Maine’s ESEA Waiver and Title I School Improvement Implementation of Principle 2 Monitor Schools Rachelle Tome March 9, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION UPDATE DECEMBER 7, 2011 AYP DETERMINATIONS ESEA WAIVER.
Advertisements

In August, the historic CORE district waiver was approved allowing these districts to pursue a new robust and holistic accountability model for schools.
Newport News Public Schools Information on Title I Funding
Newport News Public Schools Information on Title I Funding E.S.E.A. (Elementary And Secondary Education Act)
How Can Using Data Lead to School Improvement?
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Focus Schools Conference Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D. September 17-18, 2012.
Developing, Implementing, and Monitoring Interventions Janice Garland Lynn Sodat OSI Focus Schools Conference September 17-18, 2012.
Title I A Requirements under NCLB Public Law Office of Federal Programs September 2014 Oklahoma State Department of Education.
IMPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY’S SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS SUPERINTENDENTS’ WEBCAST MARCH 6, 2012 NCLB Waiver Flexibility 1.
1 The Ewing Public Schools Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
State and Federal Accountability Directors of Special Education October 10, 2013 Region One Education Service Center Office of School Improvement, Accountability,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER RENEWAL Overview of Proposed Renewal March 6, 2015 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: ADDRESSING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ENGLISH LEARNERS January 11, 2012.
Alaska’s New Accountability System for Schools 1.
Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds Key Issues for Decision-makers.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
New DC OSSE ESEA Accountability. DC OSSE ESEA Accountability Classification Overview I. DC OSSE Accountability System II. Classification of Schools III.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
4 Principles of ESEA Flexibility 1 January College-and-Career-Ready Expectations for All Students ( ) 2.State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: RENEWAL PROCESS November 20, 2014.
Using Targeted Interventions to Support School Improvement Presenter: Kathleen Smith Director Office of School Improvement.
January 19, :00 – 10:00 a.m. ET 1. Changes to Kentucky’s ESEA Waiver Request Required by USDOE Affecting 703 KAR 5:222, Categories for Recognition,
Title 1 at J. Evans Middle School. Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was created to ensure that all children have a fair,
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
Title I Annual Meeting Presented by: SCHOOL NAME HERE.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
Cohort 2 Focus School Technical Assistance Webinar Session 1 October 21, 2013 Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D. Associate Director Office of School Improvement.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents
Principal Professional Learning Team August 2012.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST September 26, 2012 Educational Service District 113 Andy Kelly, Assistant Superintendent, Travis Campbell, Director K12 Office.
Virginia Department of Education Division Leadership Liaison Meeting January 7, 2013.
July,  Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  U.S. Department.
ESEA APPLICATION TRAINING 2013 Equitable Participation Rules for Title I Private School Students Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 1.
CHANGES IN FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS BEGINNING IN
Helping EMIS Coordinators prepare for the Local Report Card (LRC) Theresa Reid, EMIS Coordinator HCCA May 2004.
Annual Student Performance Report October Overview NCLB requirements related to AYP 2012 ISAT performance and AYP status Next steps.
1 Requirements for Focus Schools Contractors’ Meeting March 4, 2013 Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D.
ESEA Flexibility Waiver Florida’s Proposal November 14,
ESEA Flexibility: Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 1 of 8.
Committee of Practitioners January 22, – 4:30 pm Maine Department of Education.
Annual Student Performance Report September
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
No Child Left Behind Waivers: Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications By Jeremy Ayers and Isabel Owen with Glenda Partee and Theodora Chang.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
No Child Left Behind Application 1 Title I, Part A Part 1.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents Highland Renaissance Academy.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Office of Improvement and Innovation Jo Hannah Ward, Director Office of Improvement and Innovation.
ESEA Flexibility Waiver Renewal What to Expect for the Upcoming School Year June 17, 2015.
1 Welcome to the Title I Annual Meeting for Parents
Anderson School Accreditation We commit to continuous growth and improvement by  Creating a culture for learning by working together  Providing.
Cora Howe Annual Title I Meeting and Open House Understanding Title 1 Support for Schools September 12, 2013.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
What just happened and what’s next? Presenters: Steve Dibb, MDE Debra Landvik, MDE AYP 2011.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Lessons from Virginia: Growing a System of Support for
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
Title I, Part A Virginia Department of Education
Neptune Township School District ESEA/Title I Presentation
Presentation transcript:

Maine’s ESEA Waiver and Title I School Improvement Implementation of Principle 2 Monitor Schools Rachelle Tome March 9, 2015

Maine’s ESEA Waiver Requirements 3 Principles: Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Rachelle Tome2

Develop and implement a State-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support School-based accountability system built on multiple measures Priority, Focus, Monitor, Progressing, Meeting, and Reward schools System of supports Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives 6 year trajectory Cuts the percentage of students who are not proficient in reading or math in half by Individualized for school, subject, subgroup Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Rachelle Tome3

1)Identify Priority Schools (5% of Title I Schools) 2)Identify Focus Schools (10% of Title I Schools) 3)Review remaining schools for Monitor, Progressing or Meeting status a)Participation b)Whole group targets c)Super-subgroup targets (SSG) d)Within School Achievement Gaps (WSAG) e)School Accountability Index (SAI) f)Additional indicators (ADA/Grad rate) Monitor Schools-Identification Rachelle Tome4

Six-year Proficiency Targets* Reading or Math% Proficient % Non- proficient ½ difference to 100 New Target Whole group Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-Subgroup Example: (Imaginary) Pineville Middle School’s proficiency rates in the school year are as follows: Rachelle Tome5

Six-year Proficiency Targets* Reading or Math% Proficient % Non- proficient ½ difference to 100 New Target Whole group Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-Subgroup Example: (Imaginary) Pineville Middle School’s proficiency rates in the school year are as follows: Rachelle Tome6

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Targets* The annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for Pineville Middle School will be determined by dividing into 6 equal increments the percentage number needed to reach the proficiency target over 6 years. An AMO will be determined for each school, each tested subject and each student sub-group. Reading or Math % Proficient ½ % Non- proficient AMO For each year % Proficient % Proficient Whole group Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-subgroup Rachelle Tome7

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Targets* The annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for Pineville Middle School will be determined by dividing into 6 equal increments the percentage number needed to reach the proficiency target over 6 years. An AMO will be determined for each school, each tested subject and each student sub-group. Reading or Math % Proficient ½ % Non- proficient AMO For each year % Proficient % Proficient Whole group Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-Subgroup Rachelle Tome8

Within school Gaps Reading and Math-For each eligible subgroup Absolute-% at or above proficient Progress (School Target)Total Subgroup Variance At or above target = 20 points Progress to % at or above proficient target Difference: Highest performing group vs Lowest performing group % of target X 20 (maximum of 20 points) (2018 Target baseline) ÷ 2 = Goal Goal ÷ 6 = Incremental annual increase goal (Actual ÷ Annual goal) X 20 (maximum 20 points) Rachelle Tome9

Within school Gaps Group Math Abs Perf Math new trajectory % of target reached X 20 points Math progress (AMO) % of target reached X 20 points Math Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pts) Total Sbgroup Variance High-Low Whole CAU % % BLK % % HISP AS SES % % SWD % % LEP % % Rachelle Tome10

Within school Gaps Group Math Abs Perf 20 pts max Math Progress 20 pts max Math Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pt max) Math- TL Subgroup Variance High-Low Read Abs Perf 20 pts Read Progress 20 pts Read Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pts) Read-TL Sbgroup Variance High-Low Whole %41.464% %26.772% SES % % SWD % % LEP % % CAU % % BLK % % HISP % % AS % % Rachelle Tome11

Within school Gaps Total Subgroup Variance for reading: rank ordered: 25% of schools with highest gaps identified Total Subgroup Variance for math: rank ordered: 25% of schools with highest gaps identified Rachelle Tome12

School Accountability Index (SAI) Calculated and rank ordered. Schools with grades 3-8 and high school will have two indexes.

Monitor Schools identification Rachelle Tome14 CategoryExpectation Participation95%No-Monitor Whole GroupTargets met or progressing- reading or math No-monitor SSGTargets met or progressing-reading or math No-monitor WSAGRanked above 25%- reading and mathNo-Monitor SAIRanked above 15%No-Monitor OAIADA or grad rate metNo-Monitor Each Title 1 school meeting any of the following will be categorized as a Monitor school (unless it is a Priority or Focus school)

Monitor Schools identification Additional considerations: A school with a testing enrollment of fewer than 20 in the whole school (small school) that would have qualified for Priority school status based on the School achievement and progress analysis (3 year avg. and progress) in the first year of the accountability system- If the school’s data continues to be below the threshold used for identifying Priority schools in year 1, the school will be reclassified as a Priority school. Schools identified as Monitor for 3 consecutive years will be reviewed and added to either the Priority group for low achievement and progress in the whole school, or the Focus group for low performing subgroups. Rachelle Tome15

School Improvement Plan School-based improvement team Self Assessment considerations DOE improvement consultant assigned FY 14 ESEA Accountability Project Sheet Intervention plan Improvement activities Measureable objectives Applications opened March Not required: School choice, Supplemental educational Services, Set-asides Requirements for Monitor schools Rachelle Tome16

Funding: Targeted Title I accountability funds (Consolidated application) Districts may set aside up to 20% of district allocation to support improvement activities. ESEA reallocated improvement funds-. If available, based on individual school needs Supports for Monitor schools Rachelle Tome17

Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet Project Description: Define the activities/strategies to be undertaken to accomplish the purpose. Rachelle Tome18

Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Project Description: To describe school improvement activities for Pineville School - identified as a monitor school during the school year. Rachelle Tome19

Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet Project A: Required for ESEA Monitor schools (optional funding amount up to 20% of the district's Title IA allocation.) Response should briefly outline how the school will implement the following three “Response to Intervention” indicators:  The school will use an identification process (including ongoing conversations with instructional leadership teams and data points to be used) for all students at risk of failing or in need of targeted interventions.  The school uses a tiered, differentiated intervention process to assign research-based interventions aligned with the individual needs of identified students (the process includes a description of how interventions are selected and assigned to students as well as the frequency and duration of interventions for Tier 2 and Tier 3 students).  The school uses a monitoring process (including a multidisciplinary that meets regularly to review student intervention outcome data and identifies “triggers” and next steps for unsuccessful interventions) for targeted intervention students to ensure fidelity and effectiveness. Response should outline the specific activities and strategies that will occur as part of the school’s improvement plan during Rachelle Tome20

Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Project A: Pineville School – Monitor Status Classroom teachers will meet on a weekly basis in grade-level teams to review local student data (DRA, NWEA, Star, etc.), identify students needing additional support, and create individualized student action plans for identified students. The leadership team will meet on a monthly basis to monitor intervention system by reviewing student action plans, analyzing school wide data (formative), and providing ongoing support to teachers. Rachelle Tome21

Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Outcome/Performance Indicators: Describe how you will know that the project is successful. By June 2015, grade-level teams will meet weekly to discuss student data and create individualized action plans for struggling students. By June 2015, the leadership team will meet monthly to identify trends in the data and plan at least three professional development seminars for teachers. By June 2015, 100% of the teachers will attend workshops on interventions for struggling students – in the areas of literacy or mathematics. Rachelle Tome22

Contact Info Rachelle Tome Chief Academic Officer Janette Kirk Title I Director Chelsey Fortin-Trimble Title VI/ Title I NCLB Clearinghouse: Rachelle Tome23