1. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance Michigan Department of Education September 8, 2011

2. 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

3. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools State Statute Review September 8, 2011

4.  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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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!

8. 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

9. 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!

10. 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

11. September 8, 2011 Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools by Tier  Tier I List9  Tier II List89 Total98

12. 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

13. September 8, 2011 Start with raw data % proficient % improving minus % declining (MEAP) % improvement trend slope (MME)

14. September 8, 2011 Calculate z-scores Z-scores are a statistical method used to level the playing field between… ELA and Math Elementary/Middle and High schools Achievement and Improvement Positive z-scores show how many standard deviations (SD) above the pool average the school is Negative z-scores show how many standard deviations (SD) below the pool average the school is

15. September 8, 2011 Calculate a combined Proficiency/improvement score and percentile rank for each… Subject (ELA vs. math) Level of School (elementary/middle versus high school)

16. September 8, 2011 Calculate average and overall percentile rank

17. September 8, 2011 Examples  Examples are shown for a high school and for an elementary/ middle school in the following slides.

18. September 8, 2011

20. 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 www.mi.gov/mde School Reform button in the center of the page. September 8, 2011

21. 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

22. 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, 2011 September 8, 2011

23. Creating the PLA Statewide List  Your school might be anywhere on this statewide list. August 26, 2011 September 8, 2011

24. 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, 2011 September 8, 2011

25. 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, 2011 September 8, 2011

26.  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, 2011 September 8, 2011

27.  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, 2011 September 8, 2011

28.  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, 2011 September 8, 2011

29. 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, 2011 September 8, 2011

30. 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, 2011 September 8, 2011

31. 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

32. 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 I Funding 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 fundingNot eligible for any poolEligible 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 Is not a secondary school, and is eligible for but does not receive Title I funding Not eligible for any pool Is not eligible to receive Title I funding Not eligible for any pool August 26, 2011 September 8, 2011

33. 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. 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

34. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools State Requirements and Timeline September 8, 2011

35. 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

36.  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

37.  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

38.  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

39.  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

40.  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

41. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Timeline  August 26, 2011 Department notification and webinar  September 8, 2011 1 st technical assistance meeting- Lansing Center  October 4, 2011 2 nd 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

42.  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

43. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools  Opportunity for Technical Assistance October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Banquet Rooms 1-4 Lansing Center Lansing, 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

44. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools  The Four Reform Models Transformation Turnaround Closure Restart September 8, 2011

45. October 12, 2015

48. 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

49. 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

50. Success Stories  Romulus Middle School  Saginaw High School  Dixon Elementary September 8, 2011

51. 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

52. Specific Helpful Sites  School Turnaround Support(org)  Doing What Works September 8, 2011

53. 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

54. Network Meetings  Timeline is out  Opportunities to network  SIG funded schools in attendance  Teams are welcome, including teachers September 8, 2011

55. Principal-Led Academies  Academy facilitated by MDE  Led and planned by principals  Learning communities  Experts from within September 8, 2011

56. 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

57. Professional Development Opportunities  School Improvement Conferences  Speakers that are brought to Michigan  Book studies September 8, 2011

58. 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

59. 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

60. Beating the Odds Schools  A concrete example  A suggestion from a local superintendent  A conference with the Beating the Odds Schools September 8, 2011

61. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Redesign Template September 8, 2011

62. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Questions?? September 8, 2011

63. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Individual Planning Time With School Teams September 8, 2011

64. PLA Contact Information  Deborah Clemmons State School Reform Office clemmonsd@michigan.gov  Jill Baynes Department Analyst 517-335-2741 September 8, 2011

65. Data or Metrics Contact Information  Joseph Martineau, Ph.D. Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability martineauj@michigan.gov  Venessa Keesler, Ph.D. Manager, Evaluation, Research and Accountability keeslerv@michigan.gov 517-373-1342 September 8, 2011