Committee on School Division Accountability
The Committee continued its review of accountability benchmarks, with discussions of a proposed College and Career Readiness Index and Achievement Gap Indicator.

Proposed College and Career Readiness Index:

Virginia’s proposed College and Career Readiness Index would be based on an unduplicated count of: 
•    students receiving credit for advanced coursework –plus- 
•    CTE completers also having a CTE credential, –plus- 
•    students with a work-based learning experience –plus-  

•    -all- divided by the number of students in a graduation cohort.

The advanced coursework component would include Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB) and dual-enrollment courses.  Beginning 2016-17, divisions will indicate whether students received credit for passing the course in addition to capturing participation.

For the 2015-16 graduating class:
•    46.56% participated in AP or IB courses
•    26.55% participated in dual-enrollment courses

CTE completers also having a CTE credential would be based on the number of students who have met the requirement for a CTE concentration (sequence) and have passed an exam that tests technical skills.  

For the 2015-16 graduating class:
•    72.96% earned a CTE credential
•    46.94% completed a CTE sequence
•    38.90% completed a CTE sequence and earned a credential

A work-based learning experience is currently defined as a coordinated, coherent sequence of career-development experiences related to students’ career interests or goals.  This includes cooperative education, apprenticeships, internships, and clinical experiences but could be expanded to other experiences.   Such data is currently only collected for CTE students but can be expanded to all students

•    In 2015-16, 6.84% of students participated in work- based learning

In terms of proxies, current data only captures participation in AP, IB or dual-enrollment courses.   For the first time this year, schools will be required to identify students who earned credit for those courses. Current data only captures work-based learning experiences for CTE students, but the Board is recommending that such data collection be expanded to all students.

In the Board’s view, the value of the College and Career Readiness Index is that it captures multiple student pathways, places focus on graduating students, captures work-based learning experiences and avoids duplication with other accountability indicators.

In terms of proposed implementation of the measure, the Board intends to align it with implementation of new graduation requirements from Profile of a Virginia Graduate.  That data collection would begin with the freshman class of 2018-19 with the indicator becoming applicable to school accountability with the graduating class of 2022.

Proposed Achievement Gap Indicator:

In terms of designing an achievement gap indicator, the Board identified the following possibilities, with attendant advantages and challenges:

Using the state benchmark (75% for English; 70% for Math) has the advantages of being stable over time and aligned with state standards for student performance, but it does not address gaps in higher-performing schools.  Selecting the all-students state average captures gaps in higher-performing schools, but it changes from year-to-year and is significantly higher than the state Benchmark.  Finally, electing the “non” comparison groups (e.g., English Learners versus non-English Learners) avoids counting same students in both the reporting and comparison groups, but changes from year-to-year and creates inconsistent achievement goals across student groups.

The Board’s draft criteria for their various reporting levels for English Reading and are as follows:

•    To qualify for the highest level green or “Monitor,” the reporting group current year or 3-year average combined rate would have to be at or above state benchmark or the school was at the lower level of “Guide” but decreased their failure rate by 10%
•    A school would be designated as yellow or  “Guide” if the reporting group current year or 3-year average combined rate was less than 10 points below state benchmark or if the school was at the lower level of “Intervene” but decreased their failure rate by 10%
•    Finally, a school would be designated as red or “Intervene” if the reporting group current year or 3-year average combined rate was 10 or more points below the state benchmark or the school has stayed at criteria for “Guide” for more than 3 consecutive years.

Math would have a similar structure, except that the benchmark for Guide and Intervene would be five points above or below, rather than 10.  

The following student groups would be used for accreditation purposes:

•    Economically disadvantaged students
o    Free/reduced meal eligible, Medicaid eligible, receives TANF, or homeless or migrant -- 476,679 students in 2016-17 (38% of Virginia students)
•    Race, ethnicity, and an unduplicated count of economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Learners (formerly Gap Group 1 under federal accountability) -- 608,307 students in 2016-17 (47% of Virginia students)
•    Race, ethnicity, and separate groups for economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English Learners

In terms of defining student groups for accreditation, selecting one or more groups for accreditation would focus attention on students with historically low achievement in Virginia, but may be detrimental to the progress of other groups and data on combined groups is less actionable.  Selecting each student group for accreditation would increase transparency and better align with ESSA, but multiple data points require additional interpretation for the accountability matrix.  Note that regardless of which criteria is used, achievement for all students and each student group will be reported on School Quality Profiles.

More comprehensive information on these indicators is available at: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/committees_standing/accountability/2017/04-apr/ccri-and-achievement-gaps.pdf

Overview of work to date on Part VIII of the Standards of Accreditation

Over the past number of months, the Board has discussed the measurement of school quality, using several proposed indicators including:
•    Academic achievement as measured by passing rates, student growth, and progress in passing rates on English, Mathematics, science, and English Learner progress
•    Academic achievement gaps
•    Graduation and student progress measured by the Graduation Completion Index and dropouts
•    Dropout rates
•    Chronic absenteeism
•    College and career readiness as measured by a College and Career Readiness Index

Aggregating across these measures, school quality would be defined based on the following criteria and defined performance levels:

•    Level One: At or Above Standard, Green, Monitor. A school’s achievement on the specific indicator demonstrates acceptable performance or performance above the benchmark, or adequate improvement in the indicator, based on performance benchmarks.
•    Level Two: Near Standard, Yellow, Guide. A school’s achievement on the specific indicator is below the performance benchmarks for the At or Above Standard, Green, designation but close to the range of measurement for the Green performance level. The yellow level may also indicate improvement from Level Three, Red. A school quality indicator within the yellow range which does not improve to the green range at the end of three years shall be designated as Red at the end of the three-year period.
•    Level Three: Below Standard, Red, Intervene. A school’s achievement on the specific indicator is below the performance benchmarks for Level One, At or Above Standard, and Level Two, Near Standard.

Effective with the 2018-2019 school year, the board will apply performance levels to the school quality indicators and apply them to accreditation, except for the college and career ready index. That index will be applied no later than the 2021-2022 school year.  The academic year 2018-2019 will be considered a transition year. For 2018-2019 only, a school may achieve full accreditation by meeting the criteria and rules of either the 2017-2018 year or those effective 2018-2019, whichever benefits it the most. School pairing for the establishment of performance levels for school quality indicators based on Virginia Assessment Program outcome data described (in current regulations)

Translating all of this to the actual measurement of school accreditation would aggregate as follows:

•    Full Accreditation: When each school quality indicator is in the green range or yellow range. For the transition year of 2018-2019, a school which meets the accreditation standards for designation as fully accredited under either the 2017-2018 accreditation calculation rules or the 2018-2019 rules for multiple school quality indicators will be so designated.
•    Accredited with Conditions: When a school has any school quality indicator in the red range
•    Accreditation Denied: When a school or school division fails to implement school division or school corrective action plans according to planned timelines, or has taken no action on identified strategies and interventions, the school is reviewed for potential designation by the board as “Accreditation Denied.” The board shall deny accreditation for any school that continues to demonstrate Level Three, Red, performance levels in any school quality indicator due to a failure to implement actions prescribed in a corrective action plan.

Envisioned effective dates: 
•    Graduation requirements prescribed in 8VAC20- 131-51 B and C for the Standard Diploma and the Advanced Studies Diploma shall become effective with the ninth-grade class of 2018-2019. 
•    The Academic and Career Plan prescribed in 8VAC20-131-140 shall become effective in 2018- 2019. 
•    Unless otherwise specified, the remainder of these regulations shall be effective beginning with the 2018-2019 academic year.

Additional details are available at:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/committees_standing/accountability/2017/04-apr/part-viii.pdf

The Committee also discussed Virginia’s Federal Program Application under The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA).  Under ESSA, there are continuing requirements to assess reading/language arts and mathematics annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school; to assess science once in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12; and to disaggregate results of accountability indicators for all students and designated reporting groups

In broad terms, a state’s federal accountability system must address:
•    Student Academic achievement
•    Academic progress
•    Graduation rates
•    Progress in English Learners gaining proficiency in English
•    School quality or student success indicator

However, the academic indicators must carry much greater weight than the school quality indicator.

There are also two designations for schools in need of improvement:

Schools requiring Comprehensive Support and Improvement are identified as the lowest 5% of Title I schools based on all student performance, and high schools with a federal-four year cohort graduation rate below 67%.

Schools requiring Targeted Support and Improvement include any school in which more than one or more reporting groups is performing at a very low level as compared with comprehensive schools or any school with one or more low-performing reporting groups over two years.

Both categories of school will be identified beginning with the 2018-2019 school year, with the exception of consistent underperformance, which will be identified beginning with the 2019-2020 school year (after two years of data).

While the Board’s goal is to align the federal and state accountability systems wherever possible, there are at least two areas where Virginia’s state accountability calculation methodologies are not permitted under ESSA.  Virginia’s Graduation and Completion Index (GCI) incorporates all diploma types into the graduation calculation and does not penalize schools if students continue to attend high school after the fourth year as they pursue completion of diploma requirements.  Federal requirements allow only “regular” diplomas and extensions beyond a fourth year are limited.  Virginia’s Assessment of English Learners (ELs) allows a student’s score to count toward accreditation only if it’s passing if the student has been enrolled in the Virginia schools for fewer than 11 semesters, while federal rules allow for such calculation adjustments only for newcomer students.

ESSA requires long-term goals and interim measures of progress for each indicator, which given Virginia’s current and proposed accountability benchmarks would look something like:

•    Student Academic Achievement – pass rates on SOL reading and mathematics assessments
•    Academic Progress - Growth for elementary and middle schools – progress tables (value tables)
•    Graduation Rates for high schools – federal graduation indicator
•    Progress in English Learners gaining proficiency in English – ACCESS 2.0
•    School quality or student success indicator – chronic absenteeism

VDOE’s proposed methodology to identify schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement includes the following steps:

1.    Rank all Title I schools using the combined rate for all students in reading
2.    Rank all Title I schools using the combined rate for all students in mathematics
3.    Average the ranks for reading and mathematics
4.    Identify the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools based on the averaged ranks
5.    If a “tie” occurs, use the rate of chronic absenteeism as the “tie breaker”

In addition, this methodology would also identify any high school with a federal four-year cohort graduation rate below 67% for Comprehensive Support and Improvement.

Visit http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/committees_standing/accountability/2017/04-apr/essa.pdf for additional details, including an initial draft of benchmarks.

Business Meeting

Alternative Accreditation Plans

The Board received for first review requests for renewal of Alternative Accreditation Plans from Albemarle County Public Schools, Town of Colonial Beach Public Schools, Craig County Public Schools, Highland County Public Schools, Richmond City Public Schools, Scott County Public Schools and York County Public Schools for High Schools with a graduation cohorts of fifty or fewer students.

In addition, the Board received for first review requests for renewal of Alternative Accreditation Plans from Albemarle County Public Schools, Chesterfield County Public Schools, and Fairfax County Public Schools.  Fairfax schools included in the request include: Bryant Alternative High School, Fairfax County Adult High School, Key Center School, Kilmer Center, and Mountain View High School.

Certain criteria are considered for approval of alternative accreditation plans for special purpose schools as outlined below:
1. The purpose and rationale of the individual accreditation plan justifies the need for an individual alternative accreditation plan.
2. The characteristics of the student population are clearly defined.
3. The program of instruction provides all students with opportunities to study a comprehensive curriculum to ensure success in achieving the Standards of Learning.
4. Strategies used to evaluate student progress include standards-based academic achievement measures.
5. Students will be taught by highly qualified teachers who meet the Board of Education’s licensure requirements for instructional personnel.
6. Academic achievement measures must be included that are objective, measurable, and directly related to the mission and purpose of the school.
7. The plan must include use of statewide assessment student achievement results of English and mathematics.
8. The plan must meet the testing requirements of the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia.
9. The plan must meet the testing requirements in federal law and describe how the school plans to meet “adequate yearly progress” requirements of the federal law.
10. The plan must provide convincing evidence that all pre-accreditation eligibility criteria (8 VAC 20-131-290) are met for standards in which waivers have not been requested.
11. The Board will consider whether waivers have been requested for accrediting standards that are not being met, and the rationale for the waivers are clear and appropriate for the mission/purpose of the school.

Final review of these requests is scheduled for the Board’s May 25th meeting.

Teacher Education Program Accreditation
The Board received for first review the recommendation of the Advisory Board for Teacher Education and Licensure (ABTEL) that the professional education program at Averett University be accredited pursuant to the Board of Education’s approved process. 

Revisions to the List of 2017-2018 Board of Education Approved Industry Certifications, Occupational Competency Assessments, and Professional Licenses 
The Board of Education received for first review a proposed revised list of industry certification examinations, occupational competency assessments, and licenses to meet the requirements for the Board of Education’s Career and Technical Education and Advanced Mathematics and Technology Seals, student-selected verified credit, and the Standard Diploma graduation requirement.

The process for reviewing and validating industry credentials for awarding verified credit is based on the following criteria: 1) the test must be standardized and graded independently of the school or school division in which the test is given; 2) the test must be knowledge based; 3) the test must be administered on a multistate or international basis, or administered as part of another state’s accountability assessment program; and 4) to be counted in a specific academic area, the test must measure content that incorporates or exceeds the Standards of Learning content in the course for which verified credit is given. Important to this process is ensuring that the credential is relevant and recognized in the workplace.

The agenda item includes a proposed list of 401 industry or trade association certification examinations, professional licenses, and occupational competency assessments that would meet the Board’s requirements in 8 VAC 20-131-50.H.3 (Board of Education’s Career and Technical Education Seal), 8 VAC 20-131-50.H.4 (Board of Education’s Seal of Advanced Mathematics and Technology), 8 VAC 20-131-110.C (Standard and Verified Units of Credit), 8 VAC 20-131-50.B.2 (Requirements for a Standard Diploma - Footnotes 5, 6 and 8), and 8 VAC 20-131-50.C.2 (Requirements for an Advanced Studies Diploma - Footnote 5). 

The proposed list of 401 certifications proposes to include 47 new industry or trade association certification examinations and occupational competency assessments, proposes technical changes to five previously approved certifications, and recommends the elimination of fourteen previously approved certifications from the Board-approved list.

The complete list is available as an attachment to the agenda item: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2017/04-apr/agenda-items/item-e.pdf

Proposed Revisions to the School Bus Driver’s Application for Physician’s Certificate Physical Form (Form EB.001) in the Regulations Governing Pupil Transportation

The Board received for first review proposed changes to the School Bus Driver’s Application for Physician’s Certificate form. The proposed changes to the physical form were developed in consultation with the Medical Society of Virginia which is comprised of medical practitioners that perform school bus driver physicals. Input was also received from school division pupil transportation departments.

None of the proposed changes represent significant deviations from standard medical practice or
USDOT guidance on commercial driving physical examinations and forms. Effective July 1, 2006,
HB300 amended Section 22.1-178, Code of Virginia, by adding physician assistant as an approved health care provider for school bus driver physical examinations. Other changes are made for consistency with requirements in the Regulations Governing Pupil Transportation and the Code of Virginia and to clarify or update certain medical terminology. Key changes proposed to the physical form (EB.001) include:

•    Additional driver medical history categories for comprehensive disclosure of medical conditions
•    Additional detail in the “Physical Qualifications for School Bus Drivers” section
•    Additional detail in the “Physician’s Certificate” section
•    Expanded comment area in the “Physician’s Certificate” section
•    Addition of “Physician Assistant” in the “Physician’s Certificate” section

Revisions to the School Bus Driver’s Application for Physician’s Certificate (Form EB.001) are governed by the Code of Virginia and exempt action requirements of the Administrative Process Act. The Department will notify school divisions of the revisions upon final approval, pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Process Act. Final review of the proposed revisions is anticipated at the May 25, 2017 Board meeting.

Reports Received

The Board received a report from the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV).  SCHEV is the Commonwealth’s coordinating body for higher education.

Per the report, SCHEV is in the process of updating The Virginia Plan for Higher Education, the statewide strategic plan, and gathering feedback from key stakeholders. The objective of The Virginia Plan is for the Commonwealth to become the best-educated state by 2030.  

Some important initiatives that the Council has identified that impact secondary education include: how Virginia can improve transitions for students from secondary to postsecondary education and how to communicate the benefits of higher education to students.  SCHEV’s presentation provided an overview of the state’s goals related to The Virginia Plan for Higher Education; the role of PK-12 in the plans, and efforts to engage PK-12; and efforts to engage PK-12 stakeholders at the state and local level to ensure alignment.