Turning Around our Persistently Lowest- Achieving Schools: UPDATE WSSDA Annual Conference Tonya Middling, Director District and School Improvement November 19, 2010 and Accountability Edie Harding, Executive Director State Board of Education
A Combined Effort Responsibilities For Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools OSPI SBE Identifies Persistently Lowest- Designates Required Action Districts Achieving Schools (RAD) Implements U.S. Department of Approves RAD Plans Education School Improvement Grants (Merit Schools and Required Action Districts) Recommends RADs Oversees Performance Audit Reviews RADs Plans 11/22/2010 2
Purpose Provide background about SIG/ MERIT Schools Provide information regarding Required Action under ESS2B 6696 11/22/2010 3
School Improvement Grants (SIG) Purpose: Turn around lowest 5% schools nationwide (PLAs) 2010-11 Allocation: $42.5 million ARRA over three years 11/22/2010 4
Schools Identified as Tiers I & II in 2009-2010 47 schools in 27 districts are defined as “persistently lowest-achieving.” 44 are traditional public schools 3 are alternative schools Schools with N < 30 continuously enrolled students excluded to ensure accuracy needed for valid and reliable determinations. 11/22/2010 5
New Achievement Metrics Absolute Data on state assessment indicate student achievement in reading and mathematics in “all students” is extremely low. Growth Data indicate a lack of growth on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group. 11/22/2010 6
Definitions Persistently lowest-achieving : Tier I: Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action or restructuring that: Is among the lowest-achieving 5% in the “all students” group in reading & mathematics for the past 3 consecutive years (Tier I – Achievement) ; or Is a high school that has a weighted-average graduation rate that is less than 60% based on the past 3 years of data. (Tier I – Graduation) (2009-10 only) Or for newly eligible schools, any school that: Has not made AYP for at least the past 2 consecutive years; and Is no higher-achieving than the highest-achieving school identified above. (Tier I – Newly Eligible) 11/22/2010 7
Definitions Tier II: Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that: Is among the lowest-achieving 5% of secondary schools in the “all students” group in reading & mathematics combined for the past three consecutive years (Tier II –Achievement) ; or Is a high school that has a weighted-average graduation rate that is less than 60% based on the past 3 years of data; (Tier II – Graduation) , (2009-2010 only) Or, for newly eligible Tier II schools , is a Title I eligible secondary school that: Has not made AYP for at least the past two consecutive years; Is no higher-achieving than the highest-achieving school identified above; and Is in Step 5 of Improvement with a decreasing performance trend. (Tier II – Newly- Eligible) 11/22/2010 8
Definitions Progress defined as: The school’s percent increase or decrease (slope of linear regression) over the most recent three-year period compared to the state slope. Title I eligible: Based on SY 2009-10 student data, a school is considered Title I eligible if: Poverty percentage is 35% or more; or The school’s poverty percentage is greater than or equal to the district’s poverty average. 11/22/2010 9
Geographical Distribution Geographical Distribution: Tiers I and II (Number of Schools and Percentage) ESD189- North Puget Sound ESD, 3, 6% ESD101- Spokane ESD, ESD171- 2, 4% Wenatchee/Okanogan ESD, 2, 4% ESD105- Yakima Valley ESD123- Tri-cities ESD, ESD, 13, 28% 8, 17% ESD112- Vancouver ESD, 3, 6% ESD121- Puget Sound ESD113- ESD, 12, 26% Olympia/Coastal ESD, 4, 9% ESD114- Bremerton/Olympic Peninsula ESD, 0, 0% 11/22/2010 10
Step of Improvement NCLB School Improvement Step: Tiers I and II (Number of Schools and Percentage) Not in improvement, Step 1, 3, 6% 0, 0% Step 2, 7, 15% Step 3, 4, 9% Step 5, 23, 49% Step 4, 10, 21% 11/22/2010 11
School Level School Level: Tiers I and II (Number of Schools and Percentage) Multi-Level, 5, 10% Elem, 15, 32% High School, 6, 13% Middle, 21, 45% 11/22/2010 12
Ethnic Diversity Tiers I and II: Ethnic Diversity (Percent of Enrollment) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% American Indian Asian (incl. HI/Pac Isl.) African Amerian / Black Hispanic White Tier State 11/22/2010 13
Poverty Tiers I and II: Poverty vs State (Percent of Enrollment) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 Poverty State Poverty (OSPI) 11/22/2010 14
English Language Learners Tiers I and II: ELL (Transitional Bilingual) vs State (Percent of Enrollment) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 English Language Learners State ELL 11/22/2010 15
Four SIG School Intervention Models Turnaround Restart Closure Transformation 11/22/2010 16
Turnaround Model Overview Teachers and Instructional and Time and Support Governance Leaders Support Strategies • Replace principal • Select and • Provide increased • New governance implement an learning time structure • Use locally adopted instructional model “turnaround” • Staff and students • Grant operating based on student competencies to flexibility to school • Social-emotional needs review and select leader and community- staff for school • Provide job- oriented services (rehire no more embedded and supports than 50% of existing Professional staff) Development designed to build • Implement capacity and strategies to recruit, support staff place, and retain staff • Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction May also implement any of the required or permissible strategies under the Transformation Model 11/22/2010 17
Transformation Model Overview Teachers and Instructional and Time and Support Governance Leaders Support Strategies • Replace principal • Select and • Provide increased • Provide sufficient implement an learning time operating flexibility • Implement new instructional model to implement evaluation system • Staff and students based on student reform • Developed with • Provide ongoing needs • Ensure ongoing staff mechanisms for • Provide job- technical assistance community and • Uses student embedded family engagement growth as a Professional significant factor • Partner to provide Development social-emotional • Identify and reward designed to build and community- staff who are capacity and oriented services increasing student support staff and support outcomes; support • Ensure continuous and then remove use of data to inform those who are not and differentiate • Implement instruction strategies to recruit, place and retain staff An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the Transformation Model in more than 50% of those schools. 11/22/2010 18
Who applied for SIG Funds? 27 districts were eligible to apply on behalf of 47 schools 21 districts applied on behalf of 41 schools 37 schools applied using the Transformation model 3 schools applied using the Turnaround model 1 school applied using School Closure 11/22/2010 19
Districts/Schools Selected Grandview Tacoma Grandview Middle School Giaudrone Middle School Highline Jason Lee Middle School Cascade Middle School Stewart Middle School Chinook Middle School Sunnyside Longview Sunnyside High School Monticello Middle School Wellpinit Marysville Wellpinit Elementary Tulalip Elementary Yakima Totem Middle School Adams Elementary Seattle Stanton Academy Cleveland High School Washington Middle School Hawthorne Elementary West Seattle Elementary 11/22/2010 20
11/22/2010 21
Evaluation Requirements for SIG/ MERIT Schools’ Teachers and Leaders Implement rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals which are: Developed with staff; and Use student growth as a significant factor. Identify and reward school leaders and teachers who have increased student achievement and graduation rates; Identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities to improve professional practice, have not done so. Implement such strategies as financial incentives and career ladders for recruiting, placing and retaining effective teachers. 11/22/2010 22
Current Challenges Accelerated timelines; high expectations for change and growth in student performance Many years of insufficient professional development for both principals and teachers Building authentic parent/community engagement and having parents with us at the table. Confusion regarding the requirements under the federal intervention model Lack of Tier II and Tier III intervention materials Lack of Special Education curriculum 11/22/2010 23
DSIA Support 11/22/2010 24
Recommend
More recommend
