Priority, Focus and Model School Guidance

Save this PDF as:
Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Priority, Focus and Model School Guidance"

Transcription

1 Oregon Department of Education Priority, Focus and Model School Guidance Published Anticipated Next Revision spring 2015 This document and similar resources for Priority and Focus Schools are available online at or at

2

3 Table of Contents Purpose of this Document... 1 History of Substantive Revisions... 1 Oregon s ESEA Flexibility Waiver... 1 How is Oregon s new system of accountability different from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?... 2 Why did Oregon apply for the waiver?... 2 What is the source of ODE s authority regarding Priority, Focus and Model Schools?... 2 Priority, Focus and Model School Identification... 3 How are schools identified as Priority Schools?... 3 Are SIG schools included among Priority Schools?... 3 What are the characteristics of a Focus School?... 3 How are schools identified as Focus schools?... 3 What are the characteristics of a Model School?... 5 How are schools identified as Model Schools?... 5 What is the Oregon ESEA Waiver vision for Model Schools?... 6 How will Model Schools participate in The Network?... 6 How do Priority and Focus Schools exit from participation?... 6 What are the exit criteria for Priority Elementary and Middle Schools?... 7 What are the exit criteria for Priority High Schools?... 7 What are the exit criteria for Focus Elementary and Middle Schools?... 8 What are the exit criteria for Focus High Schools?... 9 How long do schools participate in improvement efforts under identified status? Can a school exit from identified status before 2016? How and when do SIG schools exit from identified status? Planning Requirements...11 What is a Comprehensive Achievement Plan (CAP) and how is it developed? What elements must be included in the school s CAP? Does each school create a CAP? Do Model Schools Complete a CAP? When are Priority and Focus School CAPs due? What is the district s role in creating the CAP? Who approves the CAP? What is the cycle of improvement for Priority Schools? What is the cycle of improvement for Focus Schools? Implementation of Improvement Efforts...16 What is the timeline for improvement in Priority Schools? What is the timeline for improvement in Focus Schools? What is the timeline for Model School participation in The Network? How is plan implementation monitored by The Network? Supports for Priority and Focus Schools...25 Page i

4 What supports are available for Priority Schools? Do SIG schools have access to the same resources as Priority Schools? What supports are available for Focus Schools? How do the results of the self-assessment serve the school? What are the budget requirements for Priority and Focus Schools? How is the district set aside determined? How may these improvement funds be used? What is ODE s role in the improvement process? What is the Continuous Improvement Network (The Network)? What is the purpose of The Network? What does The Network provide to Priority and Focus Schools? What is the role of Regional Network Coordinators? What is the role of Leadership Coaches? What is the process for deeper diagnosis? What is a School Appraisal Team and who serves on these teams? What is the process used by the School Appraisal Teams? Which schools have School Support Teams? What is the function and purpose of a School Support Team? When and how often will these teams be working with the school? Who serves on School Support Teams? How will School Support Teams be formed? What will a School Support Team meeting look like? What is the role of a team lead? What process is used when a Support Team cannot achieve consensus? Interventions with Schools...36 What are levels of intervention? How are Priority and Focus Schools tiers assigned initially? Will schools stay in the same tier of intervention for the duration of their engagement? What happens at intervention tiers 1, 2 and 3? What accountability do Priority Schools have if they are unable to make progress on student achievement? What accountability does a Focus School have if the school is unable to make acceptable progress on student achievement? How do districts with Priority and Focus schools provide support? What accountability does a district have if their Priority/Focus Schools are unable to make acceptable progress on student achievement? What are the five key areas of effectiveness? What is technical and adaptive leadership and with which turnaround principle is it aligned? What are the proposed interventions for technical and adaptive leadership? What is educator effectiveness and with which turnaround principle is it aligned? What are the proposed interventions for educator effectiveness? What is teaching and learning and with which turnaround principle is it aligned? What are the proposed interventions for teaching and learning? What is the definition of district and school structure and culture and which turnaround principle is it aligned? Page ii

5 What are the proposed interventions for district and school structure? What is the definition of family and community involvement and which turnaround principle is it aligned? What are the proposed interventions for family and community involvement? Are school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) still required? Page iii

6

7 Purpose of this Document Oregon Department of Education This resource guide is a reference for district and school staff supporting the work of schools identified by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) as Priority, Focus, or Model Schools beginning with the school year. Using a question/answer format, it provides guidance and direction for those working to improve these schools. History of Substantive Revisions June 2013 Starting Page New or Changed Item 13 When are Priority and Focus School CAPs due? 16 What is the timeline for improvement in Priority Schools? 19 What is the timeline for improvement in Focus Schools? 29 How is the district set aside determined? 29 How may these improvement funds be used? 32 What is the process for deeper diagnosis? 34 Which schools have School Support Teams? 34 What is the function and purpose of a School Support Team? 34 When and how often will these teams be working with the school? 34 Who serves on School Support Teams? 35 How will School Support Teams be formed? 35 What will a School Support Team meeting look like? 36 What is the role of a team lead? 36 What process is used when a Support Team cannot achieve consensus? July 2014 The section regarding Levels of Intervention for Priority and Focus schools beginning on page 37 and continuing through page 46 has been updated. Exit Criteria for Priority and Focus schools has been updated by the removal of the required evaluation by the School Support Team in that not all schools receive School Support Teams. The Exit Criteria will be further evaluated and updated during the school-year. A planned key exit criteria consideration for schools identified as Priority or Focus in this cohort will be their Report Card status and whether or not they achieved an overall Level of 3. August 2014 The use of School Improvement Funds on page 29 has been updated. The CAP Planning Section has been updated to reflect current due dates and processes for annual approval and quarterly reviews beginning on page 11. Page 1

8 Oregon s ESEA Flexibility Waiver How is Oregon s new system of accountability different from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)? Oregon s Next Generation of Accountability is a modification of NCLB, now known by its original name, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as described in a waiver approved by the US Department of Education (USED). Under this waiver, Oregon is allowed to change the method by which schools are evaluated regarding student achievement. These changes are fully described in the waiver application document available for download on the ODE s website at The information below outlines the sections that are most relevant to staff at Priority, Focus and Model Schools. Why did Oregon apply for the waiver? Educators across the state have, for some time, seen a need to revisit the expectations and consequences found in ESEA. As expectations under this federal legislation escalated, a larger number of schools were identified as failing each year. This increasing identification of schools highlighted problems in the model used for identification of schools more than it identified actual failure on the part of schools. The authors of ESEA anticipated that the law would need to be revisited and included a clause calling for reauthorization of the law in Congress has not yet reauthorized this law, however, and USED has moved to provide some relief to states, districts, and schools through the waiver process. Oregon's theory of action for full-system school reform consists of three overarching strategies: creating an integrated and coordinated public education system PK-20; focusing state investment on education outcomes; and building statewide support systems, with a robust system of mutual accountability, to support achievement of the desired outcomes. Through development and application of these focused strategies, Oregon has made significant progress in advancing the four principles that USED stipulated for obtaining ESEA Flexibility waivers. What is the source of ODE s authority regarding Priority, Focus and Model Schools? Principle 2 of the waiver application authorizes a process for providing comprehensive, supported interventions in Priority Schools; a system of diagnosis, intervention and support for Focus Schools; research, support and incentives built around Achievement Compacts; and a plan for system-wide transformation through investing in a Continuous Improvement Network (The Network) that builds upon proven peer networks and initiatives that have shown success in supporting districts to improve student outcomes. This last point on The Network includes Model Schools and other schools with successes sharing those across the state in various ways. Page 2

9 Priority, Focus and Model School Identification How are schools identified as Priority Schools? Oregon Department of Education Oregon s analysis of student achievement data and graduation rates for has identified Priority Schools using an overall rating system. The waiver requires that the state identify as Priority Schools a number of schools equal to at least five percent of the number of Title I schools in the state. Given that approximately 600 schools are funded annually with Title I dollars, the five percent requirement equals approximately 30 identified Priority Schools. Oregon has identified a total of 36 Priority Schools. According to the waiver definitions, Priority Schools are those schools satisfying at least one of the following: School Improvement Grant (SIG): A Tier I or Tier II school receiving funding under the SIG program Low Graduation Rate: A Title I-participating high school with a graduation rate of less than 60 percent Low Achievement: Among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the state based on the percent of students meeting state benchmarks in reading and mathematics combined for and that is not a high-progress school. Are SIG schools included among Priority Schools? Yes, Oregon s 17 SIG schools are included among Priority Schools. Because SIG schools have begun their work during the (Cohort 1) or (Cohort 2) school years and have approved plans in place, they are not required to participate in some of the initial activities of Priority Schools. SIG schools continue to face an annual requirement to update improvement plans to reflect changes in priorities and to reflect the results of ongoing evaluation of improvement efforts. SIG schools also participate in data collections needed to monitor and report on Priority School progress in their improvement efforts. What are the characteristics of a Focus School? A Focus School is one that is ranked in the fifth to the fifteenth percentile in overall rating and with: Within-School Gap: Title I schools with the largest within school achievement or graduation gaps, or Low Achieving Subgroup: Title I schools with a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement in reading and mathematics, combined, or a subgroup with low graduation, or Low Graduation Rate: Title I high schools with graduation rates under 60 percent that were not already identified as Priority Schools. How are schools identified as Focus schools? For , Oregon identified Focus School status through the use of an overall rating system, as described in section 2.A of the ESEA Flexibility Waiver. This rating system identified 60 Title I Page 3

10 Focus schools that are not SIG schools (already identified as Priority Schools) based on data. According to ESEA Flexibility definitions, Focus Schools are those schools that have any of the three characteristics listed above: a within-school gap, low achieving subgroup, or low graduation rate. Within-school achievement gaps were evaluated by first calculating the combined percent met in reading and mathematics for and , combined. Schools were then rank ordered by the gap between their highest performing ESEA subgroup and their lowest performing ESEA subgroup. To align with the requirement that states identify the 15 percent of Title I schools as Priority and Focus Schools, the state defined a large achievement gap as follows: Within-School Gap: A school that was among the 15 percent of Title I schools with the largest within-school achievement gaps, based on the percent met on reading and mathematics combined, or a school that was among the 15 percent of Title I high schools with the largest within-school four-year graduation rate gap. The cut-off for large within-school achievement gap was a 39 percent gap in the percent met between the highest and lowest performing subgroups in the school. The cut-off for large withinschool graduation gap was a 30 percent gap between the subgroups with the highest and lowest four-year cohort graduation rates. The subgroups included in this calculation include all subgroups included in school annual measurable objective (AMO) calculations. To examine low achieving subgroups, Oregon has applied the achievement and graduation ratings cut-offs to each of the following subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged Limited English Proficient Students with Disabilities American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American Hispanic Combined Minority Subgroups (to identify small schools) These are the adequate yearly progress (AYP) subgroups that have an historic gap between achievement levels or graduation rates for the all students group in the school and the achievement levels or graduation rates for identified subgroups. All subgroups that met minimum counts of students needed for consideration of subgroup performances (referred to as minimum n-sizes) were rated according to the cut-offs for achievement. If a school had one or more subgroups that rated as Priority in both reading and mathematics the school qualifies as a school with a low achieving subgroup. In particular, the state has adopted the following definition: Low Achieving Subgroup: Using the cut points in the state rating system, a school with one or more subgroups that would rate as Priority in achievement in both reading and mathematics, or a high school with a subgroup that the graduation rate would be rated as Priority. Oregon s analysis of student achievement data and graduation rates for has identified Focus Schools using an overall rating system. The waiver requires that the state identify as Focus Page 4

11 Schools a number of schools equal to at least ten percent of the number of Title I schools in the state. Given that approximately 600 schools are funded annually with Title I dollars, the ten percent requirement has led to approximately 60 identified Focus Schools. What are the characteristics of a Model School? The state s differentiated accountability system determines Model School status through the use of an overall rating system, as described above. Schools with a rating of Model qualify as a reward school for purposes of the ESEA Flexibility definition. The rating system identified 30 Title I funded Model Schools, based on data. According to the ESEA waiver definitions, reward schools (Model Schools in Oregon) are those schools that are either: Highest-performing: Title I schools with highest absolute performance for the all students subgroup and for all subgroups. A highest performing school must be making AYP for all subgroups in the school and must not have significant achievement gaps. High-progress: A school among the top ten percent of Title I funded schools that are making the most progress in improving the performance of the all students group in reading and mathematics combined or a high school making the most progress in improving graduation rates. A high-progress school must not have significant achievement gaps. To show that the Model Schools identified by the state meet the federal criteria, Oregon has used the following method to identify the highest-performing schools: 1. Generate a list that rank orders the Title I schools by the combined percent met in reading and mathematics for and Remove from the list all schools that did not make AYP for the all students group and for all subgroups 3. Remove from the list all schools that have a significant achievement gap; as described in section 2.E.i of the ESEA Flexibility request, these are the 15 percent of Title I schools with the largest within school gaps between subgroups on the combined reading and math percent met 4. Remove from the list all high schools that received a rating below Model in graduation 5. Remove from the list all schools that are not in the top ten percent of all Title I schools in their combined percent met in reading and mathematics. How are schools identified as Model Schools? Oregon has employed the following method to determine a high-progress school: 1. Generate an ordered list of Title I schools ranked by the change in the percent of students meeting in reading and math, combined, from to Remove from the list all schools that are not in the top ten percent of Title I schools in the increase in the percent met in reading and math, combined 3. Remove from the list all schools with significant achievement gaps; as described in section 2.E.i of the ESEA Flexibility request, these are the 15 percent of Title I schools with the largest within school gaps between subgroups on the combined reading and math percent met. Page 5

12 What is the Oregon ESEA Waiver vision for Model Schools? To date, Oregon s most successful school improvement efforts have been built upon a network approach including coaching and mentoring to help educators learn from each other in an environment of trust, professionalism, and shared best practices. Oregon will build on this approach by strengthening existing networks to include early learning service providers, K-12 districts and schools, institutions of higher education, the business community, and other educational organizations. Model Schools will be an important part of this network. To offer maximum improvement for Priority Schools, one aspect of The Network will match higher performing (Model) schools with lower performing schools with comparable demographics and community values. Through The Network, ODE will involve more educators, allow peer-to-peer coaching to support improvement, establish demonstration sites focused on certain aspects of best practice, and broker successful practices, supports, and improvements. The relationships and networking opportunities built through The Network will be collaborative and will foster collegiality and healthy competition in an atmosphere of support, trust, and shared values. How will Model Schools participate in The Network? While Model Schools are not required to participate, a goal of The Network is to shift the focus from intervention to prevention. Model Schools have an important role in making this a reality. Defining this role is largely a task left to staff in the Model Schools as they help to determine their available resources and just what the Model School has to offer other schools in The Network. In developing their Comprehensive Achievement Plan (see page 11), each Priority and Focus School will be conducting an annual self-evaluation. Model Schools electing to participate in this effort will be expected to do this self-evaluation, as well. In Priority and Focus Schools, the annual self-assessment will help identify and encourage early action in areas of weakness, as well as dissemination and study around areas of strength. Undertaking this self-assessment is encouraged for Model Schools so that the results can be used to create a best practices database in which districts can identify districts that are excelling in an area where supports or examples are needed. Title I-A and general fund available to the Priority or Focus School can be used to engage Model Schools in support of their efforts toward improvement. These supports may include direct mentoring from Model School staff but more commonly take the form of visits by Priority or Focus School staff to the Model School to observe and discuss successful practices. How do Priority and Focus Schools exit from participation? Change of the type needed in these schools requires intensive interventions maintained over several years. Given this, interventions continue for a minimum of three school years, before supports will be withdrawn. No school will be considered for exit from either Priority or Focus status until the summer of Following an initial planning year (the school year) and three subsequent years of intervention, ODE evaluates the progress of the school. This evaluation involves: objective data describing academic achievement and growth observational assessments of the fidelity of program implementation Page 6

13 an analysis of commitment of school staff to continued and sustained implementation. What are the exit criteria for Priority Elementary and Middle Schools? Category Improvement Conjunctive Criteria To exit from Priority status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To determine improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of enrolled students meeting standard in reading and in mathematics plus the number of enrolled students not meeting standard but meeting individual growth target in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for enrolled students. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Priority School status and for each year after that the school remains in Priority status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Priority status. What are the exit criteria for Priority High Schools? Category Improvement Improvement in Graduation Conjunctive Criteria To exit from Priority status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To determine improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of enrolled students meeting standard in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for enrolled students. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Priority School status and for each year after that the school remains in Priority status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Priority status. To exit from Priority status, the school must accomplish significant growth in graduation rate. To measure improvement, each school will be measured against a baseline established as the current graduation rate as reported on the school s annual report card. This baseline is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Priority School status and for each year after that the school remains in Priority status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Priority status. Page 7

14 What are the exit criteria for Focus Elementary and Middle Schools? Category Improvement Subgroup Improvement Criteria To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of enrolled students meeting standard in reading and in mathematics plus the number of enrolled students not meeting standard but meeting individual growth target in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for enrolled students. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of students in subgroups meeting standard in reading and in mathematics plus the number of students in subgroups not meeting standard but meeting individual growth target in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for students in subgroups. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. Page 8

15 What are the exit criteria for Focus High Schools? Oregon Department of Education Category Improvement Graduation Rate Subgroup Graduation Rate Criteria To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of enrolled students meeting standard in reading and in mathematics plus the number of enrolled students not meeting standard but meeting individual growth target in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for enrolled students. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth in graduation rate. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the current graduation rate as reported on the school s annual report card. This baseline is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth in graduation rate. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the current graduation rate for students in subgroups as reported on the school s annual report card. This baseline is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. Page 9

16 Subgroup Improvement To exit from Focus status, the school must accomplish significant growth on measures of student academic performance. To measure improvement, each school is measured against a baseline established as the number of students in subgroups meeting standard in reading and in mathematics plus the number of students in subgroups not meeting standard but meeting individual growth target in reading and in mathematics divided by the number of tests receiving scores for students in subgroups. This baseline, converted to a percentage, is subtracted from 100 percent and the result divided by 12 to establish an annual growth target for each school. At the end of four years in Focus School status and for each year after that the school remains in Focus status, the school has the opportunity to exit if, on average, the school has met the growth target for the number of years in Focus status. How long do schools participate in improvement efforts under identified status? Schools identified as Priority or Focus Schools continue with this designation and participate in supports from the state through three full years of implementation of the school improvement plan. Because is primarily a planning year, the first full year of implementation is the school year. Three years of implementation require that schools continue in and participate through the school year at a minimum. In the past, each school s status was re-evaluated each year and those that had made progress were removed from improvement status. This practice led to schools being removed from improvement status prematurely and, following the removal of supports, many times re-entering improvement status within a short time. To avoid this cycle of improvement and decline, three full years of intervention are the minimum necessary to ensure lasting improvement. Given the time needed for planning, no school will have completed three years of intervention until the summer of Can a school exit from identified status before 2016? No. These criteria directly relate to the criteria used to identify schools as Priority or Focus Schools. ODE is leveraging Support Teams and other education partners in the development of necessary rubrics and other specifics to ensure proper results. Newly identified Priority Schools participate in deeper diagnostics and engage in planning during the school year, their first year of Priority School status. During fall , Focus Schools engage in self-assessment and planning efforts and begin implementation for winter and spring Following this first year of planning and/or partial implementation, Priority and Focus Schools engage in three years of implementation of improvement plans, implementing interventions during the through school years. This results in a total of four years in Priority or Focus School status. ODE will not exit any schools from Priority or Focus status before the summer of Page 10

17 How and when do SIG schools exit from identified status? Oregon Department of Education SIG schools are exited from SIG status at the end of the three year period of their grant. SIG schools remain in Priority status until the exit criteria applied to all Priority Schools are met. Oregon will apply the accountability system to schools and rank order schools each year and will make known the results to the public. Planning Requirements What is a Comprehensive Achievement Plan (CAP) and how is it developed? A Comprehensive Achievement Plan (CAP) is a plan for program improvement. It describes the school s goals, tasks necessary to achieve those goals, and who is responsible for completion of each activity with anticipated due dates. The CAP is the vehicle for communication between the school and ODE outlining the actions a school takes to implement interventions prescribed by the School Appraisal Team. The CAP, developed collaboratively by the district, school, and a team of educators, commits the school to evidence-based interventions and fixed improvement goals. The CAP is completed via Oregon s 34 indicators and is developed using an online tool known as Indistar. Indistar manages all aspects of planning and reporting. Use of Indistar begins with the school s self-evaluation process and continues through prioritization of the school s efforts, description and assignment of tasks that lead to improved outcomes, and ongoing monitoring of implementation. Use of this tool is continuous and cyclical and supports the school throughout the improvement effort. What elements must be included in the school s CAP? Starting in August 2012, each identified Priority and Focus School began developing a CAP by initiating work on the annual self-evaluation component of Indistar. Ultimately, the CAP demonstrates an alignment to district level goals and activities and will be supported by the district s commitment to improvement. Given the School Appraisal Team s report of findings, prescribed interventions and supports, the district and school work with their Regional Network Coordinator and the school s Leadership Coach to create a task plan and budget to implement the needed interventions. The school s Leadership Coach, in collaboration with the Regional Network Coordinator, assists the district in engaging district leadership and staff, school leadership and staff, school site council, parent organization(s), parents, students, and the community in a process to develop the CAP. The CAP includes: a unique action plan with strategies, tasks, and budgeting to implement the interventions identified by the School Appraisal Team and any locally identified interventions a description of the process for engaging the Leadership Coach, mentors, organizations, or experts supporting the implementation of interventions annual measurable goals tailored to the school and based on empirical data for improvement in the identified areas details on the district s and school s plan for monitoring and reporting progress toward implementation. Page 11

18 ODE is responsible for the review and approval of the CAP. For Priority Schools, the CAP addresses all of the federal turnaround principles and demonstrates a commitment to implementing all of the interventions prescribed by the School Appraisal Team and to true, sustainable reform. For Focus Schools, the CAP addresses the area(s) of identified challenge in the school and demonstrates a commitment to implementing those interventions. While the CAP produced within Indistar addresses most of the school-level needs for planning, districts with schools producing a CAP should ensure that planning includes: 1. The approach to achieving systemic changes in the school, addressing all aspects of the report resulting from School Appraisal. This will include: a response to each of the indicators included in the self-assessment tool indicating both priority and ease of implementation for each indicator school level and district level interventions or strategies for implementing school priorities explicit descriptions of full implementation for each indicator addressed in the plan, a detailed budget for each indicator a timeline indicating tasks and who is responsible for oversight of each task. 2. The district's redesign and planning process, including descriptions of teams, working groups, and stakeholder groups involved in the planning process for each school. 3. The district s approach to recruiting, screening, and selecting any external partners to provide expertise, support, and assistance to the district or school. 4. The district's systems and processes for planning, supporting, and monitoring the implementation of planned redesign efforts, such as the use of liaisons, coaches, or networks, that will be used to support and monitor implementation of school level redesign efforts. 5. The sources and types of data that will be collected and analyzed to measure and document progress on interventions. These data should minimally describe uses of results from formative and summative measures, student attendance, and school discipline along with measures of fidelity and effectiveness of intervention efforts. 6. District policies and practices currently in existence that may promote or serve as barriers to the implementation of the proposed plans and the actions they have taken or will take to modify policies and practices to enable schools to implement the interventions fully and effectively. 7. How the district will ensure that identified schools receive ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the state, district, or designated external partner organizations. 8. How the district will monitor the implementation of interventions at each identified school and how the district will know that planned interventions and strategies are working. Does each school create a CAP? Yes, each Priority and Focus School must produce a CAP outlining the actions to be undertaken to improve student achievement. This plan should be developed in close collaboration with a number of stakeholder groups, under the direction of district staff, and with much involvement from district staff. Page 12

19 Do Model Schools Complete a CAP? Oregon Department of Education Model Schools may elect to stop their work once the self-assessment process within Indistar is complete. Staff in Model Schools may, however, prefer to continue with the process and complete the CAP. While this is not required, Model Schools are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the information and planning that completing a CAP provides for their own benefit in the process of continuous improvement. When are Priority and Focus School CAPs due? Initial Focus School CAPs were submitted January 2013 with significant revisions submitted on May 1, Initial Priority School CAPs were also submitted on May 1, 2013 (see timeline on page 16). This is the only time that ODE expects to require an annual plan submission. Each school should modify and submit a plan as revisions are needed and completed. As schools proceed with the implementation of their plans, more information will become available from diagnostics and as a result of planned tasks. Schools should periodically reevaluate their planned activities as illustrated below. For the school year CAPs were reviewed quarterly and approved by September For the school year CAPs will be reviewed quarterly and approved by September Page 13

20 Figure 1 Planning Workflow Create the Plan Identify planned activities targeting adult actions that will positively impact student outcomes Implement the Plan Begin the work outlined in the plan Collect information describing both fidelity and impact of planned tasks School Support Team Interactions Revise the Plan Evaluate the Plan Focus on most valuable tasks Eliminate unneeded or unproductive tasks Identify tasks positively impacting student outcomes Identify tasks that are not impactful The ongoing revision and submission cycle, as opposed to past annual schedules, requires that school and district staff conduct ongoing reviews of both progress on planned tasks and the continued suitability of those tasks as conditions change within the school. It may be that, as implementation of the plan progresses, the school could determine that some of the planned tasks are not as likely to accomplish the desired outcome as was expected during plan development. This model of planning supports a more nimble response to changes in conditions in the school or to new learning on the part of school staff. Moving into the second year of intervention, schools are expected to complete their first set of prescribed interventions in a timely manner so that the results of these diagnostics can support revision and review of the school s CAP during the school year. This review would establish the plan for the school for the remainder of the school year and, in some cases, into the school year as is appropriate for the school. Page 14

21 What is the district s role in creating the CAP? Oregon Department of Education In support of the school, the district must be involved in the planning process and the CAP must include appropriate aspects of the improvement effort more reasonably suited to the district level (e.g. curriculum alignment and articulation, systems of teacher and principal evaluation). In districts with multiple Priority and/or Focus Schools, the district-level portions of the plans should support and align the efforts of all identified schools. The district should review the plans before submission to ODE and plans must be submitted by the district. Who approves the CAP? School year each CAP is reviewed by staff at several levels within The Network, including the district, Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches and ODE staff. Final approval of the CAP is completed by ODE. In the and school years, CAPs will be reviewed and approved by ODE. What is the cycle of improvement for Priority Schools? Each Priority School must complete a guided self-assessment followed by targeted deeper diagnosis of the specific challenges each faces. The results of these two efforts provide information needed to complete the planning portion of Indistar. This diagnosis evaluates programs, practices, and policies in the district and school and the resulting findings provides the guidance needed to target interventions. One of our core premises is that interventions must be targeted directly to the specific problems of the school. In summary, the elements of the school improvement process are: Annual self-assessment through Indistar, guided by a state-provided Leadership Coach, to screen for areas of challenge Externally-directed deeper diagnosis conducted by a School Appraisal Team to determine the primary causes of challenges and to identify supports and interventions Creation, implementation, and revision of a CAP (see page 11), developed collaboratively by the district, school, and a team of educators and community members, and approved by ODE, committing to evidence-based interventions and fixed improvement goals Ongoing support from The Network (see page 30), the system of support for implementation of interventions, addressing the needs of schools and districts, delivering professional development, and facilitating coaching sessions. Periodic determinations and movement among the levels of interventions necessary to result in substantial improvements (described below as the intervention level), based on the extent of each school s challenges and the fidelity exhibited in implementing the school's CAP. What is the cycle of improvement for Focus Schools? The core premise for Oregon s improvement effort is that interventions must be targeted directly to the specific problems of a struggling school. Focus Schools are like Priority Schools, with some differences. In summary, the elements of the school improvement process are: Page 15

22 Annual self-assessment, guided by a state-appointed Leadership Coach, to identify areas of challenge CAP, developed collaboratively by the district, school, and a team of educators and community members, and approved by ODE, committing to evidence-based interventions and fixed improvement goals The Network, the system of support for implementation of interventions, addressing the needs of schools and districts, delivering professional development, and facilitating coaching sessions Externally-directed deeper diagnosis, within identified challenge areas, to determine the primary causes of these challenges and to identify supports and interventions Periodic determinations and movement among the levels of interventions necessary to result in substantial improvements (described below as the intervention level), based on the extent of each school s challenges and the fidelity exhibited in implementing the school's CAP. Implementation of Improvement Efforts What is the timeline for improvement in Priority Schools? Continuation of SIG School Interventions May - September 2012 SIG schools conduct self-evaluations, create revised plans for continuation of interventions during , and submit revised plans to ODE. These plans are completed and approved before newly identified Priority School plans. Rate Schools August 2012 September 2012 ODE publishes a preliminary list of Priority, Focus and Model Schools. ODE publishes a final list of Priority, Focus and Model Schools. Conduct Workshop for Identified Schools August 2012 August 2012 Priority, Focus and Model Schools participate in a workshop where district/school teams learn about the elements of The Network and their requirements. ODE awards planning grants to districts. Place Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches By September 2012 Regional Network Coordinators hired and assigned to districts within their geographic regions to provide technical assistance to districts and schools and to assist in coordination of Leadership Coaches, School Appraisal Teams and School Support Teams. Page 16

23 By September 2012 Leadership Coaches hired and placed in Priority Schools to mentor the school leadership. Complete Self-Assessments By October 2012 ODE engages Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches to assist in the process of completing self-assessments. Districts with Priority Schools complete a self-assessment and submit results to ODE. Engage in Deeper Diagnoses By December 2012 By Spring 2013 By Spring 2013 The School Appraisal Teams conduct deeper diagnostic reviews in Priority Schools. The teams complete reports for each school in which a review is done and submit them to ODE, the district, and the school. ODE selects appropriate diagnostic tools. ODE staff will present the School Appraisal Report data to the school and provides direction to schools regarding implementation. Develop Planning Budget January 18, 2013 February 2013 Planning budget is due to ODE. ODE approves planning budgets. Develop CAPs By May 2013 By July 2013 Districts must submit CAPs to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches support each district with a Priority School in developing a CAP. The CAP is developed in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents, and community stakeholders. ODE reviews and approves CAPs. Upon approval, ODE awards implementation grants to districts. Implement CAPs During spring 2013 During summer 2013 Districts begin implementing improvement plans. Districts receive Oregon Report Cards for Based on this data, districts may choose to make revisions to CAPs. Any revisions must be approved by ODE. Page 17

24 During school year December 2013 Districts engage in full implementation, supported by The Network, Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Districts should ensure that implementation of interventions outlined in CAPs is fully underway. Revise CAPs November 2013 February 2014 March 31, 2014 May 14-15, 2014 By July 2014 November 2014 February 2015 June 2015 August 2015 ODE will conduct the first quarterly review of CAPs that have been modified because of implementation or diagnoses. ODE will conduct the second quarterly review of CAPs that have been modified because of implementation or diagnoses. The review includes progress on identified tasks and modifications to the plan. Schools must complete the second annual self-assessment. Districts must submit revised CAPs to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches and School Support Teams support each district with a Priority School in developing a CAP. The CAP is revised in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents and community stakeholders. ODE reviews and approves CAPs. Upon approval, ODE awards implementation grants to districts. ODE will conduct the first quarterly review of CAPs that have been modified because of implementation or diagnoses. ODE will conduct the second quarterly review of CAPs that have been modified because of implementation or diagnoses. The review includes progress on identified tasks and modifications to the plan revised CAP must be submitted to ODE for approval approved CAPs returned to schools. Adjust Levels of Intervention During summer 2014 By November 2014 Districts receive Oregon Report Cards for Based on achievement data and monitoring of implementation, ODE identifies any schools to move among levels of intervention. ODE requires those districts with schools recommended for a level adjustment to submit a revised CAP. Continue Implementation of CAPs Page 18

Priority, Focus, and Model School Guidance

Priority, Focus, and Model School Guidance Oregon Department of Education Priority, Focus, and Model School Guidance Published Anticipated Revision July 2013 Table of Contents Purpose of this Document... 1 Oregon s ESEA Flexibility Waiver... 1

More information

According to the ESEA waiver definitions, priority schools are those schools satisfying at least one of the following:

According to the ESEA waiver definitions, priority schools are those schools satisfying at least one of the following: 2.D PRIORITY SCHOOLS 2.D.i Describe the SEA s methodology for identifying a number of lowest-performing schools equal to at least five percent of the State s Title I schools as priority schools. If the

More information

ESEA Flexibility: Oregon s Next Generation of Accountability

ESEA Flexibility: Oregon s Next Generation of Accountability ESEA Flexibility: Oregon s Next Generation of Accountability Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Summer 2012 A Major Shift Under leadership of Governor & Deputy Superintendent of Public

More information

Redesigned College and Career Ready Performance Index

Redesigned College and Career Ready Performance Index This document presents the redesigned College and Career Ready (CCRPI) that was approved by the U.S. Department of Education as part of Georgia s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) state plan. The redesigned

More information

ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions Updated April 16, 2012

ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions Updated April 16, 2012 ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions Updated April 16, 2012 The U.S. Department of Education (USED) is offering each State educational agency (SEA) the opportunity to request flexibility

More information

Frequently Asked Questions for Parents and Families on Georgia s ESEA Flexibility Waiver

Frequently Asked Questions for Parents and Families on Georgia s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Frequently Asked Questions for Parents and Families on Georgia s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Please Note: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) expired in 2007 and while many of its policies remain in effect, the law

More information

LEA and School Improvement

LEA and School Improvement LEA and School Improvement on-regulatory Guidance January 7, 2004 GUIDACE LEA and School Improvement ITRODUCTIO AUAL REVIEW OF SCHOOL PROGRESS A. REVIEW PROCESS 2 A-1. A-2. A-3. A-4. A-5. A-6. A-7. A-8.

More information

Why We Do What We DO?

Why We Do What We DO? Mega 2013 Why We Do What We DO? Today s Objective To familiarize participants with concepts, definitions and calculations associated with the new transparent accountability system. Adequate Yearly Progress

More information

Mississippi s Differentiated Accountability Model. How the Flexibility Request impacts School Accountability September 2012

Mississippi s Differentiated Accountability Model. How the Flexibility Request impacts School Accountability September 2012 Mississippi s Differentiated Accountability Model How the Flexibility Request impacts School Accountability September 2012 1 ESEA Flexibility: What is waived? No longer will schools be required to meet

More information

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PROPOSAL FOR THE NCLB DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PILOT. May 2, 2008

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PROPOSAL FOR THE NCLB DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PILOT. May 2, 2008 ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PROPOSAL FOR THE NCLB DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PILOT May 2, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II THE PROPOSED DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL3 III

More information

ESEA Flexibility. Review Guidance

ESEA Flexibility. Review Guidance ESEA Flexibility Review Guidance September 28, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS: ESEA FLEXIBILITY REVIEW GUIDANCE Introduction 1 Review and Evaluation of Requests 1 Instructions for Reviewers on High-Quality Requests

More information

SCHOOL YEAR

SCHOOL YEAR 2014-2015 SCHOOL YEAR Virginia s accountability system supports teaching and learning by setting rigorous academic standards known as the Standards of Learning (SOL) and through annual assessments of student

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Louisiana Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel of

More information

GUIDANCE FISCAL YEAR 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS. UNDER SECTION 1003(g) OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

GUIDANCE FISCAL YEAR 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS. UNDER SECTION 1003(g) OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 GUIDANCE ON FISCAL YEAR 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS UNDER SECTION 1003(g) OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

More information

ESEA Flexibility Waiver. State Board of Education October 18, 2011

ESEA Flexibility Waiver. State Board of Education October 18, 2011 ESEA Flexibility Waiver State Board of Education October 18, 2011 1 Why Should Florida Request a Waiver? Better align federal and state accountability systems to ensure one cohesive system understood by

More information

District Level School Improvement Grant Application (LEA)

District Level School Improvement Grant Application (LEA) APPENDIX K LEA Application Fiscal Year 2010 January, 2011 District Level School Improvement Grant Application (LEA) Title l School Improvement Grant ESEA 1003(g) CFDA Number 84.377A TITLE PROGRAM & SERVICES

More information

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success,

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Texas Project Overview Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, convened an objective, independent panel of accountability

More information

Copyright 2011 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2011 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. 1183_09/11 Contents Page Executive Summary... 1 Implementation Appraisal... 1 Analysis of Key Stakeholder Interviews... 3 Analysis of the RtI Center District Personnel

More information

IL-EMPOWER. School Improvement in Tier 3 and Tier 4 Schools

IL-EMPOWER. School Improvement in Tier 3 and Tier 4 Schools IL-EMPOWER School Improvement in Tier 3 and Tier 4 Schools Outcomes Review the basic components and requirements of IL-EMPOWER Develop an understanding of how CEC approaches school improvement and the

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Nevada Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel of accountability

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Tennessee Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel of

More information

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success,

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Virginia Project Overview Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, convened an objective, independent panel of

More information

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Oregon Department of Education December 21, 2015

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Oregon Department of Education December 21, 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act () Oregon Department of Education December 21, 2015 ESEA Reauthorization The Every Student Succeeds Act () reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and

More information

New Opportunities to Advance Personalized Learning in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

New Opportunities to Advance Personalized Learning in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) New Opportunities to Advance in the Every Student Succeeds Act () Assessment Design of Assessment Each state must implement a set of highquality, yearly student academic assessments in math, reading or

More information

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success,

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans South Dakota Project Overview Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, convened an objective, independent panel

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Oregon Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel of accountability

More information

School Redesign Grant Release Session July & August 2017

School Redesign Grant Release Session July & August 2017 School Redesign Grant Release Session July & August 2017 Introduction We are all committed to helping our most struggling schools to ensure that all students have access to the education they need and

More information

Virginia Board of Education Agenda Item

Virginia Board of Education Agenda Item Virginia Board of Education Agenda Item Agenda Item: C Date: February 28, 2013 Title Presenter Final Review of Memorandum of Understanding for Alexandria City School Board for Jefferson-Houston Elementary

More information

School Year

School Year NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF STUDENT SERVICES Office of Title I Program Planning and Accountability Project Plan: Title I Turnkey Training School Year 2003-2004 As of June 30, 2004 Submitted

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans New Jersey Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel

More information

WA Lakeview Hope Academy (Clover Park SD) th AVE SW Lakewood WA (253)

WA Lakeview Hope Academy (Clover Park SD) th AVE SW Lakewood WA (253) WA Lakeview Hope Academy (Clover Park SD) 10501 47th AVE SW Lakewood WA 98499 3712 (253) 583 5320 12/13/2018 Title I Schoolwide Plan Required Components Checklist of Evidence/Actions School: District:

More information

INTRODUCTION REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET

INTRODUCTION REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET 2016-2017 Title I, Part A Schoolwide Programs Statewide Monitoring Self-Assessment Tool INTRODUCTION REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET SELF-ASSESSMENT

More information

Organization Code: 1040 District Name: ACADEMY 20 School Code: 1615 School Name: CHINOOK TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) Plan type based on: 1 Year

Organization Code: 1040 District Name: ACADEMY 20 School Code: 1615 School Name: CHINOOK TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) Plan type based on: 1 Year Organization Code: 1040 District Name: ACADEMY 20 School Code: 1615 School Name: CHINOOK TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) Plan type based on: 1 Year Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions:

More information

ESEA Waiver September 16, 2015

ESEA Waiver September 16, 2015 ESEA Waiver September 16, 2015 USDE Negotiations Region One Education Service Center Center for Excellence in School Turnaround Texas ESEA Waiver 2013 Conditional 2014 Submit Final Evaluation Guidelines

More information

State Accountability Fact Sheets: Overview and Critical Context

State Accountability Fact Sheets: Overview and Critical Context State Accountability Fact Sheets: Overview and Critical Context Part of a Series on Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act By Samantha Batel and Laura Jimenez August 2017 Introduction The Every

More information

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Side-by-Side

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Side-by-Side Authorization Structure Generally includes separate authorizations for separate programs, with the exception of 21 programs authorized under one authorization of appropriations under the Fund for the Improvement

More information

Overall Level: Not Rated

Overall Level: Not Rated Report Card Rating Details Report The purpose of the Report Card rating details report is to describe the rating methodology and display the data used by the school accountability system to determine the

More information

Closing the Achievement Gap

Closing the Achievement Gap May 2013 Closing the Achievement Gap Looking at No Child Left Behind and the future of the Waiver Aida Ashouri Coblentz Fellow john a, powell, Executive Director Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive

More information

IMPLEMENTATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

IMPLEMENTATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IMPLEMENTATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT January 2008 Report To the Legislature As required by Minn. Statutes 2006 127A.095 COMMISSIONER: Alice Seagren IMPLEMENTATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT FOR

More information

Special Education Guidebook for Site and System Leaders

Special Education Guidebook for Site and System Leaders Special Education Guidebook for Site and System Leaders Session Objectives As a result of this presentation, site and system leaders will use the Guidebook to: Identify four strategies for creating a successful

More information

UNBRIDLED LEARNING ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL (WITH FOCUS ON THE NEXT-GENERATION LEARNERS COMPONENT)

UNBRIDLED LEARNING ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL (WITH FOCUS ON THE NEXT-GENERATION LEARNERS COMPONENT) UNBRIDLED LEARNING ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL (WITH FOCUS ON THE NEXT-GENERATION LEARNERS COMPONENT) The Kentucky Department of Education s mission is to prepare all Kentucky students for next-generation learning,

More information

INTRODUCTION SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT FORM

INTRODUCTION SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT FORM 2018-2019 Title I, Part A Schoolwide Programs Statewide Monitoring Self-Assessment Tool INTRODUCTION SCHOOLWIDE PLAN & GUIDING QUESTIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE SHEET SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT

More information

The Four Domains CALL Domains, Subdomains, and Sample Survey Items District Level

The Four Domains CALL Domains, Subdomains, and Sample Survey Items District Level The Four Domains CALL Domains, Subdomains, and Sample Survey Items District Level The Four Domains CALL System was derived from the research-validated Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for Learning

More information

ESEA Reauthorization. Background

ESEA Reauthorization. Background ESEA Reauthorization Background The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is five years overdue for reauthorization. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved

More information

If you have any questions regarding completion of the Local Assistance Plan Self Assessment, please send an to

If you have any questions regarding completion of the Local Assistance Plan Self Assessment, please send an  to Guidance The Diagnostic Self-Review Document provides an opportunity for the school, with the assistance of the district, to assess it s current level of performance in regard to the school leadership,

More information

School Improvement Grants, Sec. 1003(g) Roadmap. Resources

School Improvement Grants, Sec. 1003(g) Roadmap. Resources School Improvement Grants, Sec. 1003(g) 1 David DeSchryver, Esquire Brustein & Manasevit DDeSchryver@bruman.com Fall Forum 2010 Roadmap Overview Persistently lowest achieving schools Consolidated Appropriations

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Connecticut Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel

More information

Guide for Michigan Schools and Districts. Completing and Submitting Focus and Priority Requirements in ASSIST

Guide for Michigan Schools and Districts. Completing and Submitting Focus and Priority Requirements in ASSIST Guide for Michigan Schools and Districts Completing and Submitting Focus and Priority Requirements in ASSIST 1 About This Guide This guide has been developed specifically for Michigan schools and districts.

More information

Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Summary In today s competitive global economy, our education system must prepare every student to be successful

More information

RTI Glossary. Accommodation. Adaptation. Aimline. Assessment. Authentic Assessment. AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress. Baseline

RTI Glossary. Accommodation. Adaptation. Aimline. Assessment. Authentic Assessment. AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress. Baseline RTI Glossary Browse the glossary below to learn the terms you need to know to successfully implement RTI in your school. This glossary was compiled using the following resources: The RTI Glossary of Terms

More information

Accountability (Annual Measurable Objectives AMOs) Questions and Answers

Accountability (Annual Measurable Objectives AMOs) Questions and Answers This document contains the answers to questions that have been asked about how Washington State implements Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), per the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility

More information

What is the impact of using a growth model on accountability determinations?

What is the impact of using a growth model on accountability determinations? April 21, 2010 The Honorable Tom Harkin Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions United States Senate (via email) Dear Mr. Chairman, Thank you for inviting comments from the field related

More information

English Language Learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015

English Language Learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 English Language Learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 Dr. Wayne E. Wright Purdue University Background Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 is the latest reauthorization of the

More information

CEC Analysis and Recommendations

CEC Analysis and Recommendations September 5, 2007 The Honorable George Miller The Honorable Howard Buck McKeon Chairman Ranking Member House Education and Labor Committee House Education and Labor Committee 2181 Rayburn House Office

More information

Southern Regional Education Board High Schools That Work: SREB s Tools to Support Illinois High School Transformation

Southern Regional Education Board High Schools That Work: SREB s Tools to Support Illinois High School Transformation SREB s Tools to Support Illinois High School Transformation SIG sites in other states Planning and Pre-Implementation The plan of support uses research from the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB),

More information

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success,

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Ohio Project Overview Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, convened an objective, independent panel of accountability

More information

MS SIG Indicator Rubric

MS SIG Indicator Rubric ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES 1. LEA and school conducted needs assessment (NA) to inform the SIG implementation plan Aligned with of LEA and school conduct NA that does not include input and participation

More information

Topic List. School Improvement Grant 1003(g) (SIG) Resources. School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring

Topic List. School Improvement Grant 1003(g) (SIG) Resources. School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring Tiffany Winters, Esq. twinters@bruman.com Steven Spillan, Esq. sspillan@bruman.com Fall Forum 2012 1 Topic List SIG Resources Background on the SIG

More information

Response to Intervention Key Terms

Response to Intervention Key Terms Response to Intervention Key Terms Accommodation Change in instructional strategies that enable all children to demonstrate their abilities in the classroom or assessment/testing setting; designed to provide

More information

Title I Schoolwide Plan For Woodland Heights School

Title I Schoolwide Plan For Woodland Heights School Woodland Heights School 225 Winter Street Laconia, New Hampshire 03246 Phone (603) 524-8733 Fax (603) 528-8688 Eric Johnson- Principal E-mail: ejohnson@laconiaschools.org Title I Schoolwide Plan For Woodland

More information

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16 Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 Official 2015 SPF: 1 Year Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions:

More information

Office of School Improvement Division Liaison Manual

Office of School Improvement Division Liaison Manual Office of School Improvement Division Liaison Manual 2012 2013 1 P age Table of Contents Purpose of the Manual Section 1: ESEA Flexibility Waiver Information 4 Section 2: Division Liaison Roles and Responsibilities.

More information

Response to Intervention Key Terms and Acronyms

Response to Intervention Key Terms and Acronyms Response to Intervention Key Terms and Acronyms AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress A statewide accountability system mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which requires each state to ensure that

More information

School Improvement Planning Manual

School Improvement Planning Manual School Improvement Planning Manual Assessment, Accountability, Research and School Improvement Division School Improvement Department Revised July 2011 5100 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89146 CCSD

More information

Career Technical Education

Career Technical Education The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Intersections and Opportunities for Career Technical Education The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the primary federal law governing most national

More information

New Jersey Department of Education Office of Supplemental Educational Programs Understanding Your Annual Progress Targets

New Jersey Department of Education Office of Supplemental Educational Programs Understanding Your Annual Progress Targets New Jersey Department of Education Office of Supplemental Educational Programs Understanding Your Annual Progress Targets As part of New Jersey s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility

More information

District Student Success Process Planning Rubric

District Student Success Process Planning Rubric District Student Success Process Planning Rubric This rubric is provided to assist school districts in addressing the required components of the Student Success Process. For additional information and

More information

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened

In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans North Dakota Project Overview In partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, Bellwether Education Partners, convened an objective, independent panel

More information

4.9.1 ELEMENTARY STUDENT PROGRESSION PLAN POLICY PROCEDURES

4.9.1 ELEMENTARY STUDENT PROGRESSION PLAN POLICY PROCEDURES POLICY The School Board has the authority to adopt rules for implementing the student progression requirements for students in kindergarten through the fifth grade. The Student Progression Plan for Manatee

More information

A Users Guide To Interventions

A Users Guide To Interventions 15 Wickham Road Newport, Rhode Island 02840-4232 Tel 401.847.2100 Fax 401.849.0170 A Users Guide To Interventions Prepared by: Caroline A. Frey, Ed.D. Director of Curriculum & Instruction Newport Public

More information

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16 Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 Official 2014 SPF: 1 Year Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions:

More information

RTI Roundtable Issue # 2

RTI Roundtable Issue # 2 RTI Roundtable Issue # 2 When Did RTI Become Law? At the core of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), passed in 2001, is the goal that all children have the opportunity to achieve in school. The law emphasizes

More information

ZERO STARS OUT OF FOUR

ZERO STARS OUT OF FOUR New York ZERO STARS OUT OF FOUR With an accountability system based on proficiency rates, New York gives schools an incentive to ignore their high-achieving students. The Purpose of This Analysis The Every

More information

CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request February 2013

CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request February 2013 CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request February 2013 PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE AND CAREER READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE AND CAREER READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS 1A. Adopt College-

More information

Approved Plan: Data/Accountability-School-Performance/Utah- ESEA-Flexibility-Request.

Approved Plan:   Data/Accountability-School-Performance/Utah- ESEA-Flexibility-Request. Utah ESEA Flexibility Approved Plan: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/educational- Data/Accountability-School-Performance/Utah- ESEA-Flexibility-Request.aspx Revised 9/6/2012 Flexibility: Immediate Impact

More information

Charter Schools and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Charter Schools and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Charter Schools and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) March 10, 2016 Christy Wolfe Senior Policy Advisor Overview ESSA - Big Picture Changes Implementation Process Summary of major programs and changes

More information

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success,

Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, An Independent Review of ESSA State Plans Rhode Island Project Overview Bellwether Education Partners, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, convened an objective, independent panel

More information

Charter Schools and ESSA Implementation October 3, 2016

Charter Schools and ESSA Implementation October 3, 2016 June 20, 2016 Charter Schools and ESSA Implementation October 3, 2016 Christine Wolfe Senior Policy Advisor TIMELINE: 2017-18 FIRST YEAR ESSA RULES IN EFFECT 2015-16 School Year: Bill Passage and Initial

More information

Missouri PLC Implementation Rubric

Missouri PLC Implementation Rubric Revised May, 2016 Missouri PLC Implementation Rubric Please note: Each successive level of implementation reflects the cumulative effect of those preceding it. (i.e., to be deeply implementing, the conditions

More information

Turnaround Option Plan Phase 2 Orange County Public Schools

Turnaround Option Plan Phase 2 Orange County Public Schools Orange County Public Schools This form, to be used by districts planning in 2016-17 for implementation in 2017-18, satisfies the requirements of Form TOP-2, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 6A-1.099811,

More information

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT Comparison of Pending Changes Congress is currently considering sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Obama administration has

More information

SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment (SWIFT-FIA)

SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment (SWIFT-FIA) SWIFT Fidelity Integrity Assessment (SWIFT-FIA) Version 1. SWIFT Center University of Kansas www.swiftschools.org SWIFT Center produced this document under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special

More information

RTI Essential Components Integrity Worksheet 1

RTI Essential Components Integrity Worksheet 1 RTI Essential Components Worksheet School: District: Date: Person(s) Interviewed: Interviewer(s): Purpose: The purpose of this worksheet is to provide a tool for collecting relevant information and for

More information

Clark County School District. End-of-Year Progress Report

Clark County School District. End-of-Year Progress Report Clark County School District End-of-Year Progress Report June 5, 2012 Background Clark County School District (CCSD) purchased the comprehensive solution in June 2011, which includes both Instruction and

More information

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department The University of the State of New York The State Education Department DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS (DTSDE) BEDS Code 421800010000 District Syracuse City School District District

More information

Mathematics Professional Learning Services

Mathematics Professional Learning Services Mathematics Professional Learning Services IMPROVE THE RIGOR OF MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION AND IMPROVE RESULTS FOR ALL STUDENTS www.corelearn.com MATH Introduction Accelerate Math Performance Professional

More information

School Comprehensive Education Plan (SCEP)

School Comprehensive Education Plan (SCEP) LEA Name: City School District of Albany LEA BEDS Code: 10100010045 School Name: Stephen & Harriett Myers Middle School ENTER DATA INTO ALL YELLOW CELLS. 2017-2018 School Comprehensive Education Plan (SCEP)

More information

West Virginia. The Purpose of This Analysis

West Virginia. The Purpose of This Analysis West Virginia ONE STAR OUT OF FOUR West Virginia includes high-achieving students in its growth model but does little else to encourage schools to pay attention to them. The Purpose of This Analysis The

More information

June 14, The Honorable Tom Harkin Chairman Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Washington, DC 20510

June 14, The Honorable Tom Harkin Chairman Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Washington, DC 20510 June 14, 2013 The Honorable Tom Harkin Chairman Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Lamar Alexander Ranking Member Senate Health, Education, Labor

More information

Getting Results Continuous Improvement Plan

Getting Results Continuous Improvement Plan Page of 9 9/9/0 Department of Education Market Street Harrisburg, PA 76-0 Getting Results Continuous Improvement Plan 0-0 Principal Name: Ms. Sharon Williams School Name: AGORA CYBER CS District Name:

More information

EXPANDING EQUITY: Leveraging the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to provide Direct Student Services

EXPANDING EQUITY: Leveraging the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to provide Direct Student Services EXPANDING EQUITY: Leveraging the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to provide Direct Student Services April 2016 Chiefs for Change is a nonprofit network of diverse state and district education Chiefs

More information

Leveraging School Improvement to Advance Equity

Leveraging School Improvement to Advance Equity Leveraging School Improvement to Advance Equity In an effort to advance equity, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides federal funds to assist states and districts in meeting the needs of traditionally

More information

N.J.A.C. 6A:33, SCHOOL TURNAROUND AND IMPROVEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

N.J.A.C. 6A:33, SCHOOL TURNAROUND AND IMPROVEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS N.J.A.C. 6A:33, SCHOOL TURNAROUND AND IMPROVEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:33-1.1 Purpose 6A:33-1.2 Scope 6A:33-1.3 Definitions SUBCHAPTER 2. ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS AND SYSTEM

More information

1.D Goal Progress. I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessments

1.D Goal Progress. I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessments 1.D Goal Progress Guiding Question: Are the programs, practices and strategies implemented by the Harford County Public Schools achieving their intended effect of improving student performance and eliminating

More information

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS (DTSDE)

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AND DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS (DTSDE) The University of the State of New York The State Education epartment IAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR SCHOOL AN ISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS (TSE) BES Code 421800010042 School Name McKinley Brighton Elementary School School

More information

Newark Public Schools Teacher Evaluation

Newark Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Newark Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Framework for Effective Teaching A GUIDEBOOK FOR TEACHERS & ADMINISTRATORS 2016-17 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from the Superintendent ii Introduction 1 Overview

More information

Washoe County School District Acceleration Zone of Schools CORE VALUES

Washoe County School District Acceleration Zone of Schools CORE VALUES Washoe County School District 2013-2014 Acceleration Zone of Schools Area Superintendent: Debra Biersdorff Zone Principals: Jenni Anderson, Veterans ES; Don Angotti, Warner ES; Kevin Carroll, Sparks HS;

More information

SIG: Turnaround Efforts

SIG: Turnaround Efforts SIG: Turnaround Efforts November 8, 2013 Fewer than 15% of high schools produce half of the nation s 1.2 million dropouts. Source: Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters, Locating the Dropout Crisis (2004)

More information

Oregon s Matrix Model for Educator Summative Evaluations

Oregon s Matrix Model for Educator Summative Evaluations PENDING APPROVAL OF THE ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Oregon s Matrix Model for Educator Summative Evaluations Oregon s Requirements for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Teacher and administrator

More information

A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education

A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education Note: Additional information regarding AYP Results from 2003 through 2007 including a listing of each individual

More information