1 University of the State of New York State Education Department Office of Accountability Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review (SQR)

2 Background on Differentiated Accountability In January 2009, the United States Department of Education approved New York State’s participation in the Differentiated Accountability pilot program under the No Child Left Behind Act. In May 2009, the NYS Board of Regents approved emergency adoption of Commissioner’s Regulations to implement Differentiated Accountability (DA) beginning with the 2009–10 school year. A goal of the Differentiated Accountability system is to better match the support and interventions provided to schools to improve student achievement with the academic reasons that led to the school’s identification for improvement under No Child Left Behind. Under Differentiated Accountability, the categories of school improvement identification were consolidated and the interventions for schools that are identified are differentiated, but the methodology for determining school Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on current performance and participation criteria did not change.

3 How it Works Accountability designations based on both the number and type of student groups failing to make AYP and the length of time such failure has persisted. Three distinct, two-year, phases of intervention: Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring. Three distinct categories within phases: Basic, Focused and Comprehensive. Accountability measures for schools at the elementary/middle level are English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science; at the secondary level, they are ELA, mathematics, and graduation rate. A school may be in a different accountability phase for each measure. The school’s overall status is its most advanced New York State accountability phase and its highest category within that phase. The supports and interventions for schools that are designated into a particular phase/category have been modified for implementation beginning in

44 Phase Diagnostic Differentiated Accountability Model Category CORRECTIVE ACTIONIMPROVEMENTRESTRUCTURING CURRICULUM AUDITSCHOOL QUALITY REVIEW ASSIGNMENT OF Joint Intervention Team and Distinguished Educator FOCUSEDCOMPBASICFOCUSEDCOMPREHENSIVEFOCUSEDCOMP SURR Intensity of Intervention FAILED AYP 2 YEARS Plan/Intervention CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN & IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM AUDIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN CREATE AND IMPLEMENT External personnel to revise and assist school implement the most rigorous plan or, as necessary, PHASE-OUT /CLOSURE Oversight & Support SED provides TA to districts: sustaining greater latitude and more responsibility for addressing schools SED empowers districts: gives them the support and assistance necessary to take primary responsibility for developing and implementing improvement strategies SED & its agents work in direct partnership with the district

5 Criteria for Placement in Categories Basic (Improvement Phase Only): Identified for the performance of a single student group on a single accountability measure. Focused: Not identified for the performance of an “all student” group. Comprehensive: Identified for the performance of an “all student” group or the failure of all groups except the “all student” group.

6 Why is this year’s AYP determination different than previous years? Factors contributing to schools not making AYP in : Sunset of statistical adjustment for the Students with Disabilities subgroup Change in grades 3-8 ELA and math testing dates Change in the methodology for equating grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments Changes to the grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments, making them less predictable Increase in the high school graduation rate goal and progress targets Higher proficiency standards established for grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments are not a primary factor for schools and districts failing to make AYP in

7 The Tsunami of Improvement Schools (Preliminary) IMPROVEMENT STATUSNYC Rest of StateTotalNYC Rest of StateTotal Improvement (year 1) - Basic Improvement (year 1) - Focused Improvement (year 1) - Comprehensive Improvement (year 2) - Basic Improvement (year 2) - Focused Improvement (year 2) - Comprehensive Corrective Action (year 1) - Focused Corrective Action (year 1) - Comprehensive Corrective Action (year 2) - Focused Corrective Action (year 2) - Comprehensive Restructuring (year 1) - Focused Restructuring (year 1) - Comprehensive Restructuring (year 2) - Focused Restructuring (year 2) - Comprehensive Restructuring (Advanced) - Focused Restructuring (Advanced) - Comprehensive TOTAL

8 Groups Failing AYP AllSWD Native American AsianBlack Hispanic WhiteLEPEDMR Grades 3-8 ELA Grades 3-8 Math Preliminary Data for AllSWD Native American AsianBlack Hispanic WhiteLEPEDMR Grades 3-8 ELA Grades 3-8 Math AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress ED = Economically disadvantaged ELA = English language arts LEP = Limited English proficient MR = Multiracial SWD = Students with disabilities

9 Schools Making AYP ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP93%99%81%84%99%94% Failed AYP7%1%19%16%1%6% Total100% ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP64%95%74%78%99%73% Failed AYP36%5%26%22%1%27% Total100% Preliminary Data for ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP56%64%70%73%99%76% Failed AYP44%36%30%27%1%24% Total100%

10 IDEA and NCLB The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requires states to annually determine whether a school district Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs Intervention or Needs Substantial Intervention. Beginning with the school year, New York has aligned its IDEA determination performance criteria with the criteria used under the Differentiated Accountability system for the subgroup of students with disabilities. NCLB = No Child Left Behind

11 IDEA Determination Criteria Needs Assistance District failed to make AYP for students with disabilities; and/or one or more schools in the District are in Improvement or Corrective Action status for students with disabilities; and/or District has unresolved noncompliance with federal and State special education requirements for months Needs Intervention District has one or more schools that are in Restructuring and/or identified as Persistently Lowest Achieving and/or Schools Under Registration Review (SURR); and in one or more of these schools, the school failed to make AYP for students with disabilities on an accountability criterion for which the school is identified; and/or District has unresolved noncompliance with federal and State special education requirements for more than 24 months Needs Substantial Intervention Unresolved noncompliance for more than 36 months resulting in substantial failure of the district to provide Free Appropriate Public Education

12 Actions required under an IDEA Determination For School Districts Needing Assistance or Intervention, the State uses its enforcement authority under federal law to require that the district obtain technical assistance. –Directs the school district to work with a Special Education School Improvement Specialists (SESIS) from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Center (RSE-TASC)* –SESIS begins its work with the district by participating in the various reviews of schools required under the State’s differentiated accountability system. * Where resources allow

13 For districts needing assistance or intervention under IDEA SESIS provides ongoing professional development and technical assistance to one or more schools in the IDEA identified district –Quality Improvement Process (QIP) – up to two years

14 What is the School Quality Review? The School Quality Review (SQR) is a school improvement support and intervention strategy for schools identified in the Improvement (year 1) phase of New York State’s Differentiated Accountability (DA). This strategy is designed to empower districts and give them the support and assistance necessary to take primary responsibility and have greater latitude in developing and implementing improvement strategies to address the needs of schools in the Improvement phase. SQR involves the development of a culture of review and ongoing improvement to guide schools and districts on a continuous journey of improvement. A research-based, reflective, self-assessment process provides identified schools and districts with guidance on key factors that affect school success

SQR Basic Reviews A School Quality Review (SQR) is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Basic schools that are identified for the performance of a single student group on a single accountability measure. The SQR Basic is led by the District team and is a portfolio of evidence review. When a school is identified for students with disabilities, a Special Education School Improvement Specialist (SESIS) from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Center (RSE-TASC) is assigned to the school to participate in the SQR to the extent resources permit. If a district does not meet its Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) for the subgroup of limited English proficient/English language learners (LEP/ELL), the specialist from the Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network (RBE-RN) who is assigned to the district will support the SQR process, to the extent resources permit. The District is responsible for completing the SQR report. District Superintendents (DS) or the DS representatives check to ensure the completion of the Basic SQRs in the format and timeframe pursuant to Commissioner’s Regulations for Title I schools outside the Big Five.

16 INITIATING IMPLEMENTATION Quality Indicators (QI) and QI Supporting Documentation documents distributed to the Improvement (year 1) Basic school. COMPLETION OF DOCUMENTATION School completes Quality Indicators (QI) self-assessment document and submits the QI and supporting evidence to the district SQR Team, along with a summary of the results of the structured instructional walkthrough conducted by SESIS, if applicable. BASIC REVIEW REPORT For Title I Schools Outside the Big Five SQR report is generated by the district and a written and electronic copy and completed QI is submitted to the District Superintendent (DS). DS will have ten days to provide comments and recommendations. The district will then have 30 days to revise the report and submit to SED. Alternately, if the DS finds the report meets the minimum requirements pertaining to the SQR, the DS will forward the report directly to SED. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION District SQR Team reviews completed QI document and supporting evidence, in conjunction with Educational Plans and relevant school background information and data, to confirm the school’s self- assessment Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review for Improvement (year 1) Basic Schools BASIC SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A SINGLE STUDENT GROUP ON A SINGLE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE SUBMISSION OF TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The school submits a grant application to help plan for the SQR and implement the recommendations in the SQR report. Schools will complete a Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP) that reflects report recommendations and implement goals accordingly. BASIC REVIEW REPORT For non-Title I Schools and Schools in the Big Five SQR report is generated by the district and a written and electronic copy of the Basic Report and completed QI document is submitted to SED. October November January Nov/Dec

17 Role of District Superintendents Basic Schools District responsible for completing the portfolio of evidence review DSs check to ensure that the Basic SQRs for schools within their component districts are completed in the format and timeframe pursuant to Commissioner’s regulations DS submits the SQR report to NYSED. 17

18 Role of SESIS in the Differentiated Accountability Reviews Subgroup specialist on the SQR Team: Conduct an instructional walk through classes and settings where students with disabilities are receiving instruction, with a focus on –literacy, –specially-designed instruction and –behavior supports Participate in discussions with the SQR district teams to share data/information on these reviews to inform reports

19 The district must notify the SESIS, where one has been assigned, of when the SQR will be scheduled and of meetings to discuss the findings.

SQR Focused and Comprehensive Reviews The SQR is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Focused schools identified for more than one accountability measure ( ELA, mathematics, science or graduation rate), but not the ALL student group or for more than one accountability student group within one accountability measure, but not the ALL student group. The SQR is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Comprehensive schools identified for the performance of the ALL student group or the performance of all groups except the ALL student group. The SQR for Focused and Comprehensive schools in Improvement are on-site reviews that are conducted in 1 to 2 days or 2 to 3 days, respectively. The DS/DS Representative or a State Education Department (SED) Liaison leads the review. The SQR Team is composed of 3-5 individuals (i.e., the Team Lead, a district representative, content/subgroups specialists and other staff), as needed. SESIS and RBE-RN specialists will be assigned to the extent resources permit. The SQR Team Lead (i.e., the DS/DS Representative or the SED Liaison) is responsible for the completion of the SQR report.

21 INITIATING IMPLEMENTATION Quality Indicators (QI) and Supporting Documentation documents distributed to Improvement (year 1) Focused and Comprehensive schools. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTATION School completes QI self-assessment document and submits the QI with Educational Plans and any other supporting evidence to the SQR Team Lead – the District Superintendent (DS)/ DS Representative or SED Office of Accountability (OA) Liaisons, along with a summary of the results of the structured instructional walkthrough conducted by the SESIS, if applicable. SQR REPORT A SQR report of findings and recommendations will be generated and distributed to the district/school. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION The SQR Team reviews completed QI, in conjunction with Educational Plans, relevant school background information and data to confirm the school’s self-assessment Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review for Improvement (year 1) Focused or Comprehensive Schools FOCUSED SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE ( ELA, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE OR GRADUATION RATE), BUT NOT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP OR FOR MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDENT GROUP WITHIN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT NOT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP. COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ALL STUDENT GROUP OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL GROUPS EXCEPT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP. SUBMISSION OF TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The school will submit a grant application to help plan for the SQR and implement the recommendations in the SQR report. Schools will complete a CEP that reflect report recommendations and implement goals accordingly. ON-SITE REVIEW Focused - 1 to 2 days Comprehensive- 2 to 3 days For Focused schools - The SQR Team conducts an on-site review focusing on the accountability measure(s) and student group(s) identified. For Comprehensive schools- The SQR Team conducts an on-site review focusing on any systemic issues that are unique to the school, as they relate to the accountability measure(s) and student groups identified. October November Nov./Dec. January

22 Role of District Superintendents Focused and Comprehensive Schools District Superintendents (DSs)/ DS representative is the SQR Team Lead in Title I schools outside the Big Five. The district is responsible to convene the SQR team, in conjunction with the DS/DS representative, and may ask the DS to supplement the team with content area/subgroup specialists. DS, as Team Lead, submits the SQR report to NYSED

23 School Quality Review Teams Focused/Comprehensive Team Leader: –Has the major responsibility for conducting and managing the on-site review. (District Superintendents or SED School Improvement Liaisons) District Representative: –Works in conjunction with the Team Leader on the logistics of the review –Should be a central office representative Content Area Specialist/ Sub-group Specialist(s) –Reviewer(s) that has expertise in the content area or subgroup identified –SESIS Role: Same as Basic SQR Conduct instructional walk throughs Participates in SQR team discussions Team Reviewers –Other members of the team as needed

24 SQR Quality Indicators (QI) Data Collection, Analysis and Utilization Teaching and Learning School Leadership Infrastructure for Student Success Professional Development Facilities and Resources

25 SQR Quality Indicators

26 Process for Developing the SQR Report for Focused and Comprehensive Schools Quality Indicators DocumentDocuments Review Classroom Observations Interviews w/parents, staff and students Develop Findings and Recommendations Exit Conference with School Superintendent or Designee Development and Submission of Written Report Schools use the SQR Findings and Recommendations in the development of the two-year Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP)

27 SQR Report District must include data from the SESIS instructional walk through with the documentation submitted with the SQR report. District must provide a copy of the SQR Report to the RSE-TASC Coordinator District must develop its Comprehensive Educational Plan, using findings and recommendations from the SQR Report and the SESIS facilitated Quality Improvement Process (QIP)

28 Funding -Districts with Title I schools are eligible for Title I School Improvement Funds 1003 (a) - $25,000 per school plus $10 for each student enrolled in an identified school Title I School Improvement Section 1003(a) Grant:

29 Conference Call-In Session: For Questions and Answers on SQR October - TBD 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Phone #: Conference Code: Send Questions to:

30 For more information NYS’ Alignment of NCLB and IDEA Accountability Systems NYS’ IDEA determination criteria for school districts: Questions regarding the role of SESIS in the SQR and QIP: – Call the RSE-TASC Coordinator in your region of the State Office of Accountability School Improvement Team: School Quality Reviews: Regents Reform Content Areas: Race to the Top: Commissioner’s Regulations 100.2(p)(6)

31 Common Acronyms AIS: Academic Intervention Services AMAO: Annual Measurable Achievement Objective APPR: Annual Professional Performance Report AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress CBO: Community Based Organizations CEP: Comprehensive Educational Plan DA : Differentiated Accountability DS: District Superintendent ED: Economically disadvantaged ELA: English Language Arts ELL: English Language Learners FAPE; Free Appropriate Public Education IDEA: Individuals w/ Disabilities Education Act IEP: Individualized Education Program LEP: Limited English proficient MR: Multiracial NCLB: No Child Left Behind NYS: New York State NYSAA: New York State Alternative Assessment NYSESLAT: New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test OA: Office of Accountability QI: Quality Indicators QIP: Quality Improvement Process RBE-RN: Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network ROS: Rest of State RSE-TASC: Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Center RtI: Response to Intervention SED: State Education Department SESIS: Special Education School Improvement Specialist SIT: School Improvement Team SQR: School Quality Review TA: Technical Assistance

32 School Quality Review Participant Feedback Form DIRECTIONS: Please complete; your feedback will help to make improvements to the process in the future. (Return to: or Office of Accountability School Improvement Team, 89 Washington Ave, EBA 385, Albany, NY Name_______________ Date of meeting _______________ District________________ Date of webinar __________________ 1.Do you have a better understanding of the School Quality Review Process for 2011/12? Yes No 2.Were informational materials helpful and appropriate? YesNo 3.Was the presentation clear, and were appropriate responses provided YesNo to participant questions? For the items below: 1 indicates a very basic level of knowledge 5 indicates a very thorough level of knowledge 4.Please indicate your level of knowledge regarding School Quality Review Team requirements and procedures, prior to the presentation. 5.Please indicate your level of knowledge regarding School Quality Review Team requirements and procedures, after the presentation. 6.Please specify any types of information which should be included or deleted for future presentations: 7.Please indicate any comments/recommendations which you feel may improve School Quality Review process or items you would like more information about in future presentations: Other_________________________________________________________________________________________

33 SQR Contact Information Upcoming Webinar on Report Writing: November Contact Information: or (Rest Of State – Upstate/Long Island) or (New York City)