementation of this new Accountability and Continuous Improvement System.

The CDE, CCEE, and COEs: The State Superintendent of Public Instruction/CDE, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), and county superintendents of education

(COEs)—must work collaboratively to provide coordinated support for school accountability and continuous improvement. Additionally, the State Superintendent must take action if a school or district is unable to improve over time.

Schools and Districts: Schools and districts are at the center of California’s system. They must engage students, parents and caregivers, educators, and other stakeholders in school and district-level planning and support to ensure that all students are provided with meaningful opportunities to learn and contribute. They must implement instructional improvement strategies and marshal the financial and professional capital required to implement these strategies and improve student outcomes.

Page 7 of 41

FOUNDATION

The proposed Accountability and Continuous Improvement System rests on a foundation of a common vision, guiding principles, and a shared commitment to the "California Way."

The Task Force believes this foundation and the more detailed recommendations that follow, are aligned with and, in some cases, an extension of, the work being undertaken by the California State Board of Education (SBE) involving the development of LCFF Evaluation

Rubrics. This foundation will also support planning work to be undertaken for the ESSA state plan.

Image is a table showing the cycle of continuous Improvement. Line 1: State and Federal Policy content Line 2: Stakeholders and Communities Line 3: Improvement and Shared Learning for all Districts and Schools Line 4: Focused Improvement Support Line 5: Intensive Improvement Support. Inner Square: School and District Indicators: Conditions and Outcomes for Equity and performance – Equitable Learning Conditions Arrow down to: School and District Whole Child Outcomes – Aggregated, Disaggregated, improvement Indicators Second Arrow down to: School and District Academic Outcomes - Aggregated, Disaggregated, improvement Indicators. On the side Roles: Schools and Districts, CDE, COE, CCEE, Stakeholders and Communities and SBE Legislation US EO. Bottom of table: Line 1: California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Guiding Principles Line 2: California’s Accountability and Continuous Improvement System Vision Line 3: California Way and the Right Drivers.

Vision

In the same way that a classroom teacher starts each school year with a vision of what success will look like for his/her students, we began our design process by working on a shared vision. As a state, we seek to provide a world-class education for all students, from early childhood to adulthood, and prepare students to live, work, and thrive in a multicultural, multilingual, and highly connected world 5 The state's Accountability and Continuous Improvement System should help provide local educators and communities with the information and tools they need to engage in a process of continuous improvement, where collaborative planning, implementation, and analysis leads to ongoing adjustments to successfully address the diverse needs of all students. California's Accountability and Continuous Improvement System should:

Demonstrate a commitment to equity by ensuring that all student groups are visible in accountability and improvement efforts and setting goals for closing gaps. The system should provide clarity on gaps in achievement, opportunity, and access between student groups and provide tools to eliminate these gaps.6

Emphasize the importance of educating the whole child by using indicators from multiple domains. The system should include holistic and developmentally appropriate metrics to monitor progress towards preparing all students for college, career, life, and leadership in the 21st century.

Focus on building collaboration, engagement, and professional capital to ensure that educators have supports they need to improve student learning.

Recognize that improvement and learning are continuous and emphasize feedback loops with a focus on continuous improvement and quality throughout every level of the system.

Value the knowledge and expertise of educators and communities by relying on accountability and improvement plans that are locally driven and state supported.

Rely on subsidiarity and reciprocal accountability, holding every level of the system responsible for the contributions it must make to support learning for every child.7

5 Blueprint 2.0 Planning Team (2015).

6 The term "student group" refers to the student subgroups that are included in Local Control and Accountability Plans including socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, students with disabilities, and foster youth, disaggregated by race and ethnicity.

7 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "subsidiarity" represents the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

 

Page 15 of 41

Table 2: State-Required Indicators

ESSA Requirement25

Academic Outcomes

Academic achievement, as measured by proficiency on annual assessments

Recommended California lndicators26

CAASPP English language arts and mathematics scores in grades 3-8, inclusive, plus grade 11

Explanatory Notes

To be measured by scale scores reflecting both status and student growth over time. Scale SBAC scores would be broken down into different subjects (i.e. math and English) and reported by grade span (i.e. grades 3-5, 6-8,11)

ESSA Requirement25

High school graduation rates

Recommended California lndicators26

4-year Graduation rates plus an extended rate (5-and/or 6-year rate)

Explanatory Notes

At high school, including a 5- or 6-year graduation rate as well as 4-year rates (with at least equal weight) creates incentives for schools to keep / work with students with challenges.

ESSA Requirement25

Progress in achieving English language proficiency as defined by the State, within a State-determined timeline for all English Learners

Recommended California lndicators26

English Learner (EL) progress on state English Proficiency Assessment

Explanatory Notes

The State LCFF identifies progress toward English proficiency and reclassification rates. EL progress using scale scores on an EL proficiency measure is better for tracking the progress of all students, ensuring attention to the full range of EL students and their needs from those who are newcomers to those who are becoming and have become 'proficient.' Progress of ELs could be measured by a composite or by multiple indicators for English Learner progress, i.e. including long-time English learners and/or reclassification rates.

The Task Force recommends creating a new data marker of "English Learner re-designated" for reclassified ELs, as a means of capturing a fuller picture of student performance.

ESSA Requirement25

For public elementary schools and secondary schools that are not high schools in the State (I) a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the State; or (II) another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance.

Recommended California lndicators26

Growth measure27

Explanatory Notes

The Task Force encourages the SBE and CDE to research potential growth models for inclusion in the system. This should include both SBAC scores and growth across other indicators.

25 Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015.

26 From LCFF State Priorities, augmented to meet federal requirements.

27 The task force is not putting forth a specific way to measure growth, but recommends that that State Board of Education continue to research growth measure methodologies.

Page 16 of 41

Table 2: State-Required Indicators

ESSA Requirement25

Whole Child Outcomes

Not less than one indicator of school quality or student success that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance; is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide; and may include measures of student engagement, educator engagement, student access to and completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, school climate and safety, and any other indicator other State chooses that meets the requirements of this clause.

Recommended California lndicators26

• Suspensions/expulsion rates

• Statewide school climate survey

• Chronic absenteeism

• College & career readiness indicator

Explanatory Notes

Suspension and expulsion data are currently available and chronic absenteeism soon will be. Both are local measures of student access and engagement that help predict school achievement and high school graduation. The Task Force recommends that suspension/expulsion rates be utilized in conjunction with and tied to authentic programmatic work that builds positive school climate such as alternative discipline or restorative justice approaches.

A statewide school climate survey of students, parents, and teachers could include questions on course breadth and access; parental involvement; basic services; safety and social-emotional supports, teaching and administrative supports, and access to appropriate counseling services, nurses, and school psychologists.

A non-test based indicator of college and career readiness should measure the extent to which students complete courses and programs (completion of A-G, high-quality CTE sequences and internships) that support college and career readiness and the development of 21st Century skills such as collaboration, communication, problem-solving, and creativity.28 This could be reviewed in conjunction with other academic indicators as a means for holistically measuring the skills and abilities students need to be college and career ready.

28 The Task Force recognizes that there is not currently a state-adopted tool that measures 21st Century skills like collaboration, communication, problem solving, and creativity. These are qualities that can be evaluated through performance assessments. The Task Force recommends that the State Board of Education pilot and study performance assessments that can measure these competencies as they relate to college and career readiness.

Page 17 of 41

Table 3: State-Reported Indicators

Outcome Area

Academic Outcomes

College, career, and life readiness indicators

Recommended California lndicators

  • Students completing A-G; approved CTE sequence; or both
  • Students meeting college standard on AP / 1B / dual credit coursework
  • Physical fitness
  • Science assessment results, once each in grades 3-5; 6-8; 10-12 for a total of three times

Explanatory Notes

If completion of A-G, approved CTE sequences, or AB / 1B / dual credit coursework are not included in the state required college and career readiness indicator, they could be included here.

Physical fitness data are already collected by the state.

As science assessments develop, they could be considered by the SBE in the future as a potential addition to the required indicators.
Whole Child Outcomes

Student, Teacher, and Parent/Caregiver Engagement

• Attendance

• Student, teacher, and parent/caregiver surveys for measuring school climate

If attendance and school climate surveys are not included in the state required set of indicators, they could be included here.

School climate surveys could include a core set of questions used across the state with additional locally determined questions for local use. The California Healthy Kids Survey is an available tool for measuring school climate, and measures elements such as access to resources and programs, feelings of safety, and interaction with caring adults.

Equitable Learning Conditions

Opportunities to learn

• Teacher and administrator qualifications

• School facilities quality

• Access to curriculum materials

• Access to full curriculum

These are required under the Williams Case and/or LCAP.

Page 18 of 41

Table 4: State-Supported, Locally-Reported Indicators

State provides tools for schools or districts to choose and use at their option, potentially in collaboration with other partners and networks.

Recommended California lndicators

• Locally selected, developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate observational kindergarten readiness assessments29

  • Classroom embedded, authentic performance assessments
  • Social-emotional learning indicators
  • Parent Engagement

Explanatory Notes

As part of its effort to support local continuous improvement efforts, the state could develop and calibrate a library of tools and measures for voluntary use by LEAs and schools. Several of these may be available at the time of system launch (launch library po while others will require further time and resource investment (developmental library).31

CA has access to the Innovation Lab Network Performance Assessment Resource Bank that provides performance assessment tasks, rubrics, scoring protocols, and student work linked to CCSS and NGSS standards. These can be made available to schools, possibly as part of the SBAC Digital Library.

Assessments of social-emotional learning might also be used to measure 21st Century skills such as collaboration, communication, problem-solving, and creativity, and should be further studied by the SBE.

Table 5: Locally Designed and Reported Indicators

Locally determined indicators

  • Recommended California lndicators
  • Other locally designed indicators Other LCAP indicators for state and local priorities32

Explanatory Notes

Districts are not expected to allocate resources equally to each of the LCAP indicators but to select strategic goals and make resource allocations associated with those.

29 These are individually administered and open-ended. They should be used as information for teachers and schools to ensure their youngest students are receiving the culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate supports they need. Multiple validated kindergarten readiness support tools exist and may, in the short-term, be suitable for inclusion in the tool library. Appendix A provides a series of recommendations and considerations regarding early learning in the Accountability and Continuous Improvement System, including a set of questions pertaining to the use of Kindergarten Readiness Assessments.

30 The "launch library" could include: school climate surveys for students, parents and caregivers, and teachers ( e.g., California Healthy Kids Survey); tools for measuring implementation of the California Standards (CCSS, NGSS, etc.) including instructional materials, practices, training, etc.; and tools for measuring indicators of a rich, full curriculum that might include art, music, PE, science, social studies.

31 The "development library" could include: Kindergarten Readiness support tools (Early education/K-12 alignment); Early literacy assessment tools; High school graduation systems (Digital portfolio, capstone project, community service, assessment); and Social-Emotional Learning tools.

32 California's emerging accountability framework is grounded within a broader system of continuous improvement and support for LEAs and schools. By analyzing performance and performance improvement on multiple indicators and presenting that information in user-friendly formats, the LCFF evaluation rubrics will assist LEAs and schools in self identifying their strengths and weaknesses, where support is needed, and who is able to provide it.

Page 19 of 41

STATE SYSTEM INDICATORS

Table 6: Proposed State System Indicators

State Priority

Pupil Achievement and Engagement

Key Indicator

Aggregated School and District Indicators

Performance

Success for state as a whole on the state required and state reported indicators

Equity

Success for students with higher needs in the state as a whole on each of the state required and state reported indicators

Performance and opportunity gap closure

Improvement

Annual state gains, rate of gap closure

Rate of gains for students with higher needs

State Priority

Pupil Achievement and Engagement

Key Indicator

California Awards

Performance

Number of schools applying for /receiving awards

Equity

Awards for schools and LEAs serving high numbers of higher-needs students

Improvement

Annual state gains, rate of gap closure

Rate of gains (number receiving awards) for schools serving high numbers of higher-needs students

State Priority

Support for LCAP Development and Implementation

Key Indicator

Support Systems Indicators (COE, CCEE, COEs)

Performance

Promulgation of exemplars and promising/best practices and brokering of these and other resources, including technical assistance to districts

Effectiveness of supports to schools and districts, especially those serving high numbers of students with higher needs

Equity

Effectiveness of supports to schools and districts, especially those serving high numbers of students with higher needs

Equity and adequacy of resource distribution

Improvement

Growth in service and capacity (360° reviews)

Page 22 of 41

USING EACH SET OF INDICATORS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Table 8 shows how each indicator set should be utilized to inform and prompt continuous improvement supports appropriate for each level and dimension of the system, and Table 9 provides an outline of initial continuous improvement activities.

Table 8: Proposed Indicators by Set and Continuous Improvement Use

Indicator Set

State-Required

Primary Continuous Improvement Supporter

(Working in collaboration with school board members, teachers, classified staff, principals, administrators, other school staff, local bargaining units, parents and caregivers, and students)

California Department of Education (COE); California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE)

State-Reported

COE; CCEE; County Offices of Education (COEs)

State-Supported, Locally-Reported

COE; CCEE; COEs

Locally Designed and Reported

COEs, Districts

State System

State Board of Education (SBE), Legislature

Table 9: Key Elements of California’s Continuous Improvement System of Support

Tiers

All:

Build statewide systems of supports and capacity to promote continuous improvement across all schools and districts

How elevate equity?

Providing a full system of supports can help connect the state's Accountability and Continuous Improvement System more fully to resources for evidence-based improvement and can help address achievement gaps across the state including within schools, across schools, and across districts.

What?

School and district systems for annual planning for continuous improvement:

  • Integrate data analyses and school diagnostic quality reviews to help determine root causes and identify resource and capacity issues
  • Support the development/inclusion of evidence-based school quality review processes as part of the LCAP process and/or through reform of the accreditation systems
  • Development of supportive and integrative planning tools (LCAP, LEA Plan, SPSA, SSJP - see Section 5)

Page 23 of 41

Table 9: Key Elements of California’s Continuous Improvement System of Support

What?

District and school recognition systems

County office support for district planning and implementation (and capacity building for COEs to effectively provide this support)

Best practice identification and implementation support

Statewide online resource exchange systems

Professional learning community and peer networking support systems (including Labor-Management Collaboration)

Capacity building for data management, utilization, and integration

Shared findings from research/ development/vetting of professional learning and support systems

Voluntary district technical assistance (TA) and supports

Tiers

Focused:

Identify schools in which student groups consistently demonstrate need for focused support and improvement

How elevate equity?

Focused supports for schools with consistently underperforming student groups should provide these schools with the necessary supports to elevate performance and close gaps in opportunity and achievement.

What?

Identification of focused support providers
County office technical assistance

Shared findings from research/development/vetting of professional learning and support systems

Referrals to LEA/School TA and supports

Tiers

Intensive:

Ensure significant, sustained, evidence-based interventions in priority LEAs and schools

How elevate equity?

Focusing on both the highest-need schools and highest-need student groups can directly affect equity by closing gaps in opportunity and achievement.

What?

Identify a group of highest-need districts and schools for intensive support and improvement

Identification of intensive support providers

Mandatory LEA/school TA and supports that build LEA/school capacity to sustain improvement over time

Shared findings from research/development/vetting of professional learning and support systems

Page 30 of 41

Figure 4 - depicting an example of a scatter plot graph of the Alberta, Canada data previously mentioned in figure 3.

A critical point is that schools and districts in a continuous improvement cycle can identify any areas in which they want to improve, and, ideally, access state resources and reach out to schools/districts that have experienced success in those areas to help them improve. California's system would produce this data for identified indicators, such as graduation rates; assessments of ELA, math, English learner proficiency gains; student completion ofcollege and career ready curriculum; attendance and chronic absenteeism; suspensions and expulsions. The data could help schools and districts identify areas for focus, identify others making strong gains, and allow the state to recognize and study successful efforts to share new knowledge with others.

Questions: Academic Accountability Team | aau@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0863 
Last Reviewed: Wednesday, December 13, 2017