Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | brianna-booker |
View: | 30 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance
Michigan Department of EducationSeptember 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Agenda Review of the metrics that lead to a
school being placed on the PLA list Brief review of the state statute that is
the basis for the state School Reform Office (SRO) and requirements for schools on the Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools (PLA) list.
Brief overview of the four reform models, resources, success stories and lessons learned.
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
State Statute Review
September 8, 2011
State law requires identification of lowest achieving schools by September 1 of each year.
List of Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools is developed following federal guidelines approved by the United States Department of Education as required in state law.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
Understanding the ranking metric
Many new to the list still have questions about the metric used to identify the schools on the Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools list.
While some of you participated in the August webinar, questions and responses as a result require us to provide another session on understanding the metrics.
As stated earlier, the metrics are based on federal guidelines approved by the United States Department of Education as required in state law.
September 8, 2011
September 8, 2011
Two Tiers of Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA) Schools
Two tiers of schools
Two pools
Two lists
Two sets of requirements
Underlined items were items on which the State had some discretion
September 8, 2011
Tier I Pool Defining the pool of schools from which the Tier I list is
identified
The Tier I pool consists of schools meeting all of the following criteria:
At least 30 Full Academic Year students with scores on Mathematics in the most recent two years
At least 30 Full Academic Year students with scores on Reading in the most recent two years
Eligible to receive Title I funding
Receiving Title I funding
School is in a phase of School Improvement
Identified for Improvement
Corrective Action
Restructuring
112 total schools are in the Tier I pool
Note: Tier I is independent of EducationYES!
September 8, 2011
Tier I List Identifying schools on the Tier I list
Two paths to get onto the Tier I list
Path 1—from the Tier I pool Calculate percentile ranks (explained later) School is on the Tier I list if the school percentile rank
is less than 5 Path 2—from the Tier I pool
School is on the Tier I list if it is a secondary school with a graduation rate less than 60% for three years running
Results 9 total schools on the Tier I list
5 from path 1 4 from path 2
September 8, 2011
Tier II Pool Defining the initial pool of schools from which the
initial Tier II list is identified
The initial Tier II pool consists of schools meeting all of the following criteria:
At least 30 Full Academic Year students with scores on Mathematics in the most recent two years
At least 30 Full Academic Year students with scores on Reading in the most recent two years
Eligible for, but not receiving Title I funding
Is a secondary school (serves at least one grade in the range 7-12)
560 total schools are in the Tier II pool
Note: Tier II is independent of both AYP and EducationYES!
September 8, 2011
Tier II List Tier II—Identifying schools on the Tier II list
Three paths to get onto the Tier II list Path 1—from the Tier II pool
Calculate percentile ranks (explained later) School is on Tier II list if school percentile rank is less than 5
Path 2—from the Tier II pool School is on Tier II list if it is a secondary school with a graduation
rate less than 60% for three years running
Path 3—from the Tier I pool School is on Tier II list if it ranks lower than or equal to (on a
statewide ranking of all schools) the highest ranked school that got onto the Tier II list through path 1
Results 89 total schools on the Tier II List
29 through path 1 0 through path 2 60 through path 3
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools by Tier
Tier I List 9
Tier II List 89
Total 98
September 8, 2011
Calculating Percentile Ranks Details and schematic in the next slide. Incorporate both mathematics and
reading. Incorporate both achievement level and
improvement rates, weighting achievement more heavily than improvement.
Level the playing field across High schools versus Elementary/Middle schools Reading versus Mathematics
September 8, 2011Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
HS Reading Index
2/3
1/3
HS Math Index
2/3
1/3
E/MS Reading Index
2/3
1/3
E/MS Math Index
2/3
1/3
HS ReadingPercentile Rank
HS MathPercentile Rank
E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank
E/MS MathPercentile Rank
Ave
rage
of a
ll A
ssig
ned
Per
cent
ile R
anks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
king
on
the
aver
age
of a
ll pe
rcen
tile
rank
s m
etric
)
Start with raw data
% proficient
% improving minus % declining (MEAP)
% improvement trend slope (MME)
September 8, 2011Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
HS Reading Index
2/3
1/3
HS Math Index
2/3
1/3
E/MS Reading Index
2/3
1/3
E/MS Math Index
2/3
1/3
HS ReadingPercentile Rank
HS MathPercentile Rank
E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank
E/MS MathPercentile Rank
Ave
rage
of a
ll A
ssig
ned
Per
cent
ile R
anks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
king
on
the
aver
age
of a
ll pe
rcen
tile
rank
s m
etric
)
Calculate z-scores
Z-scores are a statistical method usedto level the playing field between…
ELA and Math
Elementary/Middle and High schools
Achievement and Improvement
Positive z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) above the
pool average the school is
Negative z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) below the
pool average the school is
September 8, 2011Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
HS Reading Score
2/3
1/3
HS Math Score
2/3
1/3
E/MS Reading Score
2/3
1/3
E/MS Math Score
2/3
1/3
HS ReadingPercentile Rank
HS MathPercentile Rank
E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank
E/MS MathPercentile Rank
Ave
rage
of a
ll A
ssig
ned
Per
cent
ile R
anks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
king
on
the
aver
age
of a
ll pe
rcen
tile
rank
s m
etric
)
Calculate a combinedProficiency/improvement
score and percentilerank for each…
Subject(ELA vs. math)
Level of School(elementary/middleversus high school)
September 8, 2011Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
4-year slope (improvement)
4-year slope (improvement)
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
Two-Year Average % Improving minus
% Declining
Two-Year Average Percent Proficient
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score
HS Reading Score
2/3
1/3
HS Math Score
2/3
1/3
E/MS Reading Score
2/3
1/3
E/MS Math Score
2/3
1/3
HS ReadingPercentile Rank
HS MathPercentile Rank
E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank
E/MS MathPercentile Rank
Ave
rage
of a
ll A
ssig
ned
Per
cent
ile R
anks
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
(ran
king
on
the
aver
age
of a
ll pe
rcen
tile
rank
s m
etric
)
Calculate average andoverall percentile rank
September 8, 2011
Examples Examples are shown for a high
school and for an elementary/ middle school in the following slides.
September 8, 2011
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Average of 3.8021% more
students improving than declining
67.0596 average percent proficient
Average of 7.0891% more
students declining than improving
68.0829 average percent proficient
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.9455 SD below the
mean
0.2177 SD above the
mean
0.9917 SD below the
mean
0.2476 SD below the
mean
Not applicable
2/3
1/3
Not applicable
2/3
1/3
-0.5211 (composite)
2/3
1/3
-0.5786 (composite)
2/3
1/3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Readingpercentile rank =
10.4869
Mathematics percentile rank = 13.1086
Ave
rage
Per
cent
ile R
ank
= 1
1.79
78
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
= 8
.947
4(o
nly
8.94
74 p
erce
nt o
f sch
ools
in p
ool h
ad a
low
er a
vera
ge p
erce
ntile
ran
k)
September 8, 2011Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
s
Ele
men
tary
/Mid
dle
Sch
ool R
eadi
ngH
igh
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atic
sH
igh
Sch
ool
Rea
ding
38.7700 average percent proficient
Losing 1.48% proficiency per year
Losing 2.26% proficiency per year
31.0599 average percent proficient
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.8408 SD below the
mean
0.6909 SD below the
mean
0.8822 SD below the
mean
1.0748 SD below the
mean
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
-0.7668 (composite)
2/3
1/3
-0.9504 (composite)
2/3
1/3
Not applicable
2/3
1/3
Not applicable
2/3
1/3
ReadingPercentile Rank =
10.0592
Mathematics Percentile rank = 5.6213
Not applicable
Not applicable
Ave
rage
Per
cent
ile R
ank
= 7
.840
3
Ove
rall
Per
cent
ile R
ank
= 6
.140
4(o
nly
6.1
404%
of s
choo
ls in
poo
l ha
d a
low
er
aver
age
perc
entil
e r
ank
)
Specific School Data You can see an individual school’s
data in the schematic format by visiting the MDE web site at www.mi.gov/mde and clicking the
School Reform button in the center of the page.
September 8, 2011
PLA Statewide Ranking The Federal regulations require comparing
schools from the Tier I and Tier II pools. However, the Tier I and Tier II pools are non-
overlapping. Therefore, a PLA ranking of schools was also
calculated. Some schools did not receive a PLA ranking
because they tested fewer than 30 students in… Reading and/or Mathematics in… School years 2008-09 and/or 2009-10.
This PLA percentile ranking was calculated using the same methods as for the Tier I and Tier II pools.
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Creating the PLA Statewide list Start with all schools that tested at least
30 full academic year students in both reading and mathematics in the most recent two years.
Then, rank the schools top to bottom Each gray bar (to the left) represents a
single school. This is the PLA Statewide Ranking (in
2010-2011, used only to identify PLA schools).
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Creating the PLA Statewide List Your school might be anywhere on this
statewide list.
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Federally Approved Requirements for Identify-ing Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Therefore pools of schools that are eligible to become part of the Tier I list or Tier II list of PLA schools are subsets of the top to bottom list.
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Identifying the Tier I Pool Next, identify the subset of schools
in the Tier I pool. Schools in the Tier I pool meet all of
the following conditions They receive Title I funding They are in corrective action,
restructuring, or improvement (have not made AYP for at least two years in a row)
Shown in pink. This is the pool of schools from
which the Tier I list is identified.
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Next, identify the lowest achieving 5% of the Tier I pool.
These are the schools in the Tier I list of PLA schools that fall under the responsibility of the State School Reform Officer (SRO).
Shown in bright red
Note also that any high school in the Tier I pool with a graduation rate of less than 60% for three years running also becomes part of the Tier I list (not shown in the schematic)
Creating the Tier I List
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Next, identify the subset of schools in the Tier II pool.
Schools in the Tier II pool meet all of the following conditions They are eligible to receive, but do not
receive, Title I funding
They are secondary schools (meaning they instruct students in any grade in the range 7-12)
Shown in light blue.
This is the pool of schools from which the initial Tier II list is identified.
Identifying the Tier II Pool
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Next, identify the lowest performing 5% of schools in the Tier II pool.
This is the initial Tier II list of PLA schools. These schools are under the responsibility of the SRO.
Shown in bright blue.
Note also that any high school in the Tier II pool with a graduation rate of less than 60% for three years running also becomes part of the Tier II list (not shown in the schematic).
Creating the Tier II List
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
o Finally, identify any schools from the Tier I pool that did not qualify for the Tier I list, but whose ranking was lower than the highest ranking school in the initial Tier II list.
o These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue.
Creating the Tier II List
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
o Finally, identify any schools from the Tier I pool that did not qualify for the Tier I list, but whose ranking was lower than the highest ranking school in the initial Tier II list.
o These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue.
o Switch these schools to bright blue.
o This is the rest of the Tier II list of PLA schools. These schools are also under the responsibility of the SRO.
Creating the Tier II List
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
o Note that because of the way the Tier I pool and Tier II pool are defined in Federal guidelines, it is possible for a low achieving school to not be on either the Tier I list or Tier II list of PLA Schools.
o These are the schools in gray whose performance is lower than the highest school in bright red or bright blue.
o These schools are not under the responsibility of the SRO.
Other Low Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
How Can a Low Achieving School Not Show Up on the PLA Schools List? Based on federally approved requirements, this depends on the
school’s AYP status, whether the school receives or is eligible to receive Title I funding, and whether the school is a secondary school:
Some low achieving schools may not be eligible to be considered a PLA School because of the way the pools were defined in federal requirements.
School Title IFunding Category
School AYP Status
Not in Corrective Action, Restructuring, or Improvement
(Making AYP)
In Corrective Action,Restructuring, or Improvement
(Not Making AYP)
Receives Title I funding Not eligible for any pool Eligible for the Tier I Pool
Is a secondary school that is eligible for but does not receive Title I funding Eligible for the Tier II Pool Eligible for the Tier II Pool
Is not a secondary school, and is eligible for but does not receive Title I funding Not eligible for any pool Not eligible for any pool
Is not eligible to receiveTitle I funding Not eligible for any pool Not eligible for any pool
August 26, 2011September 8, 2011
Top to Bottom Ranking
MDE has publish a separate Top to Bottom Ranking of all schools, using our preferred methodology.
To view this ranking, go to www.mi.gov/MDE.
The PLA statewide ranking is produced only in order to implement the federal rules for identifying PLA schools.
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
State Requirements and Timeline
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Schools on the list must submit a redesign plan to the state and implement the plan.
Plans must be approved by the state school reform officer (SRO).
Schools without approved plans or those not making progress under its plan are subject to further action.
September 8, 2011
Some elements of the collective bargaining agreements in PLA schools may be modified to implement the redesign plan.
HB 4628 recently amended the public employment relations Act to prohibit certain subjects from being collectively bargained.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
Prohibited subjects of collective bargaining teacher placement or personnel decisions. employer’s performance evaluation system discharge or discipline of an employee classroom observations decisions performance-based method of compensation parental notification of ineffective teachers
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
Plans may take effect immediately, but no later than the beginning of the school year after approval.
Per statute, plans must use 1 of 4 intervention models: Transformation Turnaround Restart Closure
Plans must include any collective bargaining agreement amendments needed to implement the intervention models.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
SRO must approve a redesign plan if it contains all of the required elements of the intervention.
If the SRO disapproves a plan, or if the school does not achieve satisfactory results, the SRO will: Place the school into the State School Reform District
(SRD) and the school will transfer to educational achievement authority (EAA)
Impose one of the four approved intervention models Amend collective bargaining agreement to implement
plan SRO may appoint a chief executive officer (CEO) (for
one school or multiple schools)
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
If SRO disapproves a redesign plan, the LEA may appeal the disapproval to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
SPI decision is final. Recent appeals have been specific to the
principal replacement.
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving SchoolsTimeline
August 26, 2011 Department notification and webinar September 8, 2011 1st technical assistance meeting-
Lansing Center
October 4, 2011 2nd technical assistance meeting-Plan review and revisions – Lansing Center
November 28, 2011 Deadline for submission of redesign plan December 7-9, 2011 MDE review of final redesign plan
January 9, 2011 Approval, disapproval, or change January 9 thru Feb 7 Opportunity to appeal SRO disapproval
February 8, 2011 Changes submitted Jan thru August 2012 Pre Implementation activities on
approved plans September 1, 2012 MDE notifies identified school
communities regarding schools on the 2012- 2013 PLA list
September 8, 2011
What happens if the building does not make sufficient progress? The SRO recommends that the school be
placed in the School Reform District (SRD)
Duties and powers of the SRD are transferred to the Educational Achievement Authority: A statewide public school district Made up of those schools assigned to it by
the SRO or schools that are under an Emergency Manager
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Opportunity for Technical Assistance
October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Banquet Rooms 1-4Lansing CenterLansing, Michigan
Plan to bring a team of 3-4 staff to assist with the development of the plan for turning around the school(s) in your district.
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools The Four Reform Models
Transformation Turnaround Closure Restart
September 8, 2011
April 20, 2023
April 20, 2023
April 20, 2023
Lessons Learned
Plan early and often
Set high expectations
Signal a change (quick wins)
Require all staff to change (not optional)
Start, Stop, Continue
September 8, 2011
Lessons Learned
Increased Learning Time More is not necessarily better
Incentives
Keep Everyone Informed
Involve the Right People School Board, students, community
September 8, 2011
Success Stories
Romulus Middle School
Saginaw High School
Dixon Elementary
September 8, 2011
Resources on Memory Stick Resources from the Center on
Innovation and Improvement PA 1080c Reform Options Chart Federal guidance Links to helpful web sites IES Practice Guides Timelines
September 8, 2011
Specific Helpful Sites
School Turnaround Support(org)
Doing What Works
September 8, 2011
Supports
Network Meetings Principal-Led Academies District Pacesetters Academy Professional Development
Opportunities MI Excel (Statewide System of
Support) Beating the Odds Schools
September 8, 2011
Network Meetings
Timeline is out
Opportunities to network
SIG funded schools in attendance
Teams are welcome, including teachers
September 8, 2011
Principal-Led Academies
Academy facilitated by MDE
Led and planned by principals
Learning communities
Experts from within
September 8, 2011
District Pacesetters Academy
Designed by Center on Innovation and Improvement (CII)
CII will train State staff to work with districts
Work is centered on supporting High Priority Schools
District participation is voluntary More details to follow
September 8, 2011
Professional Development Opportunities
School Improvement Conferences
Speakers that are brought to Michigan
Book studies
September 8, 2011
MI Excel (Statewide System of Support)
All supports are available to schools for a cost-Title I may be able to fund
Principal’s Fellowship Leadership Coach Instructional Coaches Data Workshop Curriculum Surveys
September 8, 2011
MI Excel (Statewide System of Support)
Non Title I schools may be able to use other funds to pay for these services
Title I schools may be able to use Title funds to pay for services
Title I schools that are currently in the MI Excel (SSoS) can continue
September 8, 2011
Beating the Odds Schools
A concrete example
A suggestion from a local superintendent
A conference with the Beating the Odds Schools
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Redesign Template
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Questions??
September 8, 2011
Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools
Individual Planning Time
With
School Teams
September 8, 2011
PLA Contact Information
Deborah Clemmons
State School Reform Office
Jill Baynes
Department Analyst
517-335-2741
September 8, 2011
Data or Metrics Contact Information Joseph Martineau, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability
Venessa Keesler, Ph.D.
Manager, Evaluation, Research and Accountability
517-373-1342
September 8, 2011