CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request: The School Quality Improvement System

Who is CORE?
Number of Students CORE Districts, SY 2011-2012

CORE is a collaboration among ten California school districts that are working together to significantly improve student outcomes Together we serve more than one million students and their families

Note: Garden Grove and Clovis are not participating in the ESEA waiver application

COREs Waiver Goal

With this waiver, CORE does not seek to escape FROM accountability. Instead, CORE is asking for a waiver INTO a new system with a higher level of shared responsibility and accountability but propelled by the right drivers to achieve the systems ultimate purpose: 1. All students prepared for college and careers 2. Elimination of disparity and disproportionality on multiple measures of student engagement and success.

Current ESEA (NCLB) law demands 100% proficiency by 2014 and loss of funding and one-size-fits-all interventions for schools that do not meet the target
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Target for High School ELA, 2002-2014 Current School Year

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandates that all students are academically proficient by 2014 Schools, LEAs, and subgroups must meet these goals to make AYP targets and exit Program Improvement NCLB neglects subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education

ESEA Authorization Expired

The penalty for missing AYP is loss of federal funding for schools serving low-income children ESEA expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it In 2011, the US Education Department told states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fitsall solutions that just don't work"

California LEAs and schools must meet Participation Rate, ELA, Math, API, and Graduation Rate targets for all students and subgroups under NCLB to be considered making AYP
Source: USED; CDE, NBC News

Schools are far from meeting proficiency targets; without the waiver, shortly all schools would fall into Program Improvement Corrective Action
Participating CORE Waiver LEA Title I Schools by Average ELA and Math Proficiency Level Current Proficiency Expectation

Schools, LEAs, and the state must meet all AYP criteria to meet ESEA Shortly, all schools and LEAs will miss these ratcheted up targets Title I Schools and LEAs are identified for Program Improvement (PI) if they do not meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years If a school or an LEA is designated PI, it must provide certain types of required services and/or interventions during each year it is identified as PI In Year 3 of PI, schools and LEAs are subject to onerous sanctions which include: Replacing school staff Extending school year or day Restructuring school organization Implementing new curriculum

Source: USED; CDE

USED offers a waiver for ESEA requirements; California is one of five states that does not have an approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver or one under review

States approved for ESEA flexibility (n=39, DC) States with ESEA flexibility requests under review (n=6, PR, BIE)

District of Columbia Puerto Rico Bureau of Indian Education

Source: USED

California represents more than 90% of non-waived students nationwide. The state submitted a letter requesting flexibility which was deemed insufficient by USED
States That Do Not Have a Waiver Under Review

California submitted letter (not a waiver application) as an ESEA flexibility request on June 15, 2012 However, unlike other states, California shied away from two central components of the application: Developing a complete new accountability system Implementing a teacher evaluation system that takes student outcomes into account

USED denied Californias request, and the state has not submitted another version

Current CORE Waiver districts would cover ~1M students

Source: USED; NCES; Ed Week

The large achievement gaps in CAs student subgroups are a call to action: Change is needed to address this disproportionality, as the status quo is not working
Californias population of historically underperforming subgroups is large
At more than 6 million students, Californias public school population is enormous. It is also enormously diverse. In its schools, the state has a majority of minorities, with Hispanics/Latinos making up the largest student group More than one in five children in California live in poverty, and nearly half of all K12 students participate in the federal free and reduced-price meal programs offered in schools to students from low-income families In addition, one quarter of Californias K12 students are English learners EdSource, The Achievement Gap in California

Californias subgroups underperform from starting KG to entering college

On the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and Californias own standards-based tests (CSTs), poor students, African Americans and Latinos, and English learners are over-represented among students scoring at the lowest levels and under-represented among the highest scoring Other measures of student achievementincluding dropout and graduation rates, completion of the A-G courses required for eligibility to the states four-year universities, and college admissionsreveal similar achievement patterns between these groups of students and their peers. These results are important because they predict later success, including students ability as adults to secure jobs that pay a living wage Because African Americans and Latinos in California represent disproportionate numbers of children living in poverty, they are also more likely to begin school at a disadvantage EdSource, The Achievement Gap in California

An ESEA waiver can help Participating LEAs address the problem of disproportionality among Californias student population by highlighting schools with large achievement gaps and providing targeted interventions

Source: EdSource website

Federal ESEA Waiver requirements aim to drive change through 3 key principles: academic standards, differentiated accountability, and effective leadership
PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS
1A. Adopt College- & Career-Ready Expectations for All Students 1B. Transition to College- & Career-Ready Standards 1C. Develop & Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth

PRINCIPLE 2: DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT

2A. Develop and implement a state-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 2B. Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives 2C.-E. Identify Reward Schools, Priority Schools, and Focus Schools 2F. Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools 2G. Build LEA and school capacity to improve student learning

PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

3A. Develop and adopt guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation support systems 3B. Ensure LEAs implement teach and principal evaluation and support systems

The CORE Waiver addresses these requirements through four commitments

Waiver Component Commitment from Participating CORE Waiver LEAs

College and Career Ready Standards

Implement Common Core Standards in the 2013-14 SY and SBAC (or PARCC, if necessary) assessments, starting in 2014-15 Participate in the School Quality Improvement System, which includes a COREdesigned holistic accountability model, AMOs, and school designations (e.g., Reward, Focus, and Priority schools) Track, submit, and release school-level academic, social-emotional, and culture and climate information Develop guidelines for the teacher and principal evaluation system by the start of the 2013-14 SY Implement by 2015-16 (and pilot by 2014-15) a teacher and principal evaluation system that differentiates performances into four tiers and includes, as a significant factor, student growth Partner with LEA peers to support and monitor waiver activity implementation Priority or Focus schools or other schools needing improvement will participate in pairing process with a Reward or exemplar school

New CORE Accountability Model For Identifying School Supports and Interventions

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Incorporating Growth in Student Achievement

Peer-based Monitoring, Review, and Support

Central to the CORE Waiver is a holistic school performance system with tailored support for schools and LEAs called the School Quality Improvement System
The CORE School Quality Improvement System seeks to: Goals Establish a holistic school performance system that values multiple measures of student success across academic, social-emotional, and culture-climate domains Provide schools, teachers, and administrators clear, in-depth feedback on areas of strength and those in need of improvement to improve outcomes for students Create a collective ownership structure within schools, districts, and the CORE network in which teacher, staff, and administrator collaboration and shared responsibility for student outcomes are primary drivers of accountability Increase and restore student, parent, and community confidence in all CORE network schools

Usage

CORE seeks to apply these goals to the differentiated accountability, recognition and support framework required through the ESEA waiver: A school-level improvement index (School Quality Improvement Index) that clearly evaluates schools on student achievement, subgroup performance, and graduation rates; Annual Measurable Objectives (School Quality Improvement Goals) that are used to design targeted interventions and rewards; and A school designation system that identifies and outlines rewards for high performing or high-progress reward schools, and interventions for severely underperforming priority schools or focus schools with persistent achievement gaps LEAs will use this holistic, detailed information to inform school self assessments, professional learning community topics, and school partner pairings to drive tailored interventions and school support

The CORE waiver and LCFF both emphasize a focus on subgroups, flexibility at the district level, and similar metrics of accountability to reduce disparity and disproportionality
Both initiatives reorient the educational system to focus on the reduction of disparity and disproportionality
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
On top of a base funding provided for each student, LCFF will allocate supplemental grants to English learners, economically disadvantaged and foster students; concentration grants provide additional funds to schools with greater than 50% enrollment of students in these subgroups LCFF increases flexibility and accountability at the local level so those closest to the students are able to make resource decisions LEAs will produce a local control and accountability plan that will describe how they intend to meet the following requirements: Implementation of the Common Core Standards Improve student achievement, graduation rate, and school performance Increase student engagements as measured by attendance, chronic absenteeism, dropout rates, etc. Prepare students for college and careers Provide services for English learners, economically disadvantaged students and children in foster care Provide opportunities for parent involvement

CORE Waiver Proposal

Waiver activities include targeted interventions for Priority schools, Focus schools and schools that do not meet their AMOsdesignations which rely heavily on the performance of subgroups and metrics such as ELL re-designation rates The CORE waiver was developed as a collaboration among districts and their respective stakeholders and represents common approaches they have agreed upon while allowing for local flexibility LEAs have committed to measuring their progress and success using the following metrics: Implementation of the Common Core Standards Student proficiency rate Student academic growth High school graduation rates Middle and high school persistance rates Suspension and expulsion rates Chronic absenteeism Non-cognitive skills Special Ed identification rates English learner reclassification rates Culture and climate surveys of students, parents and all staff

Focus on Subgroups

Local Autonomy

Accountability Metrics

Source: California Department of Finance, EdSource Website

The School Quality Improvement System is a holistic approach to school improvement with the goal of college and career readiness for all students
School Quality Improvement System

School Pairing and LEA Peer Review

Dual Data System

School Quality Improvement Goal Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

Collaborative system for mutual accountability and support

School partnership based upon Reward, Focus, and Priority school designations, as well as school progress against School Quality Improvement Goal Bi-annual LEA Peer Review to support and monitor Waiver implementation School Quality Improvement Index Key School-Level Measurement for Accountability Purposes Includes school-level Academic, SocialEmotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators Consistent across LEAs Aggregated by 3rd Party Continuous Improvement Data Collection Data Sharing Function for Support of Collaboration and Sharing Includes (1) indicators piloted for use in the index; (2) implementation metrics; (3) other classroom-, school-, and LEA-level formative data Collected by CORE

CORE Waiver AMO based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement Index

Moral imperative of college and career readiness for all students with a significant focus on the elimination of disproportionality

Participation in School Quality Improvement System Monitoring and Escalating LEA Interventions
June Peer Review LEAs submit evidence of implementation, reporting, and monitoring efforts; peer review submission of another LEA
LEA satisfactorily meets obligations in peer review and will resume monitoring

LEAs joins School Quality Improvement System Signs CORE MOU and accepts associated responsibilities

LEAs that do not satisfactorily meet obligations in peer review

LEAs participate in School Quality Improvement System CORE monitors implementation of performance measures at the student, teacher, principal, school and LEA levels

LEA does not satisfactorily meet obligations

Development Period
LEAs design and apply implementation steps for successful implementation in the following year with CORE support Feb. 1 - LEA submits mid-year interim report for second peerreview cycle

CORE notifies Oversight Panel of LEAs which have not fully implemented School Quality Improvement System

Oversight Panel decides whether or not to recommend to the USED if a waiver revocation is necessary

No

LEA reenters the cycle of review

2nd Friday in April CORE Board reviews progress. LEAs given opportunity to selfremove from Waiver if desired

Yes
The USED is solely responsible for revocation of Waiver agreements

The CORE Waiver Oversight Panel will render decisions on compliance for LEA inclusion/exclusion in the waiver based on peer and self evaluation inputs
CORE Waiver Compliance Panel (Facilitated by CORE staff)

Core Staff presents comprehensive compliance and status report to Oversight Panel

Peer review report

District self-evaluation report

Peer review process

District self-evaluation process

1. ACSA appointee 2. CSBA appointee 3. CCSEA Appointee 4. CDE Appointee 5. State Board Appointee 6. Governors Appointee 7. CTA Appointee 8. PTA Appointee 9. Civil Rights Representative Appointees 10.EdTrust Appointee 11.Non-Supt. California Collaborative Appointee 12.CORE Board Appointed Higher Education Researcher (Non-LEA) 13.Students with Disabilities Representative Appointee 14.English Language Learners Representative Appointee
Oversight panel will operate with a simple majority

Compliance panel will determine 1) Administrative discipline 2) Escalation path 3) Final decision on inclusion/exclusion from waiver

Principle 1: College and Career Ready Expectations for All Students

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, LEAs must complete the Principle 1 Must Dos
Principle 1: Transition to College and Career Ready Standards
1. Develop district CCSS instructional plans which include necessary pedagogical shifts for engaging all students to master all standards (with emphasis on meeting the needs of EL, SwD, and low achieving students). 2. Identify ELD benchmarked learning targets within the CCSS and new CA ELD standards. 3. Develop district professional development plan for all teachers aligned to CCSS and SBAC. 4. Engage all teacher leaders in CCSS and SBAC based professional development for preparation of CCSS implementation. 5. Full district transition to CCSS in 2013-14. 6. Agree to fully transition to SBAC assessments in 2014-15.

LEAs have begun transitioning to CCSS and SBAC implementation. In order to maintain local flexibility, each district is responsible for designing their own transition plans with support from CORE as needed CORE CCSS Transition Timeline

Complete

In Progress

Next Steps

Over the course of Summer 2013, districts will prepare for full implementation of the CCSS in the 2013-2014 school year through continued stakeholder engagement and district-led PD

Principle 2: State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support

The proposed School Quality Improvement System is designed to hold schools accountable for the performance of all students across a variety of factors
Beginning in 2015-2016, all schools will be scored on an annual overall School Quality Improvement Index on a 100-point scale that is based on student- and school-level performance in the academic, social-emotional, and culture-climate domains Reward, priority, and focus school designation will be based on a rank order of these scores for all Title 1 schools, across all participating districts Subgroup-level performance impacts ~60% of a schools overall index, incentivizing schools and districts to improve proficiency among underperforming groups across each factor associated with the three domains. Schools will receive annual detailed reports highlighting performance in: Proficiency in Math (all students and all subgroups), ELA (all students and all subgroups), and all other state-administered assessments for the all students group Student growth (all students and all subgroups) Graduation rate (all students and all subgroups) Social-Emotional factors: absentee rate, suspension/expulsion rate, non-cognitive (all students and all subgroups) Culture-Climate factors: student/staff/parent surveys (all students and all subgroups), ELL re-designation, and Special Education identification As aligned with the central goal of preparing students for success in college and beyond, CORE hopes to include college completion rates should high quality data becomes available The CORE district-developed School Quality Improvement System will be implemented in all schools across participating districts, ensuring consistent, rigorous standards across districts representing over 1 million students Districts have the flexibility to hold schools accountable to additional locally-relevant factors, but these will not be integrated into a schools School Quality Improvement Index

COREs theory of change is based on eliminating disparity and disproportionality across academic, social/emotional, and culture/climate domains

Elimination of Disparity and Disproportionality

The School Quality Improvement Index is a key component of the Dual Data System, and the driver of differentiated recognition, accountability and support
School Quality Improvement System

School Pairing and LEA Peer Review

Dual Data System

School Quality Improvement Goal

School Quality Improvement Index Key School-Level Measurement for Accountability Purposes Includes school-level Academic, SocialEmotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators Consistent across LEAs Aggregated by 3rd Party

Continuous Improvement Data Collection

Moral imperative of college and career readiness for all students with a significant focus on the elimination of disproportionality

School Quality Improvement Index scores flow to AMO status (School Quality Improvement Goal) and school designations
School Quality Improvement System
Academic Social-Emotional Culture and Climate

School Quality Improvement Index

Accountability Model Accountability Model

School scores on the accountability report will be used to determine whether a school met its School Quality Improvement Goal and will provide schools information on subgroup performance School Quality Improvement Goals are designed to improve schools overall accountability score and improve student performance across numerous dimensions

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

School Quality Improvement Goals

School Designations (Reward, Focus, Priority)

School designations are informed by the accountability model scores, and for reward schools, whether the School Quality Improvement Goal was met

The School Quality Improvement Index provides a more holistic view of school and student performance than under NCLB

Academic

Social-Emotional

Culture and Climate

NCLB

Performance measured against ELA, Math, API, and graduation rate targets

Not included

Not included

CORE Waiver

Academic performance broadened to include other subjects (e.g., science, history, writing) and other metrics (e.g., growth, 5th and 6th year graduation rates)

Non-Cognitive skills will be included, in addition to measuring absentee and suspension/expulsion rates

Student, staff, and parent surveys included, in addition to Special Ed identification and ELL redesignation rates

Research has demonstrated the importance of these factors not only for academic achievement but also life success (e.g., employment, wages, avoidance of risky behavior)

A school will be successful on the School Quality Improvement Index only if historically underperforming subgroup performance improves
Proposed Accountability Model Includes All Grades

2015-16 and Beyond

School Quality Improvement Index 100% Social-Emotional Factors 20%

Completion Grad Rate (HS) HS Retention (MS)

Academic Domain 60%

Culture and Climate Factors (Student 20%

Student/Staff/Parent Surveys, Special Ed Identification, ELL Redesignation Rate (TBD)

Performance 20%

Growth 20%

20%

Absentee Rate, Suspension/ Expulsion Rate, NonCognitive Skills (TBD)

All Students 10% Subgroups 10%

All Students 10% Subgroups 10%

All Students 10% Subgroups 10%

All Students 10% Subgroups 10%

All Students 10% Subgroups 10%

Districts will transition gradually to the School Quality Improvement Index and Goal systems in order to allow for thoughtful implementation and account for new standards under CCSS and SBAC Implementation Timeline

Transition Accountability Score will be based on Academic Domain Begin collecting socialemotional and culture/ climate in order to set a baseline for future measurement 2013-14

School Quality Improvement Index Partial Implementation Introduce Socio-Emotional & Cultural Factors Growth in academic performance excluded during 1st year of SBAC/ PARCC implementation 2014-15

Full Implementation School Quality Improvement Index fully implemented with all factors fully measured and considered

2015-16 & Beyond

The School Quality Improvement Index works in tandem with the formative performance factors of the dual data system to identify school-specific areas in need of reward or intervention

Lowering the N-size would follow the pattern of other state waivers and create accountability structures for a significant number of additional CA students
Additional Students Counted Under N20 Recommendation, CORE Waiver LEAs Based on 2012 student numbers State ESEA Waivers With Lowered N-Sizes

State Subgroup African American American Indian Asian English Learner Filipino Hispanic or Latino Pacific Islander Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students With Disabilities 2 or More Races White Students Counted Students Counted Under Current NUnder Size (N100 or Recommended N15% of students) Size (N20) 31.3k 25.5k 238.6k 3.0k 362.8k 449.9k 19.0k 40.5k 54.6k 41.3k 259.0k 8.4k 378.1k 1.1k 460.6k 65.3k 1.3k 54.1k Additional Students Counted 23.2k 15.8k 20.4k 5.4k 15.3k 1.1k 10.7k 46.3k 1.3k 13.5k % Increase in Students 74% 62% 9% 182% 4% Infinite 2% 244% Infinite 33% Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Idaho Mississippi Nevada North Carolina Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Virginia Washington Wisconsin CORE Waiver LEAs

Original N-Size 40 40 40 34 40 25 40 45 40 25 50 30 40 100

New N-Size 25 25 30 25 30 10 30 20 30 10 30 20 20 20

~150K Additional Students

Source: The Aspen Institute, The commissions Recommendations in Practice: What the New N-Size Policy Would Mean in California; US DOE website; Parthenon analysis

The School Quality Improvement Index will utilize assessments appropriate for SWDs while following the ESEA waivers cap requirements
SWDs Significant Cognitive Disabilities (1%) California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) An alternate assessment to assess students with significant disabilities to a modified set of standards SWDs Moderate Cognitive Disabilities (2%) California Modified Assessment (CMA) An alternate assessment to assess students with moderate disabilities to a modified set of standards Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with moderate disabilities will be based on CMA assessments Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with moderate disabilities will be based on a CCSS-aligned adaptive assessment (e.g. SBAC) No more than 2% of students will be eligible for inclusion in the School Quality Improvement Index based on their CMA score or modified CCSSaligned assessment score All Other Students California Standardized Tests (CSTs)

Current California Assessment

2013-2014 SY: Inclusion in School Quality Improvement Index 2014-15 SY: Changes Under SBAC Implementation

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with significant disabilities will be based on CAPA assessments

Other students scores will be based on CST scores

Academic Domain Performance and Growth scores for students with significant disabilities will be based on CAPA assessments. If California changes CAPA assessments, LEAs will use an appropriate alternate modified assessment No more than 1% of students will be eligible for inclusion in the School Quality Improvement Index based on their CAPA score (or equivalent assessment score)

Other students performance/ growth will be based on SBAC scores

n/a

Application of ESEA Waiver Caps

Note: If California delays SBAC implementation, CORE will consider implementing either PARCC or SBAC

Students who are not tested below the 95% participation level will be counted as non-proficient for the all students group and all subgroups
100 Student School with 60% Proficiency All Students Example 20 ELL Students (within the same school) Subgroup Example Repeated for Each Subgroup

90 Students Tested (90%)

10 Students Not Tested (10%)

17 Students Tested (85%)

3 Students Not Tested (15%)

54 Students Proficient (60% of those tested)

36 Students Not Proficient (40% of those tested)

5 Students Excused (5%)

5 Students Not Excused

9 Students Proficient (53% of those tested)

8 Students Not Proficient (47% of those tested)

1 Students Excused (5%)

2 Students Not Excused

54 Students Tested Proficient

All Students

9 Students Tested Proficient

ELL Subgroup

57% Proficient

47% Proficient 2 Unexcused Not Tested Students

90 Students Tested

5 Unexcused Not Tested Students

17 Students Tested

Example High School Scoring Table: Academic Domain, Performance

Performance (20%)
% Proficient Weight Calculation (up to 100) (Overall) Math, "All Students" 3% Math: % Students scoring Proficient in Math assessment * 100 points * 3% weight
ELA, "All Students" Science, "All Students" History, "All Students"
Math, White Math, African American Math, Latino Math, Asian American Math, Pacific Islander Math, Filipino Math, American Indian Math, Two or more races Math, SED Math, ELLs Math, SWD ELA, White ELA, African American ELA, Latino ELA, Asian American ELA, Pacific Islander ELA, Filipino ELA, American Indian ELA, Two or more races ELA, SED ELA, ELLs ELA, SWD

All Students (10%)

3% 2% 2%

ELA: % Students scoring Proficient in ELA assessment * 100 points * 3% weight Science: % Students scoring Proficient in Common-Core aligned Science assessments at appropriate grade levels * 100 points * 2% weight History/SS: % Students scoring Proficient in Common-Core aligned History/SS assessments at appropriate grade levels * 100 points * 2% weight 1.Determine number of qualifying subgroups (number of students in subgroup 20) 2.Calculate % Proficient in Math for each qualifying NCLB subgroup

Average Proficiency of Qualifying Subgroups

Math (5%)

5%

3.Average % Proficient in Math among qualifying subgroups 4.Multiply average * 100 * 5%

SWDs are included as one of the subgroups measured across the School Quality Improvement System CORE and participating LEAs will continue to ensure that only 2% of students are included in SQII using alternative state-administered assessments after CMA sunsets. Participating LEAs will also ensure that no more than 1% of students take CAPA, or another stateadministered test for students with severe disabilities if CAPA is no longer in use

Subgroups (10%)

Average Proficiency of Qualifying Subgroups

5%

1.Determine number of qualifying subgroups (number of students in subgroup 20) 2.Calculate % Proficient in ELA for each qualifying NCLB subgroup 3.Average % Proficient in ELA among qualifying subgroups 4.Multiply average * 100 * 5% weight

ELA (5%)

Total

20%

Overall Performance Points: Sum of performance subgroup weighted percentage points (20 possible overall points)

Note: Under CSTs, Proficient refers to Proficient/Advanced category. As California shifts from SBAC assessments, will measure performance based on Proficient category equivalent to current CST Proficient/Advanced categories; SBAC ELA assessments will include writing portion; LEAs will design History/SS and Science Common-Core aligned assessments; for Science and History/SS, % Students refers to percentage of all students who have taken a History/SS or Science exam respectively in the previous year (i.e. not percentage of total student population)

Example High School Scoring Table: Academic Domain, Performance (N 20 Subgroup Threshold Scenario)
All Students (10%)

Subject
Math (3%) ELA (3%) Science (2%) History (2%)

All Students Scores, All Subjects (10%)

All Students N = 1824

% Proficiency 68% 71% 60% 62%

Multiply by 100 100 100 100 100

Multiply by Weight 3% 3% 2% 2%

Points Allocated 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.2 6.6 ELA (5%) % Proficiency
72% 67% 43% 65% 60% 40%

All Students Total Score (Points)

Subgroups Scores,
All Subgroups
White N = 1444 African American N = 212 Latino N = 41 Asian American N = 103 Pacific Islander N=0 Filipino N = 17 American Indian N=5 Two or more races N=2 SED N = 415 ELLs N = 98 SWD N = 18

Math (5%) and

White N = 1444 African American N = 212 Latino N = 41 Asian/Pacific Islander N = 103

ELA (5%)
White African American Latino Asian/Pacific Islander SED ELL

Subgroups with N 20

Math (5%) % Proficiency

70% 50% 45% 77% 58% 62%

Average Proficiency Among

Qualifying Subgroups

62% 100 5% 3.1

58% 100 5% 2.9

Multiply by 100 Multiply by Weight

Subgroups Total Score (Points)

SED N = 415 ELLs N = 98

6.6
Points from All Students
Out of 10

3.1
Points from Subgroups, Math
Out of 5

2.9
Points from Subgroups, ELA
Out of 5

12.6%
Performance Score
Out of 20%

Total Groups: 11

Qualifying Groups: 6

Note: Though SBAC has yet to release proficiency categories,% Proficiency refers to number of students falling into the equivalent Proficient SBAC category

Priority schools have the most stringent required interventions; Reward schools recognize both high progress and highest-performing schools
Reward Schools Highest Performing Reward Schools High-Progress Focus Schools At least 10% of Title 1 schools Focus Schools must include: Priority Schools At least 5% of Title 1 schools A Priority School must be one of the following:

At least 10% of Title 1 schools Highest-Performing Schools: Are among schools with the highest absolute performance over a number of years for the all student groups and all subgroups USED Description At the high school level, must have the highest graduation rates Must be making AYP for all students and all subgroups Cannot have significant achievement gaps that are not closing USED Required Interventions or Rewards High-Progress Reward Schools:

Are among the top 10% of CORE Any high schools with <60% schools in improving graduation rates not designated a A currently-served Title 1 and performance over a number of Priority School non-Title 1 SIG School years Title 1 schools with the largest Title 1 eligible or participating within-school achievement gaps school with <60% graduation Cannot have significant achievement gaps that are not in performance or graduation over a number of years closing rates Among the lowest 5% of schools in CORE based on student A Title 1 school with at least 1 low performing subgroup over a achievement in the all students number of years group

Rewards identified by CORE and Rewards identified by CORE and Focus Schools must engage in participating districts participating districts LEA and school-determined targeted interventions based on the specific needs of each Focus School

Priority Schools must apply the 7 turnaround principles for at least 3 years as outlined in USEDs ESEA Flexibility Application

Source: U.S. Department of Education

The overall lowest performing schools and SIG schools are designated as priority. Schools with large, persistent achievement gaps are designated as focus
1
Priority Schools

Focus schools (Schools not already designated priority) 0 schools with a graduation rate of < 60% Schools ranked by Achievement Gap 12 schools in the lowest 5% of based upon their achievement gap (lowest 5% for 2012, 2011, and 2010)

SIG

42 Tier I or Tier II SIG Schools (includes 4 non-Title I) 12 schools in the lowest 5% of based upon proficiency rates of the all students group (Lowest 5% for 2012, 2011; lowest 10% for 2010)

Graduation Rate Achievement Gap

Performance

Graduation Rate Excludes all Credit recovery programs Independent study schools Schools for students with severe disabilities Early education programs

4 incremental schools have a graduation rate of <60% for last 3 years

Subgroup Performance

103 schools with subgroups at less than 20% average proficiency on math and ELA assessments and less than 5 percentage points of improvement over 3 years

5% (49 schools) are required to be listed as priority

42 + 12 + 4= 58 Schools
H: 23 M: 16 E: 19

10% (99 schools) are required to be listed as focus

0 + 12 + 103 = 115 Schools

H: 32 M: 21 E: 62

Reward Schools are comprised of both high-performing and high-progress; our definition closely follows the requirements of the waiver
Reward Schools Must include both highest-performing and high-progress

Highest-Performing
Title 1 school; and Top 30% of schools based on performance in 2010-2012, and based on 2012 graduation rates; and Within-school achievement gap in In the lowest 30% across all participating schools; or The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved since 2010 (i.e. change is >0); and Met AYP in 2012, defined as: Met proficiency rates for all students and all subgroups; and Reached 740 API or grew by at least 1 point; and Met the graduation rate requirement (or the growth target Title 1 school; and

High-Progress
Top 10% most improved academic performance across ELA and Math in all grades in the all students group; and Required for High-Progress schools Top 50% most improved graduation rate; and Most progress in increasing graduation rates is not clearly defined by DOE requirements; therefore this cut point can be adjusted The lowest performing subgroup in each school has improved by at least 5% since 2010 Schools cannot be designated highest-progress if they have a stagnant or worsening achievement gap. By showing significant improved performance for a schools lowest performing subgroup, our methodology meets DOEs requirement that a High-Progress school must not have significant achievement gaps that are not closing

35 schools
34 Elementary, 2 Middle, 3 High Schools

67 additional schools
55 Elementary, 9 Middle, 34 High Schools

Note: If a school meets criteria for both highest-performing and high-progress, they are included only in the highest-performing list

Reward, focus, and priority schools are dispersed across participating LEAs
School Designations by School District Fresno Reward: Highest performing Long Beach Los Angeles Oakland Santa Ana Sac. City San Francisco Sanger

24

Reward: High Progress

46

Focus

14

74

10

Priority SIG Total Number of Non-Sig Title 1 Schools

3 3*

0 0

27 19

11 4

6 6

1 1

10 9*

0 0

64

55

565

83

48

61

45

13

(*) In both San Francisco and Fresno, 2 of their SIG schools are not Title 1

Beginning in 2014-15 with the school weighted score, the below methodology could be applied to determine Reward, Priority, and Focus Schools
Title I Schools Only

Recommended Methodology

Reward Schools (10% of Schools)

Focus Schools (10% of Schools)

Priority Schools (5% of Schools)

1.Highest-Performing: Top 10% of schools based off index scores generated of the School Quality Improvement System 2.High-Progress: Are among the top 10% of CORE Title I Schools, highest score on the growth factor of School Quality Improvement Index for the all students and all subgroups for 3 years 3.Include only schools that have testing data for at least 95% of students

1.All remaining non-priority schools with less than 60% graduation rate for the 3 prior years 2.Non-priority schools with which the highest 5% ranked by largest achievement gaps from the achievement gap metric in the School Quality Improvement System Cut point may need to increase to 10% to meet required total number of schools target 3.All schools that test less than 90% of eligible students

1.Add the lowest performing schools ranked based on scores generated through the School Quality Improvement System until 5% of schools is reached for that year

List Calculated Annually

Priority and Focus schools will be identified with the addition of new LEAs and beginning annually 2014-15

Notes: Schools refers to Title I Schools; Source: ESEA Flexibility Guidelines, CORE Waiver

Priority and Focus School Interventions

Priority Schools
Interventions
Schools and parents will be notified as to the reason for priority designation Priority schools will be paired with highest-performing reward schools for ongoing coaching and collaboration Priority schools will undergo a year-long needs assessment and planning process that includes both self-evaluation and peer-review with their partner reward school Districts will ensure timely implementation of the 7 turnaround principles

Focus Schools
Intervention first steps Intervention subsequent steps, if necessary

Schools will be will be provided data analysis from Gardner Center, highlighting If a focus school has not exited status by the end of Year 2, the school will be required to partner with a reward school at the start of Year 3 reasons for designation If not enough schools are designated as reward, CORE will identify others Focus schools will complete needs self-assessment and work with school that have performed well in the focus schools area(s) of relative advisory councils (which will include key stakeholders) to develop 2-year weakness improvement plan If a focus school has not exited status by the end of Year 4, the following districtBeginning in Fall 2013, and every Fall there after, focus schools will join managed turnaround principles are required (from the Alabama waiver): appropriate communities of practice, which will convene at least quarterly to The school will lose the autonomy to select and implement interventions address specific needs to address the learning needs of students Schools will stay in the same communities of practice until exiting Focus Changes in leaders and teachers may be made status, but will have the option of appealing to CORE to join another community of practice if the school feels theirs is ineffective A district facilitator may be assigned to diagnose and support improvement among the effective subgroups and will ensure that the In years 1 & 2 of designation, focus schools will have the option to pair with peer school improvement plan is carried out to fidelity reward schools that have demonstrated excellence in closing achievement gaps, or in improving results for traditionally underserved subgroups to assist in The District may intervene in the daily operations of the school developing improvement plan

Community of Practice Intervention Cycle

Continuous Cycle

School writes School Improvement Plan

School attends Community of Practice

School revises School Improvement Plan

School writes a School Improvement Plan in the fall of the school year of initial designation in partnership with their School Advisory Council Through this process, combined with analysis of the schools student data, the school will identify the most relevant community of practice to attend

School attends quarterly community of practice School attendance at a community of practice is required at least quarterly

Upon reflecting on learnings from the community of practice, the school will revise its School Improvement Plan

Priority and Focus School Exit Criteria

Requirements to Exit: Priority Schools School has reduced the number of non- proficient students by 25% in the all students group Proficiency Baseline is calculated using the year of data during which a school is designated This target will be recalibrated when SBAC/PARCC assessments are introduced in 2014-15 SY to ensure that exit criteria is ambitious but achievable under the new standards AND for high schools identified as Priority Schools with a persistent graduation rate of <60% Graduation rate must reach at least 60% OR Graduation rate must grow by 10 percentage points Schools will be held to the goal that requires the greatest amount of growth in graduation rate + Graduation Baseline is calculated using the year of data during which a school is designated The 10 percentage point mark represents the growth in graduation rates that are one half of a standard deviation above the participating schools annual average increase between 2010 and 2012 We believe that this is an ambitious but achievable goal since 6 of the 13 schools identified as having a whole school graduation rate less than 60% in 2010, are on track to achieve this growth by 2013 AND (Beginning in 2014-15, the first year of SBAC and baseline year for School Quality Improvement Goal) Schools must meet their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 2 points in 2 years, and if time of exit is at or after year 4, met their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 4 points in 4 years or reaching 90 points on their School Quality Improvement Index AND (Beginning in 2014-15, the first year of SBAC and baseline year for School Quality Improvement Goal) Schools must meet their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 2 points in 2 years, and if time of exit is at or after year 4, met their School Quality Improvement Goal of improving 4 points in 4 years or reaching 90 points on their School Quality Improvement Index Focus Schools School has reduced the number of non- proficient students by 25% in the focus subgroup(s) Baseline is calculated using the year of data during which a school is designated This target will be recalibrated when SBAC/PARCC assessments are introduced in 2014-15 SY to ensure that exit criteria is ambitious but achievable under the new standards For high schools identified as Focus Schools with a persistent graduation rate of <60% (none currently and n/a given COREs definition of Priority) Graduation rate must reach at least 60% OR Graduation rate must grow by 10 percentage points Schools will be held to the goal that requires the greatest amount of growth in graduation rate Same details as Priority Schools

+ AMOs

Reward schools will receive recognition and benefits of peer coaching

CORE reward system All reward schools, their districts and governing boards will be recognized locally and statewide by CORE Board Members, staff and media Additionally, reward schools will receive free professional development to develop coaching capacity to share successful practices as interventions for Priority and Focus Schools

School- and teacher-level benefits of peer coaching Benefits for teachers at reward schools include: Additional training on coaching principles that are critical in the classroom: active and effective listening, giving constructive feedback, observation, and relationship building Research shows that teacher-child relationships are critical to educational attainment supportive, organized and cognitively stimulating teacher-child relationships account for gains of up to a years progress on standardized tests. Even greater advantages accrue to more disadvantaged students Exposure and access to new teaching and classroom management techniques, particularly in traditionally underserved subgroups that may have small populations at reward schools Access to and strengthening of professional communities within reward schools, their districts, and across the CORE network Research by Judith Little (1982) documented that norms of collegiality are crucial to school success

Additional rewards districts can choose to implement and fund outside of the CORE reward system

Certificate Banners/Plaques Ceremony Special reward designation logo can be displayed on the school website Staff can serve on district task forces

Source: Teaching Children Well, Center for American Progress, 2011. Peer Coaching: An Effective Model of Teacher Professional Development for Technology Integration, Puget Sound Center

Title I Set Asides

Large Categories of Allowable Title I Expenditures In Descending Order

1. School Interventions for: Priority Focus Other Title I Schools Low-Achieving Student Groups (SWD, ELL, low-achieving) 2. Support for school partnering teams Priority, Focus (optional) 3. Support for communities of practice 4. Waiver implementation at the LEA level 5. CCSS implementation and assessment transition in Title I schools Extending STEM programs in Title I schools 6. Stakeholder outreach and engagement 7. Transportation to support school-choice (if district chooses)

The School Quality Improvement Goal provides school with an ambitious but achievable goal based off its performance on the School Quality Improvement Index
School Quality Improvement System

School Pairing and LEA Peer Review

Dual Data System

School Quality Improvement Goal

Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

School Quality Improvement Index

Continuous Improvement Data Collection

CORE Waiver AMO based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement Index All schools will have as School Quality Improvement Goals either: Reaching a score of 90% on its School Quality Improvement Index; or Improve the School Quality Improvement Index by increasing 2 percentage points in 2 years, and 4 percentage points in 4 years

Moral imperative of college and career readiness for all students with a significant focus on the elimination of disproportionality

Annual Calculation of CORE AMOs and Use in Determination of Interventions in Other Title I Schools Until Full AMO Implementation 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Baseline year for CORE School Quality Improvement Index School Quality Improvement Goal determined for each school Status on API and graduation rate target drive interventions for Other Title I Schools in 2013-14 SY CORE School Quality Improvement Index used to set AMO CORE School Quality Improvement Index used to set AMO Interventions in Other Title I Schools next year for those in the bottom 30% on the Index that are not Priority or Focus Schools 2015-16

2016-17
First year of determination of progress against School Quality Improvement Goal (2-year progress based off of 2014-15)

CORE AMO Development

Interim CORE AMO

Interventions in Other Title I Schools next year Interventions in Other Title I Schools for for those in the those in the bottom 30% bottom 30% on the on the API that are not Index that are not Priority or Focus Priority or Focus Schools

CORE School Quality Full AMO goal in Improvement Index effect used to set AMO Interventions in next Interventions in school year driven by Other Title I whether the school Schools next year met their School for those in the Quality Improvement bottom 30% on the Goal (AMO) Index that are not Priority or Focus Schools

Schools will write to progress on California AMOs in the school improvement plans

Each schools SQII score will inform its School Quality Improvement Goal, with the ultimate goal of reaching 90% or improving one percentage point per year
2014-2015 and Beyond
SBAC Growth to be included in 2015-2016
Academic Domain 60%

School Quality Improvement Index 100%

Social-Emotional Factors 20% Culture and Climate Factors 20%

High Middle Elementary

Performance Performance Performance

Growth Growth Growth

Grad Rate H.S. (10th gr.) Persistence Rate

Absentee Rate Suspension/Expulsion Rate Non-Cognitive Skills

Student/Staff/Parents Surveys Special Ed Identification ELL Re-designation Rate

A schools index score will directly inform its School Quality Improvement Goal

Required interventions and timelines

Schools will receive a detailed report on their School Quality Improvement Index that outlines each components point distribution so that schools are able to identify focus areas of improvement Schools that did not meet their School Quality Improvement Goal after 2 years will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools accountability score card as most in need of improvement After 4 years: (1) Schools that did not meet either their 2- or 4-year School Quality Improvement Goal will be required to enter into a peer pairing and (2) Schools that did meet their 2-year School Quality Improvement Goal but not their 4-year goal will be required to join a community of practice
Note: 90 point target will be revisited and potentially recalibrated once SBAC comes online

School Quality Improvement Goals

All schools will have as School Quality Improvement Goals either: Reaching a score of 90% on its School Quality Improvement Index; or Improve the School Quality Improvement Index by increasing 2 percentage points in 2 years, and 4 percentage points in 4 years

Even if the Waiver is approved, Participating LEAs will still be measured by the State AMO system but interventions will be driven by the Waiver designations
State AMO System (100% proficiency by 2014)
All Students All NCLB Subgroups N>= 100

Waiver School Quality Improvement Goal (90% or 4 point improvement in 4 years)

Math ELA API Growth Cohort Graduation Rate

100% proficiency by 2014 100% proficiency by 2014 800 by 2014

100% proficiency by 2014 100% proficiency by 2014 n/a

Individual AMOs are not set for each subgroup but successfully meeting the School Quality Improvement Goal is reliant upon subgroup performance it accounts for ~60% of each schools score and is a part of every category of the accountability system Math and ELA proficiency rates are used as key metrics of school performance, growth, and gaps This state AMO will be integrated into the School Quality Improvement Goal - meeting API Growth Targets will account for 100% of the Growth score in the accountability system for 13-14 Graduation rates account for 20% of high schools academic domain score

83.6% by 2014

n/a

School performance on the state accountability system will still be published by the schools Schools may still use this information to inform self-reflection, school pairings, and areas of focus Schools that dont meet AMOs will still be designated Program Improvement schools However, interventions will no longer be based on this system

Interventions will be determined based on school performance in the accountability system and whether or not schools met their School Quality Improvement Goal Schools will need to publish the waiver School Quality Improvement Index School waiver high-performing reward designations will be based on this score

Source: CDE; CORE Waiver plan

Full transition to the new School Quality Improvement Goal will mirror the transition to the CORE School Quality Improvement System (1/2)
School Quality Improvement System implementation phase and initial intervention timeline 2013-2014 Planning and Piloting
Academic domain only: oProficiency rates will be based on CST oGrowth will be measured by whether or not a school met their API target

2014-2015 Initial Implementation

All participating districts and schools will transition to the new School Quality Improvement System that will include: oAcademic domain scores based on SBAC performance. Academic domain will not include growth oSocial-Emotional domain scores oCulture-Climate domain scores Baseline year for School Quality Improvement Index and Goal Schools in all participating districts will be accountable to the CORE-wide School Quality Improvement Goals of either reaching a score of 90 or improving the accountability score by 2 percentage points in 2 years and 4 percentage points in 4 years

2015-2016 Full Implementation

Full implementation of the School Quality Improvement System 2015-16 will be the first year that school index scores are calculated across all domains

School Quality Improvement System in place

Start of School Quality Improvement System

Implications for School Quality Improvement Goal

CORE will analyze the first year of SBAC results and the impact of adding growth to the School Quality Improvement Index, and recalibrate goals if necessary Based on their index score schools will be given specific focus areas of improvement, and will have the opportunity to enter into communities of practice or participate in CORE-facilitated PD in those areas

Priority and Focus Schools Intervention Timeline (For priority and focus schools identified in Spring 2013 only)

Priority schools identified in Spring 2013 enter a 1-year needs assessment and intervention planning process utilizing turnaround principles, including an initial self-evaluation and in-depth peer review with partner reward school Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 implement interventions immediately, including an initial self-evaluation and membership in a community of practice, with the option to partner with a peer reward school

List of focus, priority and reward schools is re-calculated at EOY Interventions in priority schools identified in Spring 2013 begin in the first semester Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 continue to implement the interventions determined through the needs assessment until they are removed from focus designation

Priority schools listed as priority in 2013-2014 continue to implement interventions until at least 2016-2017 Focus schools identified in Spring 2013 continue to implement the interventions determined through the needs assessment until they are removed from focus designation. Schools that remain in the focus designation will be required to pair with a reward school

Full transition to the new School Quality Improvement Goal will mirror the transition to the CORE School Quality Improvement System (2/2)
Long-term interventions timeline 2014-15 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

School Quality Improvement Index includes SBAC and School Quality Improvement Goals established Goals for all schools are improving overall school scores by 2 points in 2 years and 4 points in 4 years Reward, Priority, Focus school list re-calculated

Newly identified priority schools enter into 1 year needs assessment and intervention planning process utilizing turnaround principles Needs assessment will be conducted using Sacramento Citys School Quality Review schools complete an initial selfevaluation, followed by indepth peer review with partner reward school Newly identified focus schools undergo a self-evaluation and join appropriate communities of practice, with the option to partner with a reward school All other schools will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal with the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with peers

Priority schools implement Y1 of interventions with support from peer partner school All other schools (including focus) will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal. Non-focus schools will have the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with schools with demonstrated success in their biggest area of need At EOY Gardener Center makes public School Quality Improvement Index scores and determines whether or not schools met their goal of increasing their overall school score by 2 points in 2 years Schools that did not meet their goal will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools School Quality Improvement Index score card as most in need of improvement

Priority schools implement Y2 of interventions with support from peer partner school Focus schools continue to implement interventions and participate in communities of practice as needed. Schools identified as Focus schools for 3 consecutive years will be required to partner with a reward school Schools identified as missing their School Quality Improvement Goal in 2018-2019 continue to work with their communities of practice All other schools will work towards their School Quality Improvement Goal with the option of entering into communities of practice or partnerships with schools with demonstrated success in their biggest area of need

Priority schools implement Y3 of interventions with support from peer partner school Focus schools continue to implement interventions and participate in communities of practice and reward school partnerships as needed At EOY Gardener Center makes public school index scores and determines whether or not schools met their goal of increasing their overall school score by 4 points in 4 years Schools identified as missing their goal in 2018-2019 continue to work with their communities of practice Schools that did not meet either their 2- or 4-year goal will be required to enter into a peer pairing Schools that did meet their 2-year goal but not their 4-year goal will be required to join a community of practice

School Quality Improvement Index and Goal will be recalibrated if necessary after full School Quality Improvement System is implemented with SBAC (including growth)

The School Quality Improvement System provides for targeted interventions as opposed to one-size-fits-all requirements of NCLB Program Improvement

California

CORE Waiver

Nature of Interventions

Interventions are the same for each school and LEA in a given year of Program Improvement System is one of top-down compliance and does not include cross-school/LEA collaborations

Required interventions are targeted based upon school needs (e.g., achievement gap, low grad rate) LEAs partner with peers to jointly work through implementation of initiatives (e.g., CCSS, teacher and principal evaluation system) Lower-performing schools partner with exemplar school based upon area of focus

Support Available

Evaluation

Schools and LEAs must progress though PI interventions without the flexibility to assess whether they are working well for their context

LEA and school partners hold each other accountable, partner to solve targeted problems together, and will notify CORE if peer falls out of good standing

The School Quality Improvement System creates interventions and supports for schools of all performance levels

The school designation system is designed to create targeted interventions and support, as well as accountability for low performing schools through a school partnership program

The School Quality Improvement System has created structures for peer partnership and review at the LEA and individual school level, with CORE providing central guidance
CORE Oversight
CORE staff will organize regular meetings to check in with and support LEAs in implementation of the waiver plan, including CCSS, teacher and principal evaluation system, and peer partnership responsibilities CORE will collect any necessary information from LEAs and is responsible for communicating with USED CORE staff, plus potentially district FTEs on secondment (one proposed option), will train LEAs and schools on how to be a successful partner within the district peer or school partnership relationships

District Peer Accountability

LEAs engage in peer review processes regularly to review implementation of CCSS and teacher and principal evaluation systems Between CORE-facilitated meetings, LEAs could be responsible for meeting with a peer LEA to discuss progress on CCSS implementation LEAs enter into peer review each Fall to ensure progress towards designing or refining educator evaluation systems in line with School Quality Improvement System guidelines LEAs have the option of convening more regularly if they choose

School Partnership
Reward schools work closely with Priority schools at least on a monthly basis to support Priority schools implementation of their school plan for improvement Focus schools join communities of practice, which will convene at least quarterly to address specific needs If a school is identified as a Focus school for 3 consecutive years, the school will be required to partner with a Reward school at the start of Year 3 Schools that did not meet their School Quality Improvement Goal after 2 years will be required to join communities of practice focused on the area highlighted on the schools accountability score card as most in need of improvement; after 4 years, these schools are required to join a peer pairing All schools have the option of joining communities of practice or entering into peer partnerships and review at any time

Individual School Actions

Priority and focus schools are required to implement the interventions as described in the waiver

LEA and School Pairing as Included in the Waiver

Participating districts will participate in a peer partnership program to ensure timely and effective implementation of Waiver principles

Activities completed through LEA peer review and partnerships within the School Quality Improvement System

Common Core Implementation: Within CCSS convenings, LEAs will work with partner LEAs to be sure each is implementing CCSS in classrooms by the end of 2013-2014 and will complete all preparatory activities as described in the Waiver, including: Developing transition plans for full CCSS implementation Developing and implementing CCSS professional development for all teachers Teacher and Principal Evaluation: Through annual fall review periods, LEAs will ensure that their partner LEA meets key educator evaluation system development milestones in 2013-2014; pilots in 2014-2015; and implements in 2015-2016 educator evaluation systems that include the principles agreed upon as part of the Waiver MOU, and participate in all necessary activities related to implementing this evaluation system as described in the Waiver

If a peer LEA falls out of compliance with the requirements of the MOU, it is the responsibility of the peer LEA to notify the LEA and CORE of the noncompliance

School Pairing Implementation Timeline CORE will use annual performance on factors of the School Quality Improvement Index and stated school needs to determine school pairings
Scores from the School Quality Improvement Index, the initial school pairing survey, and the school pairing satisfaction survey will be used on an annual basis to review and reassign school pairings CORE will oversee formal appeals process for schools that wish to partner with a different reward school CORE will add full time staff to oversee the partnering process, including matching, creation of materials to support district relationship, and checking in with schools to ensure their needs are being met

Annual Year-Specific

CORE will play a central role in the school matching and partnering process
CORE Role in School Matching and Partnering
Identify Schools and Needs Match Schools Oversee Partnering Process

Identify reward, priority, and focus schools on an annual basis to be in pool of schools to be matched for pairing process Administer short questionnaire to schools to seek schools stated strengths and needs for 2013-2014 school year In May of each year, CORE will administer a School Pairing Satisfaction Survey in order to evaluate effectiveness of pairings and re-assign as needed Use School Quality Improvement Index score and progress against State AMOs to assess school needs

CORE will pair schools considering the following: Reward with priority or focus Geographic proximity Areas of strength and need as identified by School Quality Improvement Index Scores Stated areas of need/areas of strength as listed in School Pairing Survey If schools are not able to match on a 1:1 basis There may be situations with a 1:2 or 2:1 approach Other high-performing schools that are not reward may be identified to pair with focus or priority schools

CORE will add full time staff (School Pairing Program Managers) to oversee the partnering process, including matching, creation of materials to support district relationship, and checking in with schools to ensure their needs are being met (Proposed option) Post 2013-2014, districts will provide staff on secondment for a 2 year basis to build capacity at CORE and provide professional learning opportunities for district personnel. Feasibility and details to be confirmed with CORE Board

School Pairing Implementation Timeline CORE will host two training institutes annually to build capacity within schools for the school pairing program

Finalize School Pairing System July/August 2013 CORE will work closely with CORE Board and other external parties to: Define coaching protocols for Reward schools Define key activities that schools should complete under the school pairing program (e.g. needs assessments) Plan coaching PD for reward school delegates

Hold Coaching Institute Annually, Mid-September CORE will host a coaching institute (length TBD) for delegates from Reward schools throughout the School Quality Improvement System network. Sessions will include: Meet and greet Analysis, feedback, and coaching PD Introduction to key activities under the school pairing program Facilitating best practice sharing CORE will engage external content providers to host training sessions and facilitate dialogue

Convene Partner Institute Annually, Early October CORE will host a partner institute in which Reward, Priority, and Focus (where appropriate) schools come together for training and to initiate partnership. Activities will include: Meet and greet Review of pairing program protocols and expectations Needs assessment and intervention planning training CORE will engage external content providers to host training sessions and facilitate dialogue

Principle 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, districts must complete the Principle 3 Must Dos
Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
1. Ensure that District teacher/principal evaluation system is aligned to the CORE Districts agreed-upon common standards. If necessary for alignment, modify or design and adopt a teacher/principal/superintendent evaluation system in spring of 2013, if current one does not align to the required elements. Districts have the flexibility to design evaluation systems and instruments that best meet local context needs given District existing systems, processes, and relationship with labor unions. a. Includes student learning as a significant component (this may need to be bargained) b. Is aligned to the pedagogical shifts required by CCSS c. Ensure data collection with sufficient frequency to provide a basis for evaluation; d. Employ ratings that meaningfully differentiate among teaching effectiveness using at least four categories; 2. If a new or redesigned system is needed, pilot must occur by 14-15 school year 3. Share aggregate evaluation system data, reports and evidence regarding progress in increasing student outcomes and closing the achievement gap by: a. Track and report the aggregate distribution of teachers and principals by performance level data no later than the 20142015 school year.

The School Quality Improvement System-wide common educator evaluation indicators are founded in the theory of a standards-based framework put forth in Greatness By Design

Adopted from Greatness by Design,

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlaksons Taskforce on Educator Excellence, September 2012

Teacher & Principal Evaluation and Support Systems Waiver language will be updated to reflect districts options for integrating student growth into evaluation systems
1 Student growth integrated through a trigger system 2 Student growth as a defined percentage

Similar to the Massachusetts model, misalignment between teacher/ administrator professional practice and student performance will initiate dialogue between teachers and administrators to identify why a discrepancy between scores exists, followed by district action in the interest of professional development of the teacher which could include, among others, an addendum to the review of professional practice or a one year improvement plan

Student growth will represent a minimum of 20% of teacher and principal evaluation calculations

Any negotiated lawsuit or court order will supersede the requirements for student growth per the CORE Waiver

CORE LEAs will choose will between both options in order to allow LEAs flexibility to maintain current systems that already meet USED requirements, while ensuring rigorous models and consistency across all participating districts

LEAs will enter into peer review of their educator evaluation systems each Fall to assess progress towards School Quality Improvement System guidelines
Evaluation System Cycle of Review Fall Peer-Monitoring Yes Has the district implemented an evaluation system consistent with COREs guidelines? No Has the district met required milestones as outlined in waiver application?
Rubric will remain the same and the target for district performance will become more rigorous each year as the LEAs approach full implementation

No

Is the district still interested in participating in the waiver?

No

Yes
Status Update due by April 15th Districts responsible for updating CORE on steps taken towards meeting key milestones and progress towards evaluation system goals 6 Month Development Period District can partner with another LEA to build capacity in designing and implementing new evaluation system CORE assists in connecting LEAs with resources or partner LEA as necessary

Waiver Evaluation Requirements Fulfilled

If evaluation system requirements not met by the 2015-2016 school year

District is no longer included in the waiver

High Quality Plan to ensure that COREs LEAs develop, adopt, pilot, and implement evaluation systems that are consistent with COREs guidelines
Evaluation System Cycle of Review The CORE Board will develop guidelines and a rubric to measure development and implementation of teacher, principal, and superintendent evaluation systems per the timeline outlined in the waiver application Starting in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into peer review to ensure progress against the milestones outlined in the rubric Rubric will be fully implemented across the Participating LEAs by the 2014-15 school year It will be utilized as a part of the overall LEA accountability process in order to determine ongoing participation in the School Quality Improvement System Rubric will be used to measure the degree to which LEAs evaluation systems are designed and being utilized to improve professional practice and student growth; and whether it is being utilized in such decisions as recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, layoff and dismissal Rubric will also inform placement into the Evaluation System Cycle of Review LEAs that do not meet the minimum required peer review score (to be determined) on the rubric will enter into the Evaluation System Cycle of Review adding an additional step of monitoring and support to ensure that the LEA modifies or speeds up their process of system design and/or implementation Cycle of Review If an LEA is unable to meet the required design guidelines defined in the rubric or achieve the adoption and/ or implementation deadlines, exclusion from the School Quality Improvement System participation will be recommend by the CORE Board to USED

By 2013-2014 School Year

By 2014-2015 School Year & Ongoing

Participating districts have flexibility to design an educator evaluation systems in partnership with key stakeholders within the parameters of full implementation in 2015-2016 Implementation Timeline

Design Build Shared Knowledge and Understanding Building capacity for new educator evaluation systems 2012-13 Complete Design new or modify educator evaluation systems aligned to local district contexts 2013-14 In Progress Pilot and Implementation Pilot and full implementation of educator evaluation systems 2014-15 / 2015-16 Next Steps

Beginning in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into a Peer Cycle of Review to ensure progress towards educator evaluation systems that meet School Quality Improvement System requirements and to promote continued collaboration and best practice sharing between LEAs

Additional Considerations

CORE Waiver LEAs will be expected to contribute funds to cover the cost of Waiver activities
Costs to be covered by CORE Waiver LEAs
1) Activities related to the school pairing program in which high-performing and high-progress reward schools are paired with priority and focus schools, including: Travel costs for school staff - mileage, gas, airfare, hotels, meals as needed Release time for school staff PD content (including development for PD specific to priority and focus school needs), facilitation, and materials 2) Activities related to the school pairing program in which other Title 1 schools not designated as reward, priority, or focus are paired or participate in communities of practice (as desired, or as required if AMOs are not met), including: Travel costs for school staff - mileage, gas, airfare, hotels, meals as needed Release time for staff PD content (including development for PD specific to priority and focus school needs), facilitation, and materials 3) Other Costs Potential reward school costs, such as recognition, plaques or certificates Shared communication costs for parents and community members to understand new accountability system

Participating LEAs are also responsible for all district-level costs associated with faithful implementation of the CORE Waiver requirements (e.g., implementing CCSS, common assessments, and teacher and principal evaluation systems)

Eight CORE LEAs have signed on to the CORE Waiver; other LEAs will likely have the option to join onto the Waiver annually
CORE ESEA Waiver Participants

Timeline for Joining Waiver This year, only the currently participating 8 LEAs will be allowed to participate in the waiver, per USED guidance
Sacramento Oakland San Francisco

However, an annual enrollment period will likely allow additional LEAs to join the CORE Waiver by April 15th of each subsequent year

Fresno

Sanger

Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana

Appendix

Principle 1 commitments will be largely self-monitored by districts, with annual peer reviews providing additional opportunities for district collaboration
Commitment Districts develop instructional plans aligned to the CCSS Districts develop and provide professional development on these plans and the new standards of the CCSS and SBAC Teachers and administrators receive training on implementing SBAC-aligned assessment modules Teachers implement these modules in schools throughout districts and provide feedback on ways to improve or better use in the classroom Districts implement COREs SBAC-aligned assessments in 2013-2014 school year and use data to inform 2014-2015 targets
Districts will be responsible for sharing CCSS and SBAC-aligned PD materials, instructional plans, and teacher feedback on assessment modules with CORE on a regular basis

2012-2013 SY

2013-2014 SY

2014-2015 SY

Legend Self-monitored CORE check-in

Many Principle 2 commitments will be managed through dual processes between the districts and external partners
Commitment School Quality Improvement Index factors and weights are finalized. CORE facilitates partner with statistician and psychometrician to develop data measurement and collection methodologies CORE facilitates the creation of a student growth model to be used in teacher evaluations across all districts Districts measure and share data required for all factors of the School Quality Improvement Index. All Academic Domain factors, as well as chronic absenteeism and suspensions/expulsions, will be measured and shared beginning in 2013-2014 SY, with the remaining factors measured and shared beginning in 2014-2015. Growth will be measured and shared after the first year of SBAC or PARC, beginning in 2015-2016 Districts make publically available data for accountability reporting
External data partner also makes publically available the list of schools or districts that did not provide data
Legend Self-monitored CORE facilitated External partner monitored/facilitated

2012-2013 SY

2013-2014 SY

2014-2015 SY

CORE facilitates development of statistical models and weighting methodologies

CORE works with data partner to facilitate partnership with district

External data partner collects and aggregates data

District analyzes data and shares results

External data partner analyzes data and shares results with districts

Commitments related to the Accountability Framework will be managed by the districts, with annual peer reviews ensuring effective implementation
Commitment Reward, priority, and focus schools identified according to data analysis as outlined in CORE waiver principle 2 requirements Reward schools receive proper recognition and professional development to serve as coaches and peer partner schools to priority and focus schools Reward schools fulfill responsibilities related to mentoring priority schools (and focus schools where applicable) Priority schools conduct needs assessments in the first year of designation, with interventions beginning in Year 2. Focus schools conduct needs assessments and implement interventions beginning in Year 1 of designation Districts ensure that effective leadership is in place at priority and focus schools and apply turnaround principals in a timely manner
Legend Self-monitored CORE facilitated Peer check-in Peer collaboration Data-driven/3rd party-driven

2013-2014 SY

2014-2015 SY

2015-2016 SY

School categorization is driven by the data analysis methodology outlined in the waiver

CORE facilitates professional development for Schools of Distinction

Priority and focus schools conduct needs assessments, design school improvement plans, and ensure schools have effective leadership in place in collaboration with their partner reward school

Principle 3 deliverables will be largely self-managed, with twice yearly collaboration sessions facilitated by CORE
Commitment Student growth model developed for use in SQII and educator evaluation systems; LEAs determine which, if any, local assessments fit within the common educator evaluator framework Districts develop common evaluation system guidelines for alignment to Principle 3 requirements, including common educator effectiveness indicators, and submit to the Department of Education by 8/15/2013 Districts engage key stakeholders and bargaining units in dialogue around designing or revising educator evaluation systems that are in line with SQIS evaluation system guidelines and Principle requirements Educator evaluation system is piloted in 2014-2015 school year
Beginning in Fall 2013, and every Fall thereafter, districts will enter into peer review to ensure that districts are making progress towards designing and implementing educator evaluation systems in line with the agreed-upon framework. Districts that have not made adequate progress will enter in the Evaluation System Cycle of Review. CORE will organize regular meetings to check in with and support LEAs in implementation

2012-2013 SY

2013-2014 SY

2014-2015 SY

2015-2016 SY

Student Growth model developed

Educator evaluation system is implemented across all participating districts

Legend Self-monitored CORE facilitated Peer check-in Peer collaboration Data-driven/3rd party-driven

School Designations Fresno

Reward High Performing Manchester Gate McCardle Elementary Reward: High Progress Easterby Elementary Ezekiel Balderas Elementary Webster Elementary* Focus Ann B. Leavenworth Calwa Elementary Columbia Elementary Deborah A. Williams Elementary Heaton Elementary Homan Elementary Jackson Elementary King Elementary Lawless Elementary Norseman Elementary Slater Elementary Susan B. Anthony Elementary Turner Elementary Winchell Elementary Priority Carver Academy Webster Elementary* Yosemite Middle

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

73

School Designations Long Beach

Reward High Performing Reward: High Progress Butler Middle Franklin Classical Middle Hoover Middle Lindsey Academy Marshall Academy of the Arts Webster Elementary Focus Burcham K-8 Harte Elementary Jeerson Leadership Academies Priority

74

School Designations Los Angeles (1 of 3)

Reward High Performing Alfred Bernhard Nobel Middle Apperson Street Elementary Baldwin Hills Elementary Broadway Elementary Caroldale Learning Community Chapman Elementary Colfax Charter Elementary Danube Avenue Elementary Eshelman Avenue Elementary Fullbright Avenue Elementary Harbor Teacher PreparaVon Academy Kester Avenue Elementary Lemay Street Elementary Newcastle Elementary Oliver Wendell Holmes Middle One Hundred FiXy-Sixth Street Elementar Playa del Rey Elementary Point Fermin Elementary Seventh Street Elementary Seventy-Fourth Street Elementary Sierra Vista Elementary Taper Avenue Elementary Vintage Math/Science/Technology Magnet West Hollywood Elementary Reward: High Progress Annalee Avenue Elementary Breed Street Elementary Bryson Avenue Elementary Calvert Street Elementary Century Park Elementary Charnock Road Elementary Chase Street Elementary Chatsworth Park Elementary Coldwater Canyon Elementary El Sereno Elementary Enadia Way Elementary Evelyn Thurman GraWs Elementary FiXeenth Street Elementary Frank del Olmo Elementary Gardena Elementary Glenwood Elementary Gulf Avenue Elementary Harbor City Elementary HazelVne Avenue Elementary Hubbard Street Elementary John F. Kennedy High Langdon Avenue Elementary Focus Alexander Hamilton Senior High Alexandria Avenue Elementary Arleta High Bell Senior High Benjamin Franklin Senior High Bridge Street Elementary Bushnell Way Elementary Castelar Street Elementary Chester W. Nimitz Middle CIVITAS School of Leadership Coliseum Street Elementary Columbus Avenue Ellen Ochoa Learning Center Ernest Lawrence Middle Esperanza Elementary Euclid Avenue Elementary Fairfax Senior High FiXy-Ninth Street Elementary George K. Porter Middle Glen Alta Elementary Graham Elementary Grover Cleveland High Hart Street Elementary Hollywood Senior High James A. Gareld Senior High Priority Bret Harte Preparatory Middle Belmont Senior High Charles Drew Middle Crenshaw Senior High David Starr Jordan Senior High East Valley Senior High Edwin Markham Middle Florence Grith Joyner Elementary Gardena Senior High George Washington Carver Middle George Washington Preparatory High Henry T. Gage Middle Hillcrest Drive Elementary Hollenbeck Middle Horace Mann Junior High John C. Fremont Senior High John Muir Middle Johnnie Cochran, Jr., Middle Los Angeles Teachers Preparatory Academy Manual Arts Senior High *Maywood Academy High Robert Louis Stevenson Middle Samuel Gompers Middle South East High Thomas Jeerson Senior High

*Maywood Academy High Menlo Avenue Elementary Napa Street Elementary *Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

75

School Designations Los Angeles (2 of 3)

Reward High Performing Reward: High Progress Noble Avenue Elementary One Hundred Thirty-FiXh Street Elementary Orthopaedic Hospital Oxnard Street Elementary Palms Elementary Queen Anne Place Elementary RiWer Elementary Strathern Street Elementary Sylmar Elementary Thomas A. Edison Middle Thomas Starr King Middle Twenty-Eighth Street Elementary University Senior High Vena Avenue Elementary West Athens Elementary Western Avenue Elementary Westport Heights Elementary Westside Leadership Magnet Wilmington Park Elementary Wilshire Crest Elementary Winnetka Avenue Elementary Focus James Monroe High Priority William Jeerson Clinton Middle

John Adams Middle Woodcrest Elementary John Marshall Senior High Kingsley Elementary Latona Avenue Elementary Lillian Street Elementary Limerick Avenue Elementary Luther Burbank Middle Magnolia Avenue Elementary Mary McLeod Bethune Middle Mayberry Street Elementary McKinley Avenue Elementary Meyler Street Elementary Miguel Contreras Learning Complex Miramonte Elementary Nathaniel Narbonne Senior High North Hollywood Senior High One Hundred Ninth Street Elementary One Hundred TwelXh Street Elementary Pacoima Middle Panorama City Elementary Ralph Waldo Emerson Middle Ramon C. CorVnes School of Visual and P Rudecinda Sepulveda Dodson Middle San Fernando Senior High San Jose Street Elementary San Pedro Senior High

76

School Designations Los Angeles (3 of 3)

Reward High Performing Reward: High Progress Focus School for the Visual Arts and HumaniVe School of CommunicaVons, New Media and Sixty-Eighth Street Elementary South Gate Middle Southeast Middle Sun Valley High Sun Valley Middle Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High Sylmar Senior High Tarzana Elementary Twenty-Fourth Street Elementary Ulysses S. Grant Senior High Union Avenue Elementary Utah Street Elementary Valerio Street Elementary Van Nuys Senior High Venice Senior High Virginia Road Elementary Washington Irving Middle West Adams Preparatory High Woodland Hills Academy Woodrow Wilson Senior High Priority

77

School Designations Oakland

Reward High Performing Lincoln Elementary Reward: High Progress Parker Elementary ROOTS InternaVonal Academy* Focus Bret Harte Middle East Oakland Pride Elementary Frick Middle Fruitvale Elementary LafayeWe Elementary McClymonds High Oakland High Priority Alliance Academy Castlemont High School Dewey Academy Elmhurst Community Prep Fremont High School Oakland InternaVonal High Reach Academy ROOTS InternaVonal Academy* Rudsdale ConVnuaVon United for Success Academy West Oakland Middle

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress Note: Castlemont and Freemont schools represent multiple smaller schools that have since been consolidated; however consolidated data is not available for these schools

78

School Designations Sacramento

Reward High Performing West Campus Reward: High Progress Edward Kemble Elementary Father Keith B. Kenny Elementary Fern Bacon Middle Oak Ridge Elementary* Focus Bret Harte Elementary C. K. McClatchy High Clayton B. Wire Elementary Collis P. HunVngton Elementary Ethel I. Baker Elementary John F. Kennedy High Kit Carson Middle Mark Hopkins Elementary Mark Twain Elementary Rosemont High Priority Oak Ridge Elementary*

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress Source: Capital City Independent Study is an Independent Study school and so will be removed pending consultation with the DOE

79

School Designations San Francisco

Reward High Performing Chin (John Yehall) Elementary Gareld Elementary Ulloa Elementary Reward: High Progress Buena Vista/ Horace Mann K-8* King (Starr) Elementary Parks (Rosa) Elementary Revere (Paul) Elementary* Focus El Dorado Elementary Francisco Middle Hillcrest Elementary King Jr. (MarVn Luther) Academic Middle Longfellow Elementary Tenderloin Community Visitacion Valley Middle Priority Bryant Elementary Buena Vista/ Horace Mann K-8* Carver (George Washington) Elementary Chavez (Cesar) Elementary EvereW Middle Mission EducaVon Center Mission High Muir (John) Elementary O'Connell (John) High Revere (Paul) Elementary*

*Designates SIG schools that are both priority and Reward: High Progress

80

School Designations Sanger

Reward High Performing Fairmont Elementary Jeerson Elementary Reward: High Progress Focus Priority

81

School Designations Santa Ana

Reward High Performing John Muir Fundamental Elementary Middle College High Reward: High Progress Franklin Elementary Lowell Elementary Focus Priority Century High Saddleback High Santa Ana High Sierra Intermediate Valley High Willard Intermediate

82

Differentiated Accountability Schools are asked to align their interventions around the 7 turnaround principles defined by the ESEA ESEA Turnaround Principles
1. Providing strong leadership by: (1) reviewing the performance of the current principal; (2) either replacing the principal if such a change is necessary to ensure strong and effective leadership, or demonstrating to the SEA that the current principal has a track record in improving achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort; and (3) providing the principal with operational flexibility in the areas of scheduling, staff, curriculum, and budget; 2. Ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools; and (3) providing job-embedded, ongoing professional development informed by the teacher evaluation and support systems and tied to teacher and student needs; 3. Redesigning the school day, week, or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration; 4. Strengthening the schools instructional program based on student needs and ensuring that the instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with State academic content standards; 5. Using data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement, including by providing time for collaboration on the use of data; 6. Establishing a school environment that improves school safety and discipline and addressing other non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students social, emotional, and health needs; and 7. Providing ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

Source: ESEA Flexibility Guidelines

83

Definitions Definition: Graduation Rate

Graduation Rate The four-year or extended-year adjusted graduation rate as defined by 24 CFR 200.19(b)(i). The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate in four years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for that graduating class. For those high schools that start after grade nine, the cohort must be calculated based on the earliest high school grade The term adjusted cohort means the students who enter grade 9 or the earliest high school grade) and any students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9 through 12 minus any student removed from the cohort The term students who transfer into the cohort means the students who enroll after the beginning of the entering cohorts first year in high school, up to and including in grade 12. To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must confirm in writing that the student transferred out, emigrated to another country, or is deceased. To confirm that a student transferred out, the school or LEA must have official written documentation that the student enrolled in another school or in an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma. A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a General Educational Development (GED) program, or leaves school for any other reason may not be counted as having transferred out for the purpose of calculating graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort. The term students who graduate in four years means students who earn a regular high school diploma at the conclusion of their fourth year, before the conclusion of their fourth year, or during a summer session immediately following their fourth year. The term regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a GED credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award. In addition to calculating a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, a State may propose to the Secretary for approval an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. An extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate in four years or more with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, provided that the adjustments account for any students who transfer into the cohort by the end of the year of graduation being considered minus the number of students who transfer out, emigrate to another country, or are deceased by the end of that year.

Source: Race to the Top District Selection Criteria, Code of Federal Regulations Title 34 200.19

84

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Despite a terminology Tower of Babel, there is nascent consensus on a unified categorization for the mindsets, skills and habits that can help students succeed
National Academy of Sciences (21st Century Skills)

Cognitive Domain: Intellectual ability, knowledge, cognitive strategies, creativity

Intrapersonal Domain: Work ethic, conscientiousness, self-evaluation, mindset, perseverance, metacognition, intellectual openness, curiosity

Interpersonal Domain: Teamwork, collaboration, leadership, communication, conflict resolution, empathy

KIPP

Intellectual Character: curiosity, honesty, zest, optimism*

Achievement Character: grit, self-control, purpose, optimism

Interpersonal Character: empathy, gratitude, selfcontrol, purpose, honesty, zest

Character Education Partnership

Performance Character: Self-discipline, perseverance, planning, creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, meta-cognition

Moral Character: Empathy, fairness, integrity, compassion

Self-Awareness: recognizing ones emotions, values, strengths, and challenges

SocialEmotional Learning

Self-Management: managing emotions and behaviors to achieve ones goals Responsible Decision Making: constructive, ethical choices about personal and social behavior Openness: Curiosity, creativity, insightfulness Conscientiousness: Self-control, grit, organization, planning Emotional Stability: Nervousness, anxiety, tension

Social Awareness: understanding of and empathy for others Relationship Skills: teamwork, conflict resolution, positive relationships Agreeableness: Kindness, empathy, social intelligence Extraversion: Assertiveness, enthusiasm, energy

Personality Psychology

Social Psychology

Engagement and motivation, which are influenced by perceptions of competence, autonomy Executive Function: Self-regulatory processes governing attention, planning, decision-making, inhibition, mental flexibility, problem-solving, reasoning, memory, etc.

Sense of belonging in ones community, which contributes to ones willingness to adopt established norms

Cognitive Psychology

*Note: KIPPs three forms of character form a Venn diagram of characteristics. Overlapping characteristics are listed in italics. Source: John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy; Character Education Partnership (2008) Performance Values: Why They Matter and What Schools Can Do To Foster Their Development

85

Nobel prize-winner James Heckman demonstrated that, in addition to cognitive abilities, students self-esteem and locus of control are important predictors of educational attainment, employment, wages, and avoidance of risky behavior

Probability of Being a 4-Year College Graduate by Age 30 by Decile of Cognitive and Non-cognitive Factors (males) Heckman at al. (2006) demonstrated that both cognitive ability and noncognitive mindsets were important predictors of academic success
Probability

(e.g. graduating from a 4-year college by age 30), as well as future employment, wages, and avoidance of risky behaviors. In Heckmans study, cognitive factors include arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed. Non-cognitive factors include self-esteem and the degree to which individuals feel they are in control of their own life.

Decile of Cognitive Factors

Decile of Non-Cognitive Factors

Note: Non-cognitive factors are measured by the Rotter Locus of Control scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Source: Heckman, Stixrud, Urzua (2006) The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior;

86

Walter Mischels Marshmallow Test showed that ability to delay gratification at age 4 predicts academic and social competence as well as ability to cope with stress later in life
The study:
From 1968-1974, Stanford professor Walter Mischel and colleagues conducted a study, popularly known as the marshmallow test. They assessed the ability of 4-year-olds to delay gratification by giving each child a treat and a choice: the child could wait for the experimenter to return in 15 minutes with two treats, or he could eat the single treat at any time before that. Mischel et al. later assessed the cognitive and self-regulatory competencies of the same subjects years after the initial experiment.

The findings: Ten years after the experiment, those had delayed gratification on the marshmallow test at age 4, compared to those who had not, were rated by their parents as more academically and socially competent, verbally fluent, rational, attentive, planful, and able to deal with frustration and stress. Several years later, the group that had delayed gratification at age 4 also had higher SAT scores than their peers who had not waited for a second treat.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938; Y. Shoda, W. Mischel, & P.K. Peake, Predicting adolescent cognitive and selfregulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification, Developmental Psychology, 1990, 26, 6, 97886.

87

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research The Perry Preschool Study demonstrated that early intellectual and social development opportunities predict lifelong personal and economic outcomes
The study:
From

19621967, 123 three- and four-year-old children from families identified as high risk were randomly divided into a program group and a comparison group. The program group attended a high-quality preschool based on HighScope's participatory learning model, which emphasizes both intellectual and social development. The comparison group received no preschool program. the study's most recent phase, 97% of study participants still living were interviewed at age 40. Additional data were gathered from the subjects' school, social services, and arrest records.

In

The findings:
Initial

program impact on IQ seemed to disappear by age 10 study found that adults at age 40 who had the preschool program were more likely to have graduated from high school, were more likely to hold a job, had higher earnings, and had committed fewer crimes than adults who did not have preschool.

The

HighScope Educational Research Foundation: http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219 Juvenile Justice Bulletin (2000): https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_10_1/contents.html

88

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research The Dunedin Study shows that childhood self-control predicts key life outcomes such as high school completion, physical health, and financial stability
The study:
30+ year longitudinal study of all 1,037 children born in a single year (1972 1973) in Dunedin, New Zealand Study participants underwent a battery of examinations and interviews over 30+ years. These assessments were supplemented by review of official records and questionnaires completed by parents, teachers, and peers as appropriate.

The findings: Childhood selfcontrol (controlling for intelligence and SES) was shown to predict important life outcomes such as high school completion, physical health, substance dependence, income, single parenthood, and criminal involvement.

Moffitt et al. (2011) A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety

89

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research Absentee Rate

Factor
Absentee rate

Key Supporting Research

In some districts, students who missed a month or more of school (roughly, 90% attendance rates or less) had greatly diminished graduation odds. In other districts, like Philadelphia, students needed to miss two or more months (roughly, attendance of 80% or less) to achieve similar outcomes. This suggests that both the number of days a student misses and how his or her attendance compares with that of peers signal that a student is not fully engaged and is in danger of falling off the graduation path Balfanz, 2009 The analysis also looked at scores on state assessments and found that all students showed improvement over the years, but that the kindergartners with the highest absenteeism rates were not likely to catch up to their peers. The second cohort, with test results from sixth through 10th grades, shows a nearly identical pattern[T]he results do suggest a clear and consistent relationship between early attendance and later achievement. A similar analysis of math achievement suggests the same thing Buehler, Tapogna, and Chang, 2012 By 6th grade, chronic absence begins to predict high school dropout rates, a study of Baltimore students showed. By 9th grade, missing 20 percent of school can be a better predictor of dropout rates than 8th-grade test scores are, Chicago researchers found. Along with behavior problems and failure in core academic courses, poor student attendance is a critical early warning sign of dropout Buehler, Tapogna, and Chang, 2012 In San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in California, students who arrived at school academically ready to learn but were then chronically absent in kindergarten and first grade scored 60 points below good attenders on third grade reading tests and close to 100 points below on mathematics tests (Applied Survey Research 2011) Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012 In Baltimore, students who were chronically absent in both pre-k and kindergarten often continued to be chronically absent in later years, and are more likely to be retained and have lower achievement (Connolly and Olson 2012) Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012

Quoted Articles
Balfanz and Byrnes. The Importance of Being in School: A Report on Absenteeism in the Nations Public Schools. Johns Hopkins University (2012). Balfanz, Putting Middle Grades Students on the Graduation Path: A Policy and Practice Brief, National Middle School Association (2009); http://www.nationalpirc.org/ engagement_forum/resources.cgi?item=46 Buehler, Taponga, and Chang, Why Being in School Matters: Chronic Absenteeism in Oregon Public Schools (2012)

Additional Selected Articles

Attendance Works. A Summary of Key Research on Chronic Absence. Applied Survey Research. Attendance in Early Elementary Grades: Association with Student Characteristics, School Readiness and Third Grade Outcomes (2011). Applied Survey Research Baltimore Education Research Consortium (BERC). Destination Graduation: Sixth Grade Early Warning Indicators for Baltimore City Schools: Their Prevalence and Impact (2011). BERC: Baltimore MD Connolly, F. & Olson, L. S. Early Elementary Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten (2012). Baltimore Education Research Consortium, Baltimore, MD.

90

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research Suspension/Expulsion

Factor
Suspension/ Expulsion

Key Supporting Research

A key assumption of zero tolerance policy is that the removal of disruptive students will result in a safer climate for others (Ewing, 2000). Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a number of indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect, that is, that schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate (Bickel & Qualls, 1980), to have less satisfactory school governance structures (Wu et al., 1982), and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary matters (Scott & Barrett, 2004). Perhaps more important, recent research indicates a negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and schoolwide academic achievement, even when controlling for demographics such as socioeconomic status (J. E. Davis & Jordan, 1994; Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Although such findings do not demonstrate causality, it becomes difficult to argue that zero tolerance creates more positive school climates when its use is associated with more negative achievement outcomes. American Psychological Association Rather than reducing the likelihood of disruption, however, school suspension in general appears to predict higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension among those students who are suspended (Bowditch, 1993; Costenbader & Markson, 1998; RaffaeleMendez, 2003; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996). In the long term, school suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time (Bowditch, 1993; Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986) American Psychological Association [R]ecent research [shows] that being suspended even once in ninth grade ias associated with a twofold increase in the likelihood of dropping out, from 16% for those not suspended to 32% for those suspended just once (Balfanz, 2013) Justice Center Research demonstrates that higher suspending schools reap no gains in achievement, but they do have higher dropout rates and increase the risk that their students will become embroiled in the juvenile justice system (Balfanz, 2013; Fabelo, 2011; Schollenberger, 2013). Research also indicates that the frequent use of suspensions could be a detriment to school and community safety because it increases student disengagement and diminishes trust between students and adults (Finn, 2013) (Steinberg 2013). Finally, the tremendous disparities in the use of suspension at the secondary level may violate civil rights law (Kim, Losen, & Hewitt 2010) Justice Center

Quoted Articles
Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, A Report by American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2006); http://www.apa.org/ pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf Losen and Martinez, Out of School & Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middle and High Schools, A Report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (2010); http:// csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/outof-school-off-track-the-overuse-ofsuspensions-in-american-middle-and-highschools/

Additional Selected Articles

Breaking School Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, (2011); http://stage.csgjusticecenter.org/ youth/publications/breaking-schools-rulesa-statewide-study-of-how-school-disciplinerelates-to-students-success-and-juvenileinvolvement-2/ Skiba, Rausch, Ritter, Discipline Is Always Teaching, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (2005) Losen and Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis (2010); http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/ k-12-education/school-discipline/ suspended-education-urban-middleschools-in-crisis
91

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research Non-Cognitive Factors

Factor
Non-Cognitive Factors (e.g. mindset, grit)

Key Supporting Research

In a longitudinal study of 140 eighth-grade students, self-discipline measured by self-report, parent report, teacher report, and monetary choice questionnaires in the fall predicted final grades, school attendance, standardized achievement-test scores, and selection into a competitive high school program the following spring. In a replication with 164 eighth graders[s]elf-discipline measured in the fall accounted for more than twice as much variance as IQ in final grades, high school selection, school attendance, hours spent doing homework, hours spent watching television (inversely), and the time of day students began their homework. The effect of self-discipline on final grades held even when controlling for first-marking-period grades, achievement-test scores, and measured IQ. These findings suggest a major reason for students falling short of their intellectual potential: their failure to exercise self-discipline Duckworth and Seligman, 2005 [T]he decline in test scores during the test picks up something else than just cognition. The size of the decline in test scores during the test is related to personality traits, mainly to agreeableness, and to motivational attitudes towards learning. It also predicts outcomes in later life such as income and smoking in addition to the pure test score. The motivation effect can explain 19 percent of the variation in the average test scores between countries Borghans and Schils, 2012 Psychological factors--often called motivational or non-cognitive factors -- can matter even more than cognitive factors for students academic performance. These may include students beliefs about themselves, their feelings about school, or their habits of self-control. Indeed, there is a growing recognition in education, psychology, and economics of the importance of non-cognitive factors in achievement both in school and in the labor market (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Dweck, 1999; Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). There has also been a recognition that these factors offer promising levers for raising the achievement of underprivileged children and, ultimately, closing achievement gaps based on race and income (Heckman et al., 2006). [This research] shows that educational interventions and initiatives that target these psychological factors can have transformative effects on students experience and achievement in school, improving core academic outcomes such as GPA and test scores months and even years later Dweck, Walton, & Cohen (2011)

Selected Key Articles

Borghans and Schils. The Leaning Tower of Pisa: Decomposing Achievement Test Scores Into Cognitive and Noncognitive Components (2012). Maastricht University. Duckworth and Seligman. Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of Adolescents (2005). Association for Psychological Science. Dweck, Walton, & Cohen. Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills that Promote Long-Term Learning (2011). Paper prepared for the Gates Foundation.

Additional Selected Articles

Farrington et al. Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance (2012). Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua. The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior (2006). Journal of Labor Economics. National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (2012). Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century (2013 Draft). US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

92

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Summary of Research Student/Staff/Parent Perceptions

Factor
Student/Staff/ Parent perceptions (Culture/Climate)

Key Supporting Research

In the Hulleman and Harackiewicz (2009) study intended to increase students valuing of science through personal connection, we know that, of the students who did not expect to do well in science at the beginning of the study, those who wrote about science in connection with their own lives earned higher grades at the end of the course than those who just wrote summaries of science topics. After the intervention, students in the treatment group also had a higher interest in science and were more likely to indicate plans to take science-related courses in the future than were students in the control group Farrington et al., 2012 Conditions in the classroom that have been shown to affect students mindsets include the level of academic challenge and teacher expectations for success (Conchas, 2006; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Shouse, 1996; Wentzel, 2002); student choice and autonomy in academic work (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004): the clarity and relevance of learning goals (Grant & Dweck, 2003); availability of supports for learning (Gordon & Bridglall, 2006); grading structures and policies (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Berliner, 1984; Black & Wiliam, 2004; Brookhart, 1994, 2004; Butler & Nisan, 1986; Covington & Meller, 2001; Crooks, 1988; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Kaplan, Peck, & Kaplan, 1997; Weiner, 1979); the nature of the academic tasks students are asked to do (Bridgeland, DiJulio, & Morison, 2006; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995); the type, usefulness, and frequency of feedback on student work (Brookhart, 1994, 2004; Brophy, 1981; Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Harber, 2004; Stipek, 2001); and classroom norms of behavior and level of trust and safety (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988) Farrington et al., 2012 As a National Research Council study concludes, positive engagement and self-efficacy in any given subject is contingent upon creat[ing] a set of circumstances in which students take pleasure in learning and come to believe that the information and skills they are being asked to learn are important and meaningful for them and worth their effort, and that they can reasonably expect to be able to learn the material (National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 2004, p. 14) Farrington et al., 2012

Selected Key Articles

Farrington et al. Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance (2012).

Additional Selected Articles

Jackson. Non-cognitive Ability, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina (2012). National Bureau of Economic Research. Durlak et al. The Impact of Enhancing Students Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions (2011).

93

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research Reports show that by considering social-emotional factors, schools can create cultures to improve student achievement
Factors other than academic performance should be considered in developing students into 21st-century learners
In addition to content knowledge and academic skills, students must develop sets of behaviors, skills, attitudes, and strategies that are crucial to academic performance in their classes, but that may not be reflected in their scores on cognitive tests Farrington et al. (2012) The states and the federal government should establish policies and programsin the areas of assessment, accountability, curriculum and materials, and teacher educationto support students acquisition of transferable 21st century competencies. For example, when reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Congress should facilitate the systemic development, implementation, and evaluation of educational interventions targeting deeper learning processes and the development of transferable competencies National Research Council (2012) A growing corpus of research evidence suggests that [grit, tenacity and perseverance] can be just as important as intellectual abilities for successit is the responsibility of the educational community to design learning environments that promote these factors so that students are prepared to meet 21st-century challenges US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2013 Draft) The culture of a school is too often neglected but can make a big difference in student successThe [Quaglia Instiute for Student Aspirations] survey revealsonly 42 percent of those surveyed say that students are supportive of each other. Fifty-five percent feel that teachers care about them as individuals. Forty-five percent say that school is boring. Fifty-three percent enjoy being at school. These numbers need to serve as a wake-up call that our test-driven, high-stakes culture is not creating the schools that our students deserve EdWeek (2013) Academic mindsets strongly influence the degree to which stu-dents engage in academic behaviors, persevere at dif-ficult tasks, and employ available learning strategies. In turn, the use of appropriate learning strategies strongly influences the quality and effectiveness of academic behaviors and helps students stick with a task and persevere despite obstacles. Thus, building students academic mindsets and teaching them appro-priate learning strategies are the best ways to improve academic behaviors and perseverance, which leads to better grades Farrington et al. (2012) Academic behaviors are the visible, outward signs that a student is engaged and putting forth effort to learn. Because they are observable behaviors, they are also relatively easy to describe, monitor, and measureWhile it seems logical that attending class, studying, and completing homework will lead to better grades, there are also likely reciprocal effectswhere students success at earning high grades gives them encouragement to continue to work hard. As shown by the psychological research on mindsets, the grades students receive have a marked effect on their attitudes about school and about their own academic identities in ways that strongly influence their subsequent behavior and future school performance Farrington et al. (2012) This article presents findings from a meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal social and emotional learning (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students. Compared to controls, SEL participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and academic performance that reflected an 11percentile-point gain in achievement Durlak et al. (2011)

Classrooms and school cultures should be shaped to encourage students social-emotional development

Schools have the ability to teach specific academic mindsets and behaviors that directly lead to improved academic performance

In order to improve student outcomes, schools must create cultures to support students social-emotional learning development

94

Social-Emotional and Culture-Climate Research A wide variety of research shows ties between SEL/culture and climate and improved student outcomes, with calls to schools to make improvements
Reports giving an overview of research showing ties between SEL/CC and improved outcomes:
National Research Council (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century 21st century skills include cognitive and non-cognitive components. Conscientiousness is highly correlated with educational, career and health outcomes. The NRC recommends states/ federal government adapt policies to support the acquisition of 21st century skills Farrington et al. (2012) Teaching Adolescents To Become Learners: The Role Of Non-cognitive Factors In Shaping School Performance A report drawing from a wide variety of studies shows non-cognitive traits can improve educational outcomes. Education systems have some ability to influence students academic behaviors (e.g. absenteeism, assignment completion), academic mindsets, and learning strategies (e.g. time management, goal-setting), all of which lead to improved outcomes Durlak et al. (2011) The Impact of Enhancing Students Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions A study of 270,034 K-12 students in 213 school-based social and emotional learning programs showed an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement over controls Yaeger, Walton (2011) Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: Theyre Not Magic A report drawing from several randomized experiments shows brief psychological interventions can improve students academic achievement US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2013 Draft) Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century An article drawing from a wide variety of papers to support the claim that non-cognitive factors impact academic achievement Pearson Foundation and Quaglia Institute for Student Aspirations (QISA) (2013) My Voice, My School Survey QISA has created an Aspirational Framework recommending 8 conditions for students to realize academic, social, and personal success: Belonging, Heroes, Sense of Accomplishment, Fun & Excitement, Curiosity & Creativity, Spirit of Adventure, and Leadership & Responsibility

Other selected papers of interest:

Blackwell, Trzesniewski, Dweck (2007) Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition Diamond et al. (2007) Preschool Program Improves Cognitive Control Duckworth, Quinn, Tsukayama (2011) What No Child Left Behind Leaves Behind: The Roles of IQ and Self-Control in Predicting Standardized Achievement Test Scores and Report Card Grades Duckworth, Tsukayama, May (2010) Establishing Causality Using Longitudinal Hierarchical Linear Modeling: An Illustration Predicting Achievement From Self-Control Robbins et al., (2006) Unraveling the Differential Effects of Motivational and Skills, Social, and Self-Management Measures From Traditional Predictors of College Outcomes Chetty et al. (2011) How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Mischel, Shoda, Rodriguez (1989) Delay of gratification in children Moffitt et al. (2011) Gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety Schweinhart et al. (2005) Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40

95