ESSA Advisory Group 3rd Meeting 9/21/2016 Previous and Upcoming Work Group Meetings Accountably: (Russ Keglovits) Meeting 4 TBD August 24, 2016 (2:30-4:30 PM) Meeting #3 July 25th, 2016 (1:00-3:00 PM) Meeting #2 July 1, 2016 (8:00-10:00 AM) Meeting #1 English Language Learners: (Karl Wilson) Meeting 4 TBD September 19, 2016 (3:30-5:30 PM) Meeting #3 August 12, 2016 (9:00-11:00 AM) Meeting #2 June 30, 2016- (1:00-3:00 PM) Meeting #1 Assessment: (Peter Zutz) Meeting 3 TBD September 02, 2016 (1:00-3:00 PM) Meeting #2

August 8th, 2016 (9:00-11:00 AM) Meeting #1 Funding Streams: (Steve Canavero) September 30, 2016 (1:00-3:00 PM) Meeting #1 School Improvement: (Maria Sauter) Meeting 3 TBD August 1, 2016 (2:00-4:00 PM) Meeting #2 June 28, 2016- (10:30-12:30 PM) Meeting #1 Teaching and Leading: (Dena Durish) October 11, 2016 (3:305:30 PM) Meeting #3 September 22, 2016 (3:30 5:30 PM) Meeting #2 June 30, 2016 (3:30-5:30 PM) Meeting #1 Timeline for Plan Submission - July Advisory Group Month Activity or Action Work Group

Meet Activity or Action September Meet Progress report from Work Groups Develop recommendations October Meet Recommendations from Work Group: Advise Meet (as Develop recommendations on Initial Framework needed) Develop recommendations: Send Meet (as

all recommendations to AG on or needed) before December 1, 2016 November Meet December December 31, 2016 Recommendation from Work Group: Advise on Initial Framework Finalize Initial Framework Benchmark I: January - Initial Framework to the State Board of Education for Feedback Month February February 15, 2017 Advisory

Group Meet Activity or Action Review input and develop a consensus Draft ESSA State Plan Publish Draft ESSA Plan Work Group Activity or Action Timeline for Plan Submission July (Contd) Benchmark II: February 15, 2017 Open Public Comment Period February 15 March 15 Month March/April Advisory Group Meet

Activity or Action Work Group Activity or Action Review public feedback; make recommendations; develop consensus Benchmark III: April Presentation of Final Draft to State Board of Education for Feedback Month June Advisory Group Meet (if needed) Activity or Action

Work Group Final Draft Review Goal: July 5, 2017 Submission of Final ESSA State Plan to USED Goal: July 5, 2017 Submission of Final ESSA State Plan to USED Activity or Action Timeline for Plan Submission - March Month September October November Advisory Activity or Action Group Meet Progress report from remaining Work

Groups Meet Recommendations from Work Groups: Advise on Initial Framework Meet Work Group Meet Activity or Action Develop recommendations Meet (as Develop recommendations: Send all needed) recommendations to AG on or before November 1, 2016 Finalize Initial Framework Benchmark I: December Draft ESSA Plan to the State Board of Education for feedback Month December/January

Advisory Group Meet Activity or Action Work Group Activity or Action Review State Board feedback; make recommendations; develop consensus Benchmark III: February presentation of Final Draft to State Board of Education for feedback Month Advisory Activity or Action Work Activity or Action Group

Group February Meet (if needed) Review public and State Board feedback; discuss statewide communications plan Goal: March 1, 2017 Submission of Final ESSA State Plan to USED 2017-2018 School Year Full Implementation of ESSA Plan Work Group Presentations ESSA Advisory Group 09.21.2016 TEACHING AND LEADING WORKGROUP UPDATE Dena Durish Workgroup Lead TEACHING AND LEADING WORKGROUP UPDATE ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Group (Attract, Prepare, Develop, Retain) Meetings

June 30, 2016 September 22, 2016 (3:30pm 5:30pm) Meeting #2 October 11, 2016 (3:30pm 5:30pm) Meeting #3 40 Work Group Members 2 Business & Industry 8 Classroom Teacher 4 School-Based Administrator 10 District-Level Personnel 6 Other School-Based Licensed Employee 1 Parent/Legal Guardian 9 Community Stakeholder/Other (Higher Ed. Faculty) Essential Question How do we ensure that all Nevada students, particularly those who are identified as low-income, minority, English learners, and/or special education, have equitable access to experienced and effective educators (teachers, school leaders, other licensed personnel)? ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Group ESSA (Key Policy Considerations)

Gradual shift in funding formula by 2020 from 35/65% to 20/80% (total student population/students in poverty) Nevada Estimate = 9.8% increase Previous Hold Harmless for district formula allocations effective FY17 95% to districts; 4% statewide activities; 1% for NV administration Up to additional 3% for developing school leaders Federal highly qualified definition/plans replaced with full state certification and licensure requirements Plan to address disparities resulting in students from low-income families & students of color being taught by INEFFECTIVE, inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than peers (equitable distribution) Collection/public reporting of professional qualifications data Educator evaluation systems not required Removes student performance measure requirement, unless using Title II-A Professional development definition updated to ensure personalized, ongoing, jobembedded activities ESSA Teaching & Leading Work Group

(Next Steps and Advisory Group Questions) T&L Work Group Next Steps SWOT Analysis Prioritize Strategic Questions/Remaining Issues Recommendations for Superintendent and ESSA Advisory Group Question(s) for the ESSA Advisory Group How should funding priorities be determined for the 4% of Title II-A funds reserved for statewide activities? What should be identified as the highest education workforce priorities in relation to attracting, preparing, developing, and retaining teachers and leaders? (SEA and district funds) NV definition of ineffective, out of field, and inexperienced? Should NDE reserve the additional allowable 3% to implement statewide strategies for principals/other school administrators?

s ESSA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT WORK GROUP UPDATE Maria Sauter Workgroup Lead SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Update Two Work Group meetings have been held: June 26, 2016 August 1, 2016 Tentative 3rd Meeting Date TBD Average 20 stakeholders including: Teachers School Improvement Teams Community Members Higher Education Objectives Understand the priorities of the Nevada Department of Education

Develop a vision for a statewide school improvement and support system Develop a process for support with districts in implementing evidence-based interventions for underperforming schools Develop a process to build local capacity to sustain the improvements Outputs: SWOT Strengths

Data-based decision making to decide on interventions Funding for evidence based interventions, PD Strong PD around 4 fundamentals NDE is being proactive Schools given autonomy for choices in interventions, goal-setting, programs, etc. Focusing on both proficiency and growth School choice, signature schools Funding to the schools NDE recognizing the needs for flexibility Available money aligned to need Actions of NDE moved from compliance to support Looking at 1 and 2 star schools Ongoing monitoring addressing barriers and addressing data to move forward Pre-K expansion Weaknesses

Unknown criteria /NSPF unknown piece PD is one size fits all Teachers lacking support and coaching Timing of funding is not efficient Pitting funding against schools with same needs Accessibility to programs

Funding through districts is not always comprehensive/holistic Best practices sharing Schools being reactive not proactive Family support and engagement Recruitment of STEM teachers all high quality Lack of early childhood ED compliance based Incentives to work at most needy schools Impact on lack of assessment data Funding does not stream consistency through feeders Funding doesnt exist or ends with higher performing school SWOT Opportunities

NEPF funding some of the 3/4/5 star schools looking at future demographic patterns Differentiate PD including leaders Site-based decision making Consistency in program implementation Equity cultural Timelines of funding Monitoring across all schools - feeders Collaboration among schools statewide Wrap around transportation, job opportunity, medical Teacher improvement and retention

Flexibility in funding Class size Greater alignment curriculum and assessment Multiple assessment measures for growth and proficiency Braiding services Maximize PreK, Read by Grade 3, are we ready in the statepushing up the bar Threats Recruitment/retention of highly qualified teachers Politics and privatization of schools

Get out in front of education (data, programs, grad rate) be in front educate public early Data: targeting right schools, too many incentives, make sure data knowledge is at school level human capital New teacher prep. out of college/programs, etc., ALR Implementing change change is hard/threatening buy in Legacy of NCLB Election sessions, new expectations Outputs Next Steps Hold third meeting Consolidate Work Group documents

Reconcile with other Work Groups Finalize recommendations for Advisory Group Next Steps Big Question In regards to school improvement, what do you see as expectations for ALL schools regardless of proficiency level? Big Question ESSA Advisory Group Federal Funding Overview Please note that these slides reflect best known information and are subject to revision. (Ex. Federal rules under consideration) Title I: School Improvement Funds Title I: School Improvement Funds Available: NCLB vs. ESSA SY 2016-17 (NCLB)

SY 2017-18 (ESSA) 4 percent State Set-Aside 7 percent State Set-Aside of Title I-A of Title I-A = ~$4.7 million = ~$8.6 million SIG FFY 2016 = ~$3.8 million No separate SIG funds Total = ~$8.5 million Total = ~$8.6 million (est.) Please note: Dollars are estimates or projections Title I: Direct Student Services Title II-A:

Supporting Effective Instruction 2016: $11,417,000 5.00% 3.00% (2015: $10,737,710) PROJECTED 2017: $12,559,000 92%: $11,554,280 5%: $627,950 3%: $376,770 92.00% 2023: $19,280,000 LEA subgrants Optional Reservation State Reservation Title III Allocations FFY 2016 Total: $6,748,180

2017 Projected: $7,575,751 State Administration: $189,393 State Activities: $189,394 Grants to Districts: $7,196,963 Title IV, Part A Student Support & Academic Enrichment Grants 1.00% 4.00% 2017 Estimate (total): $3,987,144 State Admin. (1%) $39,871.44 Administration

Tech. Assistance (4%) $159,485.76 Subgrant to Schools LEA/School Subgrants $3,787,786.80 95.00% Tech Assistance Title IV, Part A School Sub-Grant Distributions Safe and Healthy Schools Either Category; 15% Tech. Cap Well-Rounded Education 20.00% 95%

60.00% 20.00% Title IV, Part B 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) 2016: $9,209,354 2017: $7,893,689 2%: $184,187 5%: $460,467.70 95%: $8,748,886.30 Administration (state cost, peer-review process, internal consultations) Tech Assistance (training, capacity building, monitoring, reviews, state evaluation, etc..) subgrant to eligible entities (new and continuation awards) 2.00% 5.00%

93.00% Membership New Advisory Group Members New Work Group Members Patrick Narajo (UNLV) Assessment Work Group Samantha Molisee (Board of Education Student Member) EL Work Group Roxann McCoy (NAACP Las Vegas) Tomas Macaluso (Assistant Principal at TMCC high school Reno which focuses on career

tech) Candice Birchum (Education Director for the Walker River Paiute Tribe) Teaching & Leading Work Group Patti Chance, Allison Smith, and Tracy Spies (UNLV Faculty) John Barlow (Somerset Academy Executive Director) Brenda Larsen-Mitchell and Roseanne Richards (CCSD District-Level Administrators) Public Comment

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • A Ten Year Plan for the City of Houston:

    A Ten Year Plan for the City of Houston:

    Based on November 4, 2016 property tax rolls, 46,862 accounts were exempt out of a total of 764,880 accounts in Houston. The appraised value of these exempt accounts (excluding government) is $12.1 billion - with $11 billion in value attributed...
  • The Persian Period - Rabbinics

    The Persian Period - Rabbinics

    1 Maccabees ch. 2 23 There came a certain Jew in the sight of all to sacrifice to the idols upon the altar in the city of Modin, according to the king's commandment. 24 And Mathathias saw and was grieved,...
  • CINCO DE MAYO - Caldwell-West Caldwell Public Schools

    CINCO DE MAYO - Caldwell-West Caldwell Public Schools

    CINCO DE MAYO ¡Viva México! ¡Viva Juárez! WHY? In 1861, the Mexican Congress suspended repayment of foreign debts for 2 years, due to financial instability. Creditors in England, Spain and France decided intervention was needed. France secretly planned to impose...
  • secc.az.gov


    Agency leadership works with Ambassador to host a special event. Agency Challenges. WIN $250 to designate to an SECC Charity. Categories: Agency that increases their participation percentage the most in comparison between the 2018 and 2019 campaigns.
  • Acciones Y Medidas Para La Implementacion De La Nimf Nº 15 En ...

    Acciones Y Medidas Para La Implementacion De La Nimf Nº 15 En ...

    Etapas de implementación Diagnóstico de los Recursos Técnicos e Industriales del país. Talleres y seminarios a nivel nacional de difusión de la NIMF N° 15. Elaboración de proyectos de norma de importación y exportación de embalajes de madera. Etapas de...


    is one of many taxonomies of learning. It can be a helpful tool in unpacking what we mean by "learning." Bloom separates learning into six levels of increasing cognitive complexity - starting with the lowest level - knowledge, or what...


    CDM of the trial. Study expert. Good knowledge of expected data. Objective review of study data. Experience in therapeutic area. Independent CDM. New point of view. Specific time dedicated. Risk-Based Monitoring cycles. Collection of findings from Remote monitoring.
  • Online Module: Hydrocephalus

    Online Module: Hydrocephalus

    Online Module: Hydrocephalus Hydrocephalus Derived from Greek words: "Hydro" - water "Cephalus" - head As the name implies, it refers to a general condition whereby there is excess Cerebro-Spinal Fluid (CSF) within the intracranial space and, specifically, the intraventricular spaces...