Priority Schools September 25, 2015

Support Team Ms. Annette Barnes, Assistant Commissioner for Public School Accountability Mr. Elbert Harvey, Coordinator of Public School Accountability Dr. Richard Wilde, Director of School Improvement Ms. Tiah Friazier, School Improvement Specialist Dr. Robert Toney, School Improvement Specialist Ms. Janie Hickman, School Improvement Specialist Dr. Denise Airola, Office of Innovation for Education

Priority Schools Calculations Denise Airola Office of Innovation for Education September 25, 2015

ESEA Flexibility Requirements Priority Schools—USDE Definition flexibility/resources/eseaflexdefs pdf (page 3) flexibility/resources/eseaflexdefs pdf Pages xibility/AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request. pdf xibility/AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request. pdf

USDE Definition of Priority Schools Among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the state based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on statewide assessments, … and has a demonstrated lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group; Title I participating or Title I eligible high school with graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using SIG funds….

Added Ranks Method: Original SIG Guidance Page 6

Method Post appeals assessment scores for non-mobile students were used. 2012, 2013, and 2014 percent proficient or above (P/A) for math and literacy. Schools were ranked on percent P/A each year for each subject. Rank of 1 = highest percent P/A Higher rank, lower percent P/A (approx schools year to year) Feeder schools take on status of paired school.

Adding Ranks Overall three year rank = sum of ranks for math and for literacy Ranged from 14 to rank (2014 math rank literacy rank) Ranged from 4 to yr. Weighted Rank = overall 3 yr (2014 rank) Gives credit for improved performance and relative rank in 2014 Ranged from 17.2 to Newly identified Priority Schools in 2015 had a Weighted Rank Value greater than 7533 (lowest 5%).

Example Three year rank = 2014 math rank literacy rank math rank literacy rank math rank literacy rank Three year rank = = 5937 Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 3 Year Rank * (2014 math + literacy ranks). Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 7534 = * 1996

Final List Previous Priority Schools that had not exited Priority status Newly identified Schools with Weighted Rank Value greater than 7533 (lowest 5%).

Priority Schools New Priority Designation N=10* Lit + Math Combined Performance 2014 Mean (SD) Max Performance Min Performance (4.10) Lit + Math Combined Performance 2013 Mean (SD) Max Performance Min Performance (13.42) Literacy Performance 2014 Mean (SD) Max Performance Mean Performance (16.71)

ESEA Flexibility Approved Request August 6, 2015 Priority Schools

E SEA Waiver ADE Website Topics A-Z Select E Select ESEA Flexibility To view the approved request /AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request.pdf /AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request.pdf

USDOE ESEA Flexibility All States A – Z Topics Select S Select School Improvement Select Related Laws Select U.S Department of Education – ESEA Flexibility Site flexibility/index.html flexibility/index.html

ESEA Flexibility Highlights Priority Schools Pages Focus Schools Pages Please read the entire document for clarity on how teacher effectiveness, RTI, assessment, planning and support from ADE and District are all to integrate.

Priority Schools Year 1 Semester 1 Activity (Pg. 103) Commissioner meets with principals and superintendents ADE assigns lead SIS (School Improvement Specialist) to LEA and Priority School(s) School Leadership Team in collaboration with district leadership team conducts a school and district “diagnostic analysis and needs assessment” (Details on Pg )

Priority Schools Year 1 (continued) Needs Assessment includes but not limited to: Human Resources alignment of ACSIP to needs allocation of fiscal resources aligned with needs School schedule provides time and plan for teachers to collaborate Teacher team structure focuses on collaboration to meet student needs PD plan aligned with this needs assessment Teacher team effectiveness in data use, problem identification, problem clarification and problem solving

Priority Schools Year 1 Semester 2 Year 1 Semester 2 (Pg. 105) District assigns a locally hired site based SIS School and district leadership teams agree on MOU related to levels of autonomy accountability, and sanctions for minimal IMO progress (Pg. 105) ADE district/school agree/specify on a professional development plan to build the leadership capacity ADE, district, school develop a three year priority improvement plan with identified Interim Measurable Objectives (Pg. 105)

Priority Schools Year 1 Semester 2 (continued) Locally hired SIS reports weekly to ADE Locally hired SIS engages leadership team and school board in ongoing development ADE SIS and school leadership team provides quarterly report to State Board of Education *Priority schools and their LEA (District) that fail to show progress may be subject to losing flexibility in the use of the state and/or federal categorical dollars