1

Every Student Succeeds Act Federal Programs Team

Meeting Summary September 22, 2016 | ESD 113

Workgroup Team Leaders: Gayle Pauley

Workgroup Members Present: Alyssa Westall, Andrew Eyres, Barbara Dittrich, Cathy Fromme (for Joshua Halsey), Cathleen Sherman (for Adam Dysart), Craig Shurick (for Michael Merrin), Cynthia Jones, George Aszkler, Ginnie Ayres, Ian Linterman, Jennifer Carrougher, Joshua Lynch, Julia Fallon, Kay Turner, Linda Friberg, Marci Cox, Marissa Rathbone, Mary Jo Johnson, Melinda Dyer, Mona Johnson, Paula Moore, Shanna McBride, Shawn Thurman, Tim Touhey, Timothy McNeely

Workgroup Members Present via GoTo Meeting: Conn McQuinn, Chris Wyatt, Judi Jensen, Marissa Waddell, Victoria Hodge

Guests Present: Patty Finnegan, Sue Cohn

Workgroup Members Absent: Deb Appleton, Dennis Small, Dixie Grunenfelder, Jess Lewis, Jonathan Jackson, Kathe Taylor, Kathleen Sande, Kristin Hennessey, Leslie Camden-Goold, Lucy Prieto, Maria Flores, Mary Jo Buckingham, Mea Moore, Patrick Haggarty, Paul Wieneke, Pete Knittle, Rona Popp, Sylvia Reyna, Vicki Bates

Meeting Summary Taken By: Carrie Hert

2

Agenda Item Discussion Action

1. Welcome/Introductions All team members introduced themselves.

2. Review of ESSA Federal

Programs Team

Recommendation FP1

and FPT2—Approve final

draft

The Federal Programs Team finalized Federal Programs Team Recommendation 1 (FPT1). FPT1 Recommendation: For selected federal programs, provide one consolidated application for districts and state program grants. Areas to consolidate include:

Needs assessment

One master program description

Parent involvement plan

Professional development

Evaluation process

Private schools

Assurances

Provide one budget alignment section that would reflect how the district will assign federal and state program resources in support of the master program description.

The consolidated application should reflect a coherent plan for addressing:

Early learning

Dual credits

Partial credit (barriers to credit accrual for transient or adjudicated youth)

Career and Technical Education

Unanimously passed to move forward to the Consolidated Plan Team for their review and approval.

3

Programs to include in the district consolidated application: Federal Programs

Title I, Part A

Title I, Part C

Title II, Part A

Title III, Part A

Title IV, Part A

Title IV, Part B

Title V, Part B, Subpart 2

Title IV, Subpart B State Programs

LAP

TBIP

HCP

The Federal Programs Team voted on recommendation FPT1 and unanimously passed to move forward to the Consolidated Plan Team for their review and approval.

Federal Programs Team

Recommendation FPT2

The Federal Programs Team discussed and finalized the Federal Programs Team Recommendation 2 (FPT2). FPT2 Recommendation: Update the Consolidated Program Review process to reflect the components of a District’s Federal and State Consolidated Programs Application.

Unanimously passed to move forward to the Consolidated Plan Team for their review and approval.

4

The Federal Programs Team had discussion on the following topics:

Aligning the CPR process with competitive grants

Assurance that our monitoring process is captured in the requirements

Consolidate the common elements that we have but every program will still have their specific components

Assurance that Equity and Civil Rights should be included throughout and may have its own section on the consolidated application

The Federal Programs Team voted on recommendation FPT2 and unanimously passed to move forward to the Consolidated Plan Team for their review and approval.

3. Review of ESSA Workgroup Recommendations Received

Students with Disabilities Workgroup Recommendations SWD 1–6

Student Assessment

System Workgroup

Recommendations

SAS 6–9

The Federal Programs Team reviewed the following Students with Disabilities Workgroup Recommendations: SWD1: The Students with Disabilities subgroup encourages the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team to take full advantage of every opportunity to maximize the state’s fiscal, regulatory and reporting flexibility while maintaining meaningful accountability measures consistent with the intent of the reauthorization of the ESSA, and apply the core principles of universal design for learning (UDL) to build capacity within the general education core curriculum to promote equitable and meaningful access, engagement, and representation of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment for each student. Discussion on SWD1:

Should also include English learners

5

Clarification on definition of “universal design” which is definedin ESSA

Alignment to accountability measures

Clear usage of data

Concern on too many tests on students with IEPs at the highschool level

SWD2: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt multiple measures for school and district accountability in the Students with Disabilities subgroup including a clearly articulated multilevel, linear growth model using existing data, that complements the primary measure of academic progress towards state standards with a variety of secondary measures to promote increased instructional time such as; school climate data, social emotional survey data, attendance records, and disproportional exclusionary discipline rates. Other measures of college and career readiness in the accountability index should result in a composite score that also includes post school outcomes, and extended graduation rates consistent with an eligible student’s entitlement to services until age 21 under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Discussion on SWD2:

Plain talk on “articulated growth model”

Clarification on post school outcomes and how this isaccomplished after the student graduates?

Expulsion funding is being addressed in HB 1541

Clarification on state definitions around overuse of exclusionarypractices

6

SWD3: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt and encourage the use of blended and/or braided funding mechanisms (cost allocation models) endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education to enhance the development and adoption of research based, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for all students, and ensure the full participation of special education staff in school and district wide personnel development opportunities so that the source of funds for a particular position does not limit any staff person (certified or classified) from gaining skills to improve one or more of the multiple measures for school and district accountability, or limit service delivery to students who are eligible for services across multiple categorical programs (Title I, English Learners and Special Education). Discussion on SWD3:

Clarity is needed on braiding and blending on funds and how programs can share in the funding of services

More information on professional development and staffing

Assurance that title funds are going to support these students and communicating this clearly to districts on allowable expenses

School and district accountability theme throughout SWD4: Given the ESSA 1% limitation on the percentage of total tested students that can be alternately assessed, the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt a statewide definition of the term “significantly cognitively challenged” to clarify the characteristics of students that are eligible for an alternate assessment as a result of an IEP team decision,

7

and enable districts to uniformly apply for a waiver of the 1% limitation should the district have the need to apply for such a waiver. Discussion on SWD4:

How will the term and process be defined? Clarity is needed

Federal definition of cognitively challenged SWD5: Consistent with the application of the core principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Recommendation 1, the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should encourage the development and adoption of Alternate Achievement Standards using the Links for Academic Learning (LAL) process on behalf of students with significant cognitive challenges and ensure that a student’s need for an alternate assessment is not the result of a lack of the student’s access to appropriate instruction, or the need for assistive technology. Discussion on SWD5:

Clarification on links for academic learning

Alternative assessments for students that are not reading at a level that is high enough so this could be limiting for some students

SWD6: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should encourage OSPI to develop model notification language and IEP team guidelines for school districts to use regarding alternate assessments which includes language that indicates a student’s participation in the alternate assessment may delay, or otherwise affect the student completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma.

8

Discussion on SWD6:

Appreciation of students not counting against graduation rate if they are eligible to remain until age 21

Addition of significantly and cognitively delayed language

Caution on excluding students from graduation rate The Federal Programs Team reviewed the following Student Assessment System Workgroup Recommendations: SAS6: The workgroup recommends a hybrid of options 1 and 2: Year 1 ELA testing would be optional; determination of whether to test a student could be made at the district, school, or student level. Accountability phase-in listed in Option 2 above would then be used (growth measure in 2nd year tested; proficiency reporting in 3rd year tested). - If student IS tested in ELA the first year:

Yr 1 ELA score is not included in accountability;

Yr 2 ELA score is included as growth measure at the school, district and state level;

Yr 3 ELA score is included in proficiency rates at the school, district and state level.

- If student IS NOT tested in ELA the first year:

Yr 1 is no-score and has no impact on accountability;

Yr 2 ELA score is not included in accountability as there is no basis for measuring growth;

9

Yr 3 ELA score is included in proficiency rates at the school, district and state level.

- If the state cannot propose a hybrid as part of consolidated plan, the workgroup decided the original Option #2 would be their preference. Discussion SAS6:

Caution on open ended decision making—how district data will be compared

Consistency for all districts

Recommendation to use date of enrollment in a public school SAS7: The workgroup recommends that OSPI seek the funding when it becomes available, and conduct the inventory at the state level and develop a sampling plan for local inventories, issuing grants to local districts that are interested but ensuring that there is a representative sample of districts awarded grants. *No comments were made on this recommendation. SAS8: The workgroup does not recommend limiting/capping the amount of time that students are allowed to spend testing at this time. This item should be re-visited once additional information is available (i.e., outcome of audits/inventories and further guidance from US Dept of Education).

10

Discussion on SAS8:

Concern on the number of tests that students have to take eachyear

Interpretations of this recommendation may differ

SAS9: The workgroup recommends that WA/OSPI pursue grant the opportunity specific to science.

*No comments were made on this recommendation.

4. Review of ESSAWorkgroupRecommendationsReceived (Continued)Learning and Teaching

Workgroup

Recommendation LT 1–4

The Federal Programs Team reviewed the following Learning and Teaching Workgroup Recommendations:

LT1: The workgroup recommends confirmation that Washington’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2011 and Next Generation Science Standards in 2013 is assurance that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.

Discussion LT1:

Additional consideration that we have rigorous academiclearning standards for all content standards to include the arts,social studies, and world languages.

This recommendation does apply to charter schools

LT2: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has demonstrated that the challenging state academic standards are aligned with relevant career and technical education standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.

11

Discussion on LT2:

Correction: In the discussion portion of this recommendation, “Equivalencies need to be made every 4 years..” needs to be changed to every 5 years.

LT3: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has demonstrated that the challenging state academic standards are aligned with entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the system of higher education in the state. Discussion on LT3:

Consideration of adding language “college and career readiness” LT4: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has adopted English language proficiency standards that:

Are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing;

Address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and

Are aligned with the challenging state academic standards. Discussion on LT4:

Consideration of adopting an alternative assessment for the 1 percent of ELs

Review of ESSA Workgroup Recommendations Received (Continued)

Effective Educator

The Federal Programs Team reviewed the following Effective Educator Workgroup Recommendations:

12

Workgroup Recommendations EE 1–2

Parent and

Community

Engagement

Workgroup

Recommendatio

ns PCE 1–4

EE1: Teacher and Principal Definition: Teachers and principals with more than 3 years of experience will be identified as being effective if they receive the following summative scores on TPEP: 4- Distinguished 3-Proficient Teacher and principals will be identified as emerging early career effective* in years 0-3 of their career if they receive a “2” on TPEP. They are identified as effective with a score of 3 or 4. Should any federal and state funding be allocated to target ineffective educators, educators in the emerging early career effective category would qualify for job embedded professional learning. Teacher and principals will be identified as ineffective if: More than 3 years of experience: 2-Basic 1-Below Basic 0-3 years of experience: 1-Below Basic Discussion on EE1:

Clarification on change to current practice, change in reporting and not the process or evaluation process is needed

Use of TPEP since already exists

Need of supports for teachers and principals that are found ineffective

This is not outlined in the bargaining agreement for teachers

Parents can request to know what their teachers credentials are

13

Reporting of teachers in their first year EE2: Opinion 1: Maintain paraeducator qualifications, as previously required under NCLB, until such time that the paraeducator standards recommended by the Paraeducator Workgroup are implemented by the Legislature with funding of a statewide paraeducator evaluation system. Opinion 2: Maintain paraeducator qualifications as previously required under NCLB, with no additional requirements. Paraeducator qualifications: All paraeducators must have the first, essential credential —a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development). Paraeducators can provide a copy of their high school diploma — transcripts are not necessary. With this credential in place, there are three educational pathways and one evaluation option a potential paraeducator can take to meet federal requirements. 1. Two years of study at an institution of higher education. The institution you choose must meet five criteria of the Higher Education Act, Section 101(a). All classes must be at level 100 or higher. 2. Associate degree or higher. All associate degrees are acceptable. 3. Pass the ETS ParaPro Assessment. The assessment measures skills, and content knowledge related to reading, writing and math. 4. Washington paraeducator portfolio or apprenticeship program — completed previously. Those meeting the apprenticeship requirements must present a journeycard or certificate. The portfolio and

14

apprenticeships are no longer offered for enrollment, however OSPI will continue to honor this pathway. Discussion on EE2:

In the discussion column, the language needs to be removed “school districts must notify parents of their right to request and be provided in a timely manner..” as this is no longer a requirement

Struggle to find paraeducators and a struggle to get them highly qualified

Burden for schools

Homeschooled counts as high school equivalent diploma The Federal Programs Team reviewed the following Parent and Community Engagement Workgroup Recommendations: PCE1: Devote resources and staff to ensure schools, districts, and OSPI support and grow family and community collaboration. This should occur from students’ birth through education and onto their careers. This effort on family and community collaboration is the undergirding to support the success of all students and families, reduce the opportunity gap, and develop more culturally responsive and inclusive schools. Schools, districts, and OSPI must recruit, hire, train, and retain all staff for this commitment to cultural responsiveness, inclusion, and family-community-school collaboration. Families, communities, community-based organizations, civic groups, youth service groups, ethnic and racial affinity and support groups, and faith-based organizations provide vital input and wisdom about their students. All staff should leverage this

15

knowledge to improve school policies and practices. When planning for, or implementing racially and culturally equitable and inclusive (e.g., disability, gender, faith, language) family and community collaboration efforts, schools, districts, and OSPI must focus on reaching and developing ongoing relationships with families and students whose voices have been lost or not heard as well by holding diversity and inclusion as core values. Washington’s students and families come from diverse communities, life experiences, and perspectives and enrich our schools with their input and support. Discussion on PCE1:

Strategies for action, not a guiding statement

Simplify language to be easily explained and articulated to families and communities

OSPI is devoting resources and staff

Addition of CISL language may be needed

There are a number of strategies under this one recommendation

Consider making one recommendation within each of these component parts

Needed clarification on birth through education and into careers

The first sentence of this recommendation is all that is needed

Overwhelming for a district

Guiding statement should be one sentence and then following items under it

PCE2A: The Consolidated Plan Team and the Federal Programs Workgroup must ensure research-based family and community

16

collaboration is woven into all of the federal programs as a key instructional and school improvement strategy. Family and community collaboration must be a focal point of ESSA implementation. OSPI must ensure that federal programs work together and their individual requirements and efforts are not in conflict or duplicative, given limited resources.

Discussion on PCE2A:

Great opportunity for co-mingling and a unified approach tofederal programs

Consideration on how OSPI would hold districts accountable

PCE2B: OSPI, districts and/or schools will increase transparency by publishing information on its website about the family collaboration programs funded by districts (e.g., Title I, A and other federal programs). Districts will also be required to publish this information. Publishing the information will allow families to ask more questions of their districts about funding use and in turn create opportunities for families to provide input on programs. Making this information available allows interested stakeholders opportunity to review. It also ensures the funded efforts impact student achievement. The workgroup recommends that this information be translated into the languages represented in the district to ensure that all families can be informed and involved.

Discussion on PCE2B:

Concern and awareness that publishing information doesn’talways give parents the ability to engage in the process

17

Families should be engaged in the development of the plan and decisions and not just after the fact

Recommendations need to be translated into other languages and also presented verbally to families

Assurance of website compliance and access

Funding of parent involvement activities

Overlap of programs and parent involvement and outreach

Title funds can support at the school and district level PCE2C: OSPI’s programs will regularly provide information to districts and schools on best practices and frameworks to improve culturally and linguistically responsive communication and collaboration efforts with families. This includes encouraging collaboration and providing resources for interpretation and translation to reach Limited English Proficient families. Discussion on PCE2C:

Funding needs to provide resources for interpretation and translation services

State should provide translation services so that each district does not have to do their own

Clarity needed around which programs PCE2D: When designing grant applications, conducting program reviews, and program evaluations, OSPI will include reflective questions of schools and districts regarding their family and community collaboration efforts. These questions will increase district awareness on the effectiveness of their collaboration efforts.

18

The following are examples only: When collaborating with families and communities, does the district use a system-wide approach or school by school based on leadership? What framework is in use, if any? How are family engagement outcomes measured? How does the district determine the level of resources to allocate to family and community collaboration? How does it know that level of support is commensurate with the need in the district? WaKIDS – How is the Family Connection Component of WaKIDS being leveraged and connected to outcomes for children entering your elementary school(s)? How are families engaged prior to the start of elementary school? How is Family Leadership defined in the school and district? Who are the Leaders? How do they reflect the diversity of the student population and what efforts are in place to reach greater parity? How are opportunity gap leaders involved/engaged/advising the district’s focus on family and community collaboration? What is the focus on racial equity? Interpretation/Translation services –Who provides interpretation and translation? For what kinds of meetings or information disseminations are translation provided? Have interpreters been given training in educational terminology? How are interpretation and translation

19

resources adjusted and planned for based on demographics and needs within schools and the district? How is family and community collaboration connected to the strategic plan? What does participation in shaping that plan look like? How are Early Learning Family Leaders (HS/ECEAP) identified and invited to continue involvement across P-20? What are the district’s current connections to Early Learning programs – HS, ECEAP, Private childcare, ESDs, EL before/afterschool programs? Discussion on PCE2D:

Small rural districts appreciate one consolidated program to eliminate redundancy and duplication of efforts

Consideration of having check boxes in the grant application program

Possibility of self-evaluation tool

Measure effectiveness of family engagement on how districts are reaching parents and families

Example to include racial and health equity indicators PCE3A: Early Learning is the starting point for children and families entering the P-20 continuum. The state should ensure family collaboration efforts supporting early learning are coordinated across various state agencies, systems, and sectors. A key focus must be on supporting transitions between early learning and K-12 for children of historically marginalized groups, such as children of color, English

20

Learners, students with disabilities, immigrant/refugee families, and students of highly mobile families. Discussion on PCE3A:

This seems like a statement, not a recommendation

Consistency with language “early learning through career or through K-12” is needed throughout

McKinney-Vento should be mentioned in this recommendation

PCE3B: OSPI, Department of Early Learning, Department of Health, Department of Social and Health Services, and Thrive Washington, should identify opportunities to strengthen collaboration and bridge services and supports in early childhood services (Birth to Grade Three) focusing on system improvement alignment to improve student outcomes. Discussion on PCE3B:

AESD could be noted as a partner in this recommendation as they were actively involved

PCE3C: OSPI should provide technical assistance to districts on the ability to use Title I, Part A funds for preschool and kindergarten readiness programs. This technical assistance should address blended funding models that may include other preschool program models, including ECEAP, Head Start, Special Education, and district-operated programs.

21

Discussion on PCE3C:

Addition of Title III language next to Title I, Part A

PCE3D: Districts should identify community groups providing key family collaboration services and explore establishing community partnerships. An example is the community school results framework. Districts and schools need to build partnerships with community organizations, including but not limited to, organizations that are affinity and support groups for youth and their families based on their faith, race, ethnic, or cultural identity as well as community organizations that support students and families with disabilities. Discussion on PCE3D:

Consideration of adding language health and social emotional health to address the whole child

McKinney-Vento should be included in this recommendation PCE4A: Recommend the Effective Educator Workgroup and the Consolidated plan team address educators’ efforts to promote family collaboration as a key research-based strategy for closing the opportunity gap. This is a critical racial equity issue in Washington State and implicates other experiences, such as disability, language, and high mobility. Effective educators have a professional responsibility to seek knowledge and advance their skills for family and community collaboration. The goal is for each teacher to establish a relationship with the families of all students in the classroom. TPEP can be leveraged to implement this value, but job-embedded professional development that is ongoing and supported is critical for this change to occur.

22

Discussion on PCE4A:

TPEP is the best avenue for this

Consideration of addition of language about supporting teachers

Resources for family engagement and access to interpreters PCE4B: The Educator Effectiveness workgroup should provide a recommendation for how the evaluation of classified staff and/or educators working with students could incorporate feedback from families. Classified staff develop critical relationships with students and can be key sources of information and partners for improved collaboration with families and communities. Job-embedded professional development that is ongoing and supported is critical for this change to occur. Discussion on PCE4B:

The University of Washington is beginning a 2-year program with native education communities and Wellpinit Elementary, this could be a possible resources for us

The Evergreen School District, and Washington Alliance, have training for EL parents and hold monthly meetings with them and then go out to schools with their kids and meet other parents, these are good examples of possible resources

23

5. Debrief/Meeting

Evaluation

Next meeting is October

19, 2016 | 9–3 p.m. at

ESD 113 in Tumwater

Meeting Feedback forms were given to all team members to complete. All forms were collected and reviewed for possible improvements to future meetings.