ESSA Advisory Team Meeting Comprehensive School Support and Improvement December 6, 2017

1. ESSA Advisory Team Meeting Comprehensive School Support and Improvement December 6, 2017

2. Our Work So Far • October 2016 – Kick off meeting to gather information • Contextual Webinar • Online Google Doc • November 2016 – Quarterly Innovation Meeting • More Context Setting • In Person Feedback • December 2016 – Final Information Gathering Session • Final Regulations Released – 11/28 • Writing the Draft of Our Portion of the Consolidated State Plan.

3. Next Steps • December 2016: • Draft Consolidated State Plan • January 2017: • Bring Draft to Advisory Team for Review • Final Edits • Submit to Chief of Staff • February-March 2017: • Edits and Revisions to Entire Consolidated State Plan • Open for Public Comment (survey as well) • Share with Governor • March – September 2017: • Continue to Receive Feedback • Final Edits to Entire Consolidated State Plan • Submit to US ED (April or September) * Please note that this timeline is subject to change

4. Focused Work • Protocol Use: • Continue to Use Modified Charrette Protocol • Let’s stick to the process • Norms Review: • Respect All Voices • No Blaming • Stay on Task

5. Modified Charrette Protocol Using the Protocol: This Charrette is being utilized to create a “no stakes environment” so that we at the Department of Education can gain the advice and input from as many stakeholders as possible regarding this one component of the State’s ESSA plan. Our hope is that you will scrutinize the processes that are currently in place and brainstorm ways of improving our work to best support schools and students in the future. Process: 1. The facilitator will present a document (what the new ESSA law is asking us to focus on and our current practices under No Child Left Behind). The group will listen and take notes as needed. (3-5 Minutes) 2. The facilitator will ask a Guiding Question aimed at eliciting feedback within small groups. (2 Minutes) 3. The facilitator will ask the large group if they have clarifying questions. These questions will be answered by members of the Title I team or a Title I project manager. (3-5 Minutes) 4. Participants then discuss in small groups while members of the Title I team listen and take notes. There are no hard and fast rules here. Occasionally (but not usually) members of the Title I team may join in the discussion process. The emphasis is on improving the work, which now belongs to the entire group. (10-15 Minutes) 5. When the process has ended and the Title I team has the information it needs, the group will stop, briefly summarize what was gained, and thank the participants. 6. Repeat steps 1-5 with different documents and Guiding Questions.

6. The Indicators LEA Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans. Describe the State’s process to approve, monitor, and periodically review LEA comprehensive support and improvement plans that include evidence-based interventions. What We Currently Do: -When schools are identified as Focus or Priority Schools. Schools utilize Student Performance Data and conduct a needs assessment to create an Innovation Plan based on the 7 Turnaround Principles (Principal Leadership, Educator Effectiveness, Expanded Learning Time, Use of Effective and Evidence-based Instructional Strategies, Data Informed Decision Making, School and Community Culture and Climate, Family Engagement in Leadership Teams). Teams then align practices with their targeted growth areas. They go through a (blinded process) Tri-Annual Review process to ensure plans are appropriate and aligned to their needs assessment and that schools are making progress based on data and an evaluation rubric. Guiding Question: How can the State ensure that Focus and Priority Schools have created adequate plans to meet the needs of students, and what evidence based practices are they using to meet those specific needs? Next Steps:

7. Indicator 2 Collection and Use of Data. Describe the State’s plan to collect and use information and data to assess the quality of State and school/district implementation of strategies and progress toward improving student outcomes and meeting the desired program outcomes related to the Improvement of Schools. What We Currently Do: -Currently schools accumulate Student Performance Data, which should be tied to grant activities. For Focus and Priority schools, there is a section of the Tri-Annual Review process that asks about historic data for each review period. Specifically, schools are asked, “How does your most recent needs assessment data compare to your historic data and what is accounting for any variance (if any) in the data (e.g., a specific instructional strategy)? How does your Summative data further inform on this? Something We Are Thinking About Doing: -The Title I Team at the DOE has also been drafting a document that is intended to provide all Title I schools the opportunity to reflect on their achievement and growth data in order to make decisions about the next grant application. In short, the purpose of the form is to ensure grant activities are working, and if they are not, to have schools reconsider why they are using a particular activity, and hopefully find a program or practice that will lead to positive results based on their problems of practice. Guiding Questions: What data should the State collect from Focus and Priority schools that show the how well a school’s Title I programming is working to improve student learning? What method should the State use to collect this information? Next Steps:

8. Indicator 3 Monitoring. Describe the State’s plan to monitor the implementation of programs using the data to ensure compliance with ESSA. What We Currently Do: -Monitoring currently takes place during the Tri-Annual review process as well as the Title I-A application process, monthly financial reporting, and onsite reviews. As a support organization, the goal is to use monitoring as a tool to ensure all plans meet Federal Regulations, and where they do not, to provide assistance so that all schools are meeting the needs of students and abiding by regulations. On-site reviews occur once every three years, and with the Tri-Annual Review process, these reviews should lead to verification of strong practice rather than the need for corrective action. Guiding Question: When, how often, and to what extent should the State monitor Title I schools and district programs to ensure they are creating increases in student learning? Next Steps:

9. Indicator 4 Continuous Improvement. Describe the State’s plan to continuously improve implementation of strategies and activities that are not leading to satisfactory progress toward improving student outcomes and meeting the desired program outcomes for students and learning. What We Currently Do: -Through the Tri-Annual Review process and Quarterly Meetings (including the Summer Summit), we ensure that Focus and Priority Schools are aligning their use of funds with activities that improve student outcomes and family/community engagement. For schools who receive an “approaching target” score in the Tri-Annual review, they receive technical assistance from Regional Ed. Consultants. For schools that receive a score of “does not meet target”, a face-to-face meeting is coordinated to support the school as they seek to meet target. We do not currently have a mechanism to measure the impact of these activities on student achievement and learning. Something We Are Thinking About Doing: -The Title I Team at the DOE has also been drafting a document that is intended to provide all Title I schools the opportunity to reflect on their achievement and growth data in order to make decisions about the next grant application. In short, the purpose of the form is to ensure grant activities are working, and if they are not, to have schools reconsider why they are using a particular activity, and hopefully find a program or practice that will lead to positive results based on their problems of practice. Guiding Questions: How will the State work with Focus and Priority schools that are not meeting the intended student learning outcomes? What process can the State use to support these schools as they seek to continuously improve their programming? Next Steps:

10. Indicator 5 Differentiated Technical Assistance. Describe the State’s plan to provide differentiated technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support effective implementation of strategies for Support and Improvement of Focus and Priority Schools. What We Currently Do: - Currently the DOE provides technical assistance through regional Title I consultants who work with their schools on an as needed basis, through on-site reviews, monthly regional meetings, and Quarterly Innovation Meetings. We also provide support through the DOE website and written technical assistance. The Quarterly Innovation Meetings and the Summer Summit provide the most direct professional development to support effective implementation of strategies that are aligned with the school’s problems of practice and needs assessment. Guiding Questions: What methods of outreach should the State use in order to best support Title I schools and districts as they implement strategies to increase student learning? What else can we do to help? Next Steps:

11. Indicator 6 Technical Assistance to Specific LEAs. Describe the technical assistance the State will provide to each LEA serving a significant number of schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement, including technical assistance related to selection of evidence-based interventions for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement schools. What We Currently Do: -Currently schools sign off that they use evidence based interventions through their Focus and Priority plans. As a support organization, we trust that you are making the best decision for your school, and that all activities you incorporate will lead to statistically significant results. During on-site reviews this is a question that Regional Education Consultants ask of school personnel. -Under ESSA, schools must align their grant activities to the following: 1.Strong: At least one well designed and well implemented experimental study. 2.Moderate: at least one well designed and well implemented quasi-experimental study 3.Promising: at least one well designed and well implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias. 4.Under Evaluation – rationale of an approach (study a practice). *Note – Schools identified as SIG may NOT utilize option 4. Guiding Question: How will the State support the neediest schools and districts (Focus and Priority Schools), specifically related to the use of research based, statistically significant interventions? Next Steps:

12. Indicator 7 Describe any additional improvement actions the State may take, including additional supports for interventions in LEAs, or in any authorized public chartering, with a significant number of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement that are not meeting exit criteria or a significant number of schools identified for targeted support or improvement. What We Currently Do: -Because our Assessment and Accountability systems have changed over the past three years, we have not had the data to have schools meet Focus and Priority “exit criteria”. Additionally, the state’s approach to schools that are not meeting target is to help them meet target (similar to a teacher’s philosophy when a student is failing… the goal is to help them learn and grow, not to give a failing grade and move on). -The law currently dictates that districts with Focus or Priority schools must set-aside 10% of their Title I allocation as additional funding for these schools. The DOE currently supports Focus and Priority schools through 1003(a) grants, which are specifically allocated to Focus and Priority schools and the activities are directly connected to their needs assessment. Guiding Questions: How should the State support the neediest schools and districts that do not meet their goals for school improvement and student learning? How else can the State promote innovations and improvements in these schools and districts? Next Steps:

13. Indicator 8 Program-Specific Requirements. - Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies Each State must describe the process and criteria it will use to waive the 40 percent school-wide poverty, including how the SEA will ensure that the school-wide program will best serve the needs of the lowest-achieving students in the school. What We Currently Do: -Currently the State of New Hampshire does not have a process or criteria in place to waive the 40% school-wide poverty threshold for schools seeking to become school-wide Title I schools. -ESSA requires that an LEA seeking school-wide status to identify “how a schoolwide program will best serve the needs of the students in the school served…in improving academic achievement and other factors”. Guiding Question: As a State Agency, what criteria do we want to put in place to allow for schools that do not have 40% school-wide poverty to become schoolwide schools? What processes should be in place to receive a waiver from the State? Next Steps:

14. Thank you • We truly appreciate your support, work, and advise to date. • Be ready to look through an actual draft next time (will try to get it out early).