Priority, Focus, and Model School Guidance

Transcription

1 Oregon Department of Education Priority, Focus, and Model School Guidance Published Anticipated Revision July 2013

2

3 Table of Contents Purpose of this Document... 1 Oregon s ESEA Flexibility Waiver... 1 How is Oregon s new system of accountability different from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?... 1 Why did Oregon apply for the waiver?... 1 What is the source of ODE s authority regarding Priority, Focus and Model schools?... 1 Priority, Focus and Model School Identification... 2 What are the characteristics of a Priority school?... 2 How are schools identified as Priority schools?... 2 Are SIG schools included among Priority schools?... 2 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?... 4 How are schools identified as Model schools?... 5 What is the Oregon ESEA Waiver vision for Model Schools?... 5 How will Model schools participate in The Network?... 5 How do Priority and Focus schools exit from participation?... 6 What are the exit criteria for Priority elementary and middle schools?... 6 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? Do Model Schools Complete a CAP? Who approves the CAP? When are Priority school CAPs due? When are Focus school CAPs due? Does each school create a CAP? What is the district s role in creating the CAP? What is the cycle of improvement for Priority schools? What is the cycle of improvement for Focus schools? Implementation of Improvement Efforts...14 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? Page i

4 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? What accountability does a district have if their Priority/Focus schools are unable to make acceptable progress on student achievement? Supports to Schools...25 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-evaluation serve the school? What are the budget requirements for a Priority and Focus schools? 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? What is a school support team and who serves on these teams? Interventions with Schools...33 What are levels of intervention? How is a Priority school s level assigned initially? How is a Focus school s level assigned initially? Will schools stay in the same level of intervention for the duration of their engagement? What are the three levels of intervention? 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? 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 ii

5 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. 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 tiered system of diagnosis, intervention and support for Focus schools; research, support and incentives built around Achievement Compacts; and a plan for Page 1

6 system-wide transformation through investing in a Continuous Improvement Network (The Network) system 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. Priority, Focus and Model School Identification What are the characteristics of a Priority school? A Priority school is one with: Low Graduation Rate: A Title I funded high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent, or Low Achievement: Among the lowest performing five percent of Title I funded schools in the state based on the percent of students meeting state benchmarks in reading and mathematics, combined, for and that is not making significant progress through growth (a high-progress school). How are schools identified as Priority schools? 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. Page 2

7 What are the characteristics of a Focus school? Oregon Department of Education 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 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 either Focus or Priority, 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) Page 3

8 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 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 Page 4

9 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. What is the Oregon ESEA Waiver vision for Model Schools? To date, Oregon s most successful school improvement efforts have been built upon a networked 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-evaluation will help identify and encourage early action in areas of weakness, as well as dissemination and study around areas of strength. Undertaking this self-evaluation 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 moneys available to the Page 5

10 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 works with the members of the school support team (see page 31) to evaluate the progress of the school. This evaluation involves: objective data describing academic achievement and growth observational evaluations of the fidelity of program implementation an analysis of commitment of school staff to continued & sustained implementation. What are the exit criteria for Priority elementary and middle schools? Category Improvement School support team evaluation 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. To exit from Priority status, a school must have a consensus evaluation among support team members that the school implemented interventions with fidelity, is likely to continue with the interventions, and that the interventions implemented are likely to continue to deliver needed improvement results if the school is exited from Priority school status. No school is exited from Priority school status if that school would meet the criteria for identification for Priority school status were a list produced. Page 6

11 What are the exit criteria for Priority high schools? Oregon Department of Education Category Improvement Improvement in Graduation School support team evaluation 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. To exit from Priority status, a school must have a consensus evaluation among support team members that the school implemented interventions with fidelity, is likely to continue with the interventions, and that the interventions implemented are likely to continue to deliver needed improvement results if the school is exited from Priority school status. No school is exited from Priority school status if that school would meet the criteria for identification for Priority school status were a list produced. Page 7

12 What are the exit criteria for Focus elementary and middle schools? Category Improvement Subgroup Improvement School support team evaluation 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. To exit from Focus status, a school must have a consensus evaluation among support team members that the school implemented interventions with fidelity, is likely to continue with the interventions, and that the interventions implemented are likely to continue to deliver needed improvement results if the school is exited from Focus school status. No school is exited from Focus school status if that school would meet the criteria for identification for Focus school status were a list produced. Page 8

13 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

14 Subgroup Improvement School support team evaluation 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. To exit from Focus status, a school must have a consensus evaluation among support team members that the school implemented interventions were implemented with fidelity, is likely to continue with the interventions, and that the interventions implemented are likely to continue and to deliver needed improvement results if the school is exited from Focus school status. No school is exited from Focus school status if that school would meet the criteria for identification for Focus school status were a list produced. How long do schools participate in improvement efforts under identified status? Schools identified as Priority, Focus, or Model 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 reevaluated 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 reentering 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, with the exception of the evaluation by the school support team, directly relate to the criteria used to identify schools as Priority or Focus schools. ODE is leveraging support Page 10

15 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-evaluation 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 How and when do SIG schools exit from identified status? 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 and community members, commits the school to evidence-based interventions and fixed improvement goals. The CAP is completed via Oregon s Customized Planning Process Tool (CPPT) that manages all aspects of planning and reporting. Use of the CPPT 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 the CPPT. Ultimately, the CAP demonstrates an alignment to district level goals and activities and will be supported by the district s commitment to improvement. In all cases, the CAP is developed collaboratively among district, school, community, and ODE staff, with the support of the school support team. 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 Page 11

16 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. 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. The plan describes: 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-evaluation tool indicating both priority and ease of implementation for each indicator school level and district level interventions or strategies for implementing each key indicator 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. Page 12

17 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. Do Model Schools Complete a CAP? Model schools may elect to stop their work once the self-evaluation process within the CPPT 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. Who approves the CAP? Each CAP is reviewed by staff at several levels within The Network, including the district, Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches. Final approval of the CAP is completed by ODE. When are Priority school CAPs due? All newly identified Priority school CAPs are due March 1, 2013 (see timeline on page 14). When are Focus school CAPs due? All Focus school CAPs are due November 1, 2012 (see timeline on page 17). 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. What is the district s role in creating the CAP? 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. What is the cycle of improvement for Priority schools? Each Priority school must complete a guided self-evaluation 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 the CPPT. 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. Page 13

18 In summary, the elements of the school improvement process are: Annual self-evaluation through the CPPT, 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 29), the system of support for implementation of interventions, addressing the needs of schools and districts, delivering professional development, and facilitating coaching sessions. 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. Like priority schools but with some differences. In summary, the elements of the school improvement process are: Annual self-evaluation, 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? Information marked with a strikethrough indicates a change from earlier releases of this timeline. 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. Page 14

19 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 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. Leadership Coaches hired and placed in Priority schools to mentor the school leadership. Complete Self-Evaluations By October 2012 ODE engages Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches to assist in the process of completing self-evaluations. Districts with Priority schools complete a self-evaluation and submit results to ODE. Engage in Deeper Diagnoses By July 2012 By December 2012 By December 2012 By January/February 2013 ODE selects appropriate diagnostic tools, compatible with the statewide longitudinal data system. 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 and the school appraisal team lead conduct an exit conference with each district and school to present the results of the review and discuss interventions and next steps. Page 15

20 Develop Planning Budget January 18, 2013 February 2013 Planning budget is due to ODE. ODE approves planning budgets. Develop CAPs By March 2013 By May 2013 By May 2013 By July 2013 Districts must submit 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 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 During school year 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. 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. Revise CAPs By June 2014 By May 2014 By July 2014 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. 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. Page 16

21 Continue Implementation of CAPs During school year 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. Revise CAPs By June 2015 By May 2015 By July 2015 Districts must submit revised CAPs to ODE for approval. ODE reviews and approves CAPs. Upon approval, ODE awards implementation grants to districts. Adjust Levels of Intervention Second Time During summer 2015 By November 2015 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 During school year Districts engages in full implementation, supported by The Network, Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Adjust Levels of Intervention or Exit Schools During summer 2016 Districts receive Oregon Report Cards for Based on achievement data and monitoring of implementation, ODE identifies any Priority and Focus schools that have met the criteria for exit or level adjustment. What is the timeline for improvement in Focus schools? Note: Information in italics refers only to focus schools identified on October 11, Information marked with a strikethrough indicates a change from earlier releases of this timeline. Rate Schools August 2012 The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) will publish a preliminary list of Priority, Focus and Model schools. Page 17

22 September 2012 October 2012 ODE will publish a final list of Priority, Focus and Model schools. Following further validation of data additional focus schools are added to designation. Conduct Workshop for Identified Schools August 2012 November 2012 August 2012 November 2012 Priority, Focus and Model schools will participate in a workshop where district/school teams will learn about the elements of the Network and their requirements. Newly identified focus schools will participate in a workshop where district/school teams will learn about the elements of the Network and their requirements. ODE will award planning grants to districts. ODE will award planning grant to districts Place Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches By September 2012 By September 2012 Regional Network Coordinators will be 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. Leadership Coaches will be hired and placed in Focus schools to mentor the school leadership. Complete Self-Evaluations September 2012 November 2012 ODE will engage Regional Network Coordinators and Leadership Coaches to assist in the process of completing self-evaluations. Districts with Focus schools will complete a self-evaluation and submit results to ODE. Focus schools will complete a self-evaluation and submit results to ODE. Develop CAPs October 2012 Districts must submit CAPs to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and school support teams will support each district with a Focus school in developing a CAP. The CAP will be developed in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents and community stakeholders. Page 18

23 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 ODE will review and approve CAPs. Upon approval, ODE will award implementation grants to districts. Districts must submit CAPs for Focus schools identified in October 2012 to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and school support teams will support each district with a Focus school in developing a CAP. The CAP will be developed in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents and community stakeholders. ODE will review and approve CAPs for Focus schools identified in October Upon approval, ODE will award implementation grants to districts. Implement CAPs By December 2012 By February 2012 By February 2013 Districts will engage in full implementation of their approved interventions for the remainder of the school year, supported by the Network, the Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. For Focus schools identified in October 2012, districts will engage in full implementation of their approved interventions for the remainder of the school year, supported by the Network, the Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Engage in Deeper Diagnoses By July 2012 By April 2013 By March 2013 By April 2013 By March 2013 ODE will select appropriate diagnostic tools and are compatible with the statewide longitudinal data system. The school appraisal teams will conduct deeper diagnostic reviews in Focus schools. The teams will complete reports for each school in which a review is done and submit it to ODE, the district, and the school. ODE and the school appraisal team lead will conduct an exit conference with each district and school to present the results of the review and discuss interventions and next steps. Page 19

24 Revise CAPs By June 2013 By May 2013 By July 2013 Districts must submit revised CAPs to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and school support teams will support each district with a Focus school in developing a CAP. The CAP will be revised in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents and community stakeholders. ODE will review and approve CAPs. Upon approval, ODE will award implementation grants to districts. Continue Implementation of CAPs During school year Districts will engage in full implementation, supported by the Network, the Regional Network Coordinator, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Revise CAPs By June 2014 By May 2014 By July 2014 Districts must submit revised CAPs to ODE for approval. Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and school support teams will support each district with a Focus school in developing a CAP. The CAP will be revised in partnership with district leadership, school leadership and staff, parents and community stakeholders. ODE will review and approve CAPs. Upon approval, ODE will award implementation grants to districts. Adjust Levels of Intervention During summer 2014 During fall 2014 Districts will receive Oregon Report Cards for Based on achievement data and monitoring of implementation, ODE will identify any districts to move among levels of intervention. Based on Report Card data and/or level adjustment, districts may need to make revisions to CAPs. Any revisions must be approved by ODE. Continue Implementation of CAPs During school year Districts will engage in full implementation, supported by the Network, Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Page 20

25 Adjust Levels of Intervention During summer 2015 During fall 2015 Districts will receive Oregon Report Cards for Based on achievement data and monitoring of implementation, ODE will identify any districts to move among levels of intervention. Based on Report Card data and/or level adjustment, districts may need to make revisions to CAPs. Any revisions must be approved by ODE. Continue Implementation of CAPs During school year Districts will engage in full implementation, supported by the Network, Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, and any district and school support providers approved in the CAP. Adjust Levels of Intervention During Summer 2016 Based on achievement data and monitoring of implementation, ODE will identify any Focus schools that have met the criteria for exit or level adjustment. What is the timeline for Model school participation in The Network? Date Activity Rationale August 2012 September/October 2012 November/December 2012 ODE will award planning grants to districts. Implement self-evaluations using the CPPT Develop the school CAP These grant funds are used to complete the CPPT, begin work on the CAP, and/or attend meetings sponsored by ODE. All schools, no matter their level of success, benefit by ongoing self-evaluation, followed by recalibration to further refine and perfect systems. Page 21

26 January/June 2013 August/September 2013 During the School Year August/September 2014 During School Year August/September 2015 During the 2015/16 School Year Implementation of CAPs Begin involvement with the Network with guidance from ODE (may include mentoring, presenting, sharing systems, supporting the Network or ODE at presentations and other activities to be arranged in collaboration with the school/district). Revise CAPs Implementation Continues Revise CAPs Implementation Continues Revise CAPs Implementation Continues Systems are further refined, helping ensure strong outcomes for students. Networking opportunities help expand Model and other schools capacity and knowledge on the systems, issues & challenges related to ongoing school improvement in high-needs communities. Annual self-evaluation and recalibration process Continue implementation & Network Involvement Annual self-evaluation and recalibration process Continue implementation & Network Involvement Annual self-evaluation and recalibration process Continue implementation & Network Involvement How is plan implementation monitored by The Network? The CPPT supports district and school level self-evaluation, plan development, and monitoring and reporting on plan progress. Because the tool is web-delivered and all data are held in common across the state, it is not necessary for districts or schools to prepare and submit separate plans and reports of progress. Staff in districts create plans indicating responsibilities and timelines for tasks and continually follow-up with a record of accomplishment and task completion. Staff at all levels have access to these data. State level staff can access both district and school level data from across the state while district level staff can access school level data from within the district. This access facilitates the evaluation of successes and challenges within and across schools. This evaluation information is used to target technical assistance to schools and to initiate early intervention so that tasks for which schools or districts lack capacity are supported in a timely manner. While the CPPT presents an opportunity for ongoing monitoring, it also includes features supporting periodic reporting on progress in a more formal version. This is valuable as decisions on extending and redirecting funding and other resources are contemplated. Page 22

27 Priority schools represent an extension of Oregon s existing work with SIG schools. This program is maturing and has presented the opportunity to develop systems for monitoring and oversight. ODE has established protocols for management of this program and for fiscal controls. These protocols will be revised for monitoring and oversight of newly identified Priority schools and revised even further for monitoring and oversight of Focus schools. The current SIG monitoring effort includes: Annual revision of established and approved plans to reflect changes in direction and alternative interventions identified as a result of implementation Quarterly reporting of program progress and expenditures for review by ODE staff Annual reporting of overall progress with an evaluation describing identified successes and failures, needed policy and practice changes, and barriers to implementation Annual formal school visits to elicit the evidence and perspectives of a broad constituency within the school, including leadership staff, instructional and classroom support staff, students, and parents within the school Annual formal visits with district level staff working in support of school improvement efforts to confirm evidence and perceptions about successes and challenges within the schools Reviews and observations of implementation of planned improvement efforts to confirm that intervention is occurring and having the desired impact on the behaviors of both adults and students in the school and on student achievement Frequent budget discussions confirming the appropriateness of planned expenditures and providing needed flexibility in support of improvement efforts. The expansion of Oregon s existing statewide system of support into The Network provides additional opportunities for monitoring and oversight. The school appraisal teams are available to conduct second round reviews of schools in cases where it appears that interventions are not having the desired impact. This provides both incentive and information for redirecting the efforts of school staff. Similarly, school support teams are in an opportune position to evaluate and report on school level efforts at implementation and to identify barriers and hindrances that can be overcome through resource allocation or policy adjustments. What accountability do Priority schools have if they are unable to make progress on student achievement? For Priority schools that, following implementation of the prescribed interventions, do not show needed progress in student achievement, ODE will direct the school to implement some or all components of the turnaround model as described in USED s SIG guidance. This would include: Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates Using locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students: Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; and select new staff Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, Page 23

28 and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school Provide staff ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development that is aligned with the school s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not limited to, requiring the school to report to a new turnaround office in the LEA or SEA, hire a turnaround leader who reports directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a multiyear contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility in exchange for greater accountability Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students. What accountability does a Focus school have if the school is unable to make acceptable progress on student achievement? For Focus schools that, following implementation of the selected interventions, do not show needed progress in student achievement, ODE will direct the school to implement some or all components of the transformation model as described in USED s SIG guidance. This would include: Page 24 Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that: 1) take into account data on student growth as a significant factor as well as other factors, such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school graduation rates; and 2) are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development that is aligned with the school s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a transformation model.

29 What accountability does a district have if their Priority/Focus schools are unable to make acceptable progress on student achievement? Districts that identify barriers to or failures in implementation or fail to meet outcome targets for particular interventions will be counseled and provided technical assistance as needed to complete documentation and to support task completion. They will be required to modify plans indicating new tasks and budgeting and to seek approval by ODE to implement those changes. Supports to Schools What supports are available for Priority schools? As illustrated in the diagram that follows, each Priority school receives: a Leadership Coach to assist the school s leadership in planning, guiding, and directing the interventions throughout the term of identification an annual self-evaluation guided by the Leadership Coach deeper diagnoses of five key areas of effectiveness conducted by a school appraisal team collaboration from the district, Regional Network Coordinator and Leadership Coach in completing and implementing the CAP support from The Network staffed by Regional Network Coordinators and school support teams. Page 25

30 Do SIG schools have access to the same resources as Priority schools? The SIG districts and schools have access to and are part of The Network (see page 29). SIG schools receive services within The Network appropriate to their existing and revised plans and goals. These schools continue implementation of interventions aligned to all of the turnaround principles as described in their existing plans. What supports are available for Focus schools? As illustrated in the diagram that follows, each Focus school receives: Page 26 a Leadership Coach to assist the school s leadership in planning, guiding, and directing the interventions throughout the term of identification an annual self-evaluations guided by the Leadership Coach

31 collaboration from district, Regional Network Coordinator and Leadership Coach in developing the CAP deeper diagnoses of the five key areas of effectiveness conducted by a school appraisal team support from The Network staffed by Regional Network Coordinators and school support teams. How do the results of the self-evaluation serve the school? Oregon s CPPT (see page 11) is an indicator-driven evaluation and planning tool developed by the Center on Innovation and Improvement (CII). This tool leads schools through an annual selfevaluation process. The CPPT incorporates both school and district level planning across multiple programs. Page 27

32 The initial phase of self-evaluation describes current status in the school relative to a number of best practice indicators. The result of this evaluation will serve as an initial screener in preparation for deeper diagnosis of challenges in identified Priority and Focus schools. The tool provides the information needed to target deeper diagnostics and to improve the efficiency of that effort. With support from CII, ODE has worked to structure the tool so that it guides district and school personnel in examining progress in each of the five key areas of effectiveness: technical and adaptive leadership, educator effectiveness, teaching and learning, district and school structure and culture, and family and community involvement. For Focus and Priority schools, the tool helps to target the work of appraisal teams toward appropriate areas for deeper investigation. For all other schools, it provides powerful information on which to focus efforts. For the state, it serves as an important data collection for identifying best practices or areas of concern to be addressed through professional development via The Network. What are the budget requirements for a Priority and Focus schools? To augment district capacity to successfully implement necessary interventions in Priority, Focus, and other Title I schools in need of improvement and for state support to be provided to these districts, ODE assists districts in leveraging funds and require portions of Title I monies be set aside for implementation of interventions. Improvement funds allocated to districts under ESEA Title I-A section 1003a were previously given as grants to schools in improvement status. These funds are redirected to Priority and Focus schools. Use of improvement funds and selection of interventions are largely directed by ODE in Priority and Focus schools, with significant collaboration and input from the districts. The CAP provides specifics about implementing and funding interventions addressing the turnaround principles through the five key areas of effectiveness. Districts are also required to describe in their CAPs how they will leverage other funding sources to create a cohesive and aligned system of continuous improvement that breaks down any dysfunctional silos preventing student achievement. Districts with Priority and Focus schools, beginning with the first full year of implementation of interventions, are required to set aside up to 20 percent of their district-wide Title I-A allocation to be used in conjunction with each school s Title I-A allocation and any supplemental improvement funds (1003a) allocated in support of improvement efforts. In the spring following notification, districts with identified schools set aside a portion of the appropriate district level Title I-A funds, or an amount equivalent to this, to target necessary interventions as described in their CAPs and accompanying budgets. This set aside may be as much as 20 percent but the final amount depends on the number of schools within the district identified as in need of improvement and funds needed by each. No district is required to set aside more than 20 percent of their Title I-A allocation for improvement efforts regardless of how many Priority, Focus, and/or other Title I schools in need of improvement exist within their district. Under the ESEA Flexibility waiver, districts are no longer identified as in need of improvement. Under section 1116(c)(7)(A)(iii) of ESEA Title I-A, districts identified as in need of improvement are required to set aside at least ten percent of the district s total Title I-A allocation to support Page 28

33 staff development needs of teachers across the district, regardless of the funding status of the teacher s assigned school. Because districts are no longer identified for improvement, the provision of section 1116(c)(7)(A)(iii) requiring this set aside no longer applies. As of the school year, these funds are only available for use within Title I-A funded schools. What is ODE s role in the improvement process? ODE: leads implementation of the statewide system of support provides technical assistance to districts and educators produces and distributes school and district report cards identifies and places Focus and Priority schools in intervention levels selects and implements a set of tools and processes for conducting district self-evaluation, focused on the five key areas of effectiveness, and to support deeper diagnoses allocates and disburses school improvement funds oversees the recruitment, training, assignment, and management of Regional Network Coordinators, Leadership Coaches, school appraisal teams, and mentors and/or consultants who will serve on school support teams approves district CAPs for Priority and Focus schools provides oversight and monitoring of CAPs provides oversight of, and facilitate and support district participation in The Network provides oversight and facilitation of data collection, analysis and reporting. What is the Continuous Improvement Network (The Network)? To date, Oregon's most successful school improvement efforts have been built upon a network approach which has included coaching and mentoring to help educators learn from each other in an environment of trust, professionalism and shared best practices. Oregon is building 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. This network, organized principally along regional lines, is known as the Continuous Improvement Network or The Network. To offer maximum improvement for Priority and Focus schools, one aspect of The Network is to match higher and lower performing schools which have comparable demographics and community values. What is the purpose of The Network? A goal of The Network is to shift the focus from intervention to prevention. The annual selfevaluation will help identify and encourage early action in areas identified for intervention, as well as dissemination and study around areas of strength. Submission of the results of the selfevaluation are required for Priority and Focus schools and are encouraged for all other schools and districts. The results will be used to create a best practices collection where districts can identify comparable or neighboring districts that are excelling in an area where they need support. Title I-A and other professional development dollars from one district can then be used to engage another district in the role of coach/mentor or for other services they may provide. Networking districts by a regional model, to the greatest extent possible, ensures that even the smallest districts are able to build capacity to improve. Cataloging the results of the self- Page 29

34 evaluation by focus area ensures that even a district that is not a leader in all areas can share expertise where it is present. What does The Network provide to Priority and Focus schools? ODE works with Regional Network Coordinators, schools and districts, and other partners in creating this statewide system of support to: provide oversight, planning, and logistics support implementation of interventions address the needs of schools and districts develop and deliver professional development facilitate coaching sessions evaluate and improve the system. Through The Network, ODE is able to involve more educators, allow peer-to-peer coaching to support improvement, and broker successful practices, supports, and improvements. Programs and initiatives already underway in Oregon will continue to be utilized to help schools in their efforts. Some examples include: Response to Intervention (RTI) Network, a multi-tiered approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a decision making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of the best evidence-based academic and behavioral practices for improving important academic and behavior outcomes for all students Effective Behavioral and Instructional Support Systems (EBISS), an Oregon tailored combination of RTI with PBIS The Direct Access to Achievement (DATA) Project, a series of trainings and materials provided on effective use of educational data Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) Lighthouse Project, professional development for school boards and leadership teams that focuses on student achievement Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), a statewide network focusing on increasing investments in programs that encourage students to pursue careers in STEM and STEM education. Postsecondary institutions will be an integral partner in The Network to ensure: early college and dual credit opportunities for all students; career preparation and pathways for all students; research and evaluation of instructional programs and practices; best practice dissemination; effective and aligned teacher pre-service and in-service professional development; and alignment of standards, exit and entry requirements, and outcomes across the PK-20 continuum. By including a broad array of partner organizations, The Network supports districts in selfevaluation and planning, provides opportunities to learn about and share effective practices, and train, model, and facilitate the use of educational resources and tools. The Network is an appealing partner for districts by providing efficiency, additional needed capacity, customized professional development, and other supports. These resources are particularly invaluable to districts as Oregon embarks on a period of significant change adoption of Common Core State Page 30

35 Standards (CCSS), transition to SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, implementation of educator and leader effectiveness systems, and application of the state's new accountability system. The relationships and networking opportunities built through The Network are collaborative and foster collegiality and healthy competition in an atmosphere of support, trust, and shared values. What is the role of Regional Network Coordinators? Regional Network Coordinators: participate in training needed to prepare for and continue their role provide professional development and assistance to Priority and Focus schools and other Title I schools identified in need of support in completing a self-evaluation and planning assist ODE, Priority and Focus schools, and school appraisal teams with deeper diagnoses coordination facilitate the coordination of school support team members, specialists, mentors and/or consultants for Priority and Focus schools assist districts and school appraisal teams in selecting and describing appropriate interventions based on the level of intervention, self-evaluation, and deeper diagnoses support ODE in oversight and monitoring of district CAPs and evaluating the quality of implementation facilitate and support district participation in The Network. What is the role of Leadership Coaches? Leadership Coaches: provide technical assistance and support to Priority and Focus schools in completing a selfevaluation participate in scheduled trainings to learn more about their role and available resources work closely with school leadership teams to facilitate implementation of the CAP fully participate in the school support team for their assigned schools participate in networking opportunities to gather successful implementation strategies from other schools assist school leadership in identifying and enlisting external resources to support CAP implementation provide mentoring to leadership staff supporting their professional growth and development. What is the process for deeper diagnosis? Working with Regional Network Coordinators and the school s Leadership Coach, districts with identified schools use the results of their annual self-evaluations targeting the five key areas of effectiveness to begin examining weaknesses impacting student achievement and to learn more about areas of strength. For districts with Priority and Focus schools, a Leadership Coach provides support in completing the self-evaluation that is followed by a school appraisal team conducting deeper diagnoses. The school appraisal team collects multiple measures of descriptive data illuminating conditions within identified schools and their districts. The school appraisal team collects and analyzes broad categories of data from many sources. Page 31

36 A school site visit by a school appraisal team using structured interview, survey, and classroom observation protocols targeting school staff by role and responsibility provides an external view of the school s policies and practices. Following the visit, preparation of a school appraisal team report incorporates data resulting from the visit, the school s self-evaluation, student achievement data included in the statewide assessment system, and any local assessment and demographic data available both within the state data system and held at the school. In support of these data, quality assurance reviews and analyses of district and school policies and practices are conducted where a need is evident. During the summer of 2012, ODE worked with stakeholders to identify tools specifically to be used in deeper diagnostics. Oregon educators have identified a number of tools that can be used to gather descriptive data directly addressing each of the five key areas of effectiveness. Beyond the results of the school appraisal team report, such tools are used to gather broad data on which to base appropriate research-based interventions. The school appraisal team s report for the school, created and finalized after the visit, describes the strengths and challenge areas of the school and prescribes specific interventions and needed supports addressing each of the five key areas of effectiveness. This report will form the basis for planning and implementation of improvement efforts moving forward. What is a school appraisal team and who serves on these teams? School appraisal teams are tasked with identifying the areas of greatest need in the school and providing direction to the school on initial steps for interventions and improvement. With the assistance of data analysts, school appraisal teams: review and analyze the results of the school self-evaluation and available data describing school programs and outcomes select from among approved diagnostic tools those appropriate for each school and conduct deeper diagnoses of areas indicated for improvement create and submit a report of the results of the deeper diagnoses and prescribed interventions and assist ODE in continued diagnoses as needed. School appraisal team members: are carefully screened to ensure needed skills broadly represent educators at all levels, classroom through superintendent, and other education roles have experience in successful school turnaround efforts represent schools/districts with similar demographic characteristics to the extent this is practical include members of diverse populations. What is the process used by the school appraisal teams? The school appraisals are conducted by school appraisal teams. These appraisals are conducted through the following process. The school staff completes the annual self-evaluation Page 32

37 The school appraisal team lead coordinates with the school s principal in preparation for the visit: o o The school appraisal team lead works with the school s principal to schedule a visit. The school appraisal team lead and the principal coordinate needed arrangements. These include meetings, teacher and student interviews, teacher and parent surveys, etc. The team visits the school (1-3 days as needed dependent upon school size) interviewing, observing staff and collecting data for later analysis and evaluation. The appraisal team members and school staff (as determined by the district/school) participate in a short exit conversation at the end of the visit. Appraisal staff complete an analysis and review of the data collected during the visit and provide that analysis to the school appraisal team lead for inclusion in the report on the visit. The school appraisal specialist completes a summary report, including prescribed and recommended school and district actions, for review and endorsement by ODE. School and district staff receive the final school appraisal report during an interpretation meeting with appraisal staff and ODE. What is a school support team and who serves on these teams? The district works closely with the Leadership Coach and school support team to support the school in implementing the CAP. Like school appraisal teams, school support teams include skilled educators and other education partners with expertise in the interventions selected for the school. Implementation efforts will be closely monitored both by the support team and by staff from ODE for efficacy and impact and are adjusted as needed to minimize the duration of the turnaround effort. While the school support team and Regional Network Coordinator have the ability to direct the district in implementation of the CAP, the primary roles of the team are to support implementation of interventions and to facilitate innovative solutions and collaborations. School support team members: are carefully screened to ensure needed skills broadly represent educators at all levels, classroom through superintendent, and other education roles and organizations have experience in successful school turnaround efforts represent schools/districts with similar demographic characteristics to the extent this is practical include members of diverse populations. Interventions with Schools What are levels of intervention? Oregon s approach to interventions and supports for schools is an extension of our policy of increased flexibility and autonomy for districts and schools meeting the outcomes established by the state, and decreased flexibility, increased support and progressively more directed intervention for those not meeting state outcomes. As such, Oregon delivers supports and interventions to schools failing to meet outcomes through a leveled system. Those schools Page 33

38 demonstrating a commitment to effective planning and fidelity to the plan are granted greater latitude in the use of funds and selection of interventions. This latitude is provided over time as schools demonstrate success in implementing planned interventions. How is a Priority school s level assigned initially? Priority schools are initially placed in Level 3 to receive intensive direct intervention. As schools implement their plans, this level of intervention may be adjusted. How is a Focus school s level assigned initially? ODE made the initial placement into the levels of intervention at the beginning of the school year. To allow adequate time for implementation of plans within schools, the next decision point occurs in summer 2014, when ODE reviews progress of Priority and Focus schools for potential placement in a different level of intervention. To facilitate initial placement in appropriate levels, ODE evaluates each school in four categories: persistence in not making adequate academic progress trends in student achievement for the all students group trends in student achievement for subgroups gaps in growth between the all student group and subgroups. Page 34