Soa Requirements For School Improvement PlansPresentation Transcript
First-Year Warned Principals’ Institute: SOA Requirements for School Improvement Plans and October 1 Reports Office of School Improvement February 27, 2008
Overview of the Academic Review Process
To help schools identify and analyze instructional and organizational factors affecting student achievement
To focus on the systems, processes , and practices that are being implemented at the school and division levels
To offer support , guidance , and resources to schools, administrators, and teachers across the state
Overview of the Academic Review Process
Areas of review :
Implementation of Curriculum Aligned with the Standards of Learning
Use of Time and Scheduling practices that maximize instruction
Use of Data to make instructional and planning decisions
Design of ongoing, school-based program of Professional Development
Implementation of a School Improvement Plan addressing identified areas of weakness
Implementation of Research-based Instructional Interventions for schools warned in English or mathematics
Organizational Systems and Processes
Academic Review for 1 st Year Warned Schools
The Academic Review Team :
Plans and executes a review of the systems and processes at the warned school
Includes representatives from the DOE and the local school division (LEA)
Schedules an initial review for 2-3 days at the warned school
Observes classroom instruction, reviews pertinent documents, and interviews staff members
Reports their findings and recommendations to the principal, the central office designee, and the Office of School Improvement
SST Visits for 2 nd and 3 rd Year Warned Schools (no matter what the warned subject!!!)
The School Support Team (SST) :
Reviews the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and progress of its implementation
Determines whether the recommendations (Essential Actions) from the previous academic review have been integrated into the SIP
Schedules a visit for 1-2 days
Determines whether additional follow-up visits are needed
Shares a report of their findings and recommendations with the principal, the central office designee, and the Office of School Improvement
Academic Review vs. SST Essential Actions are recommended Strengths and areas for improvement are included in the report Will include self-studies, interviews, observations, and document reviews Focus on systems and processes in the school Academic Review Needs, interventions, and measurement tools are recommended Last year’s Essential Actions should be in the SIP May include self-studies, observations, document reviews, and interviews Focus on SIP SST Visit
Top 10 Academic Review Recommendations for Improvement
1. Positive school culture
2. Hiring and retaining quality teachers
3. Effective use of the school day
4. Appropriate alignment and pacing of curriculum to state standards
5. Monitoring of instruction
Top 10 Academic Review Recommendations for Improvement
6. Differentiation of instruction
7. Sustained professional development activities
8. Timely remediation of students based on assessments
9. Effective use of school improvement plan
10. Attention to NCLB subgroups
Are We SMART Testing or DUMB Testing?
S pecific D istracting, dampens morale
M easurable U nderfunded, untargeted, unrealistic
A chievable M eddlesome, mediocre, menacing
R ealistic B ureaucratic, burdensome, bothersome
T ime Specific
Here’s Some More Food for Thought: Benchmarks
The benefits of benchmark tests :
Identify student strengths and weaknesses
Monitor student progress
Identify effective teaching
Encourage teacher collaboration
Allow uniform access to data
Encourage instructional decision-making to be data-driven
Keep pacing on-target
Nearly 7 out of 10 superintendents surveyed for Education Week in the summer of 2005 said they periodically give district-wide tests, and another 10 percent said they planned to do so this school year.
By 2006, it is predicted the “formative-assessment market” would generate $323 million in annual revenues for vendors
“ The reason that there is a boom in benchmark assessments is that most states and school systems are providing nothing more than autopsy reports right now,” said Douglas B. Reeves, the founder of the Center for Performance Assessment. “They tell you why the patient died at the end of the year, and then marveled that the patient didn’t get any better.”
Olson, Lynn, Benchmark Assessments Offer Regular Checkups on Student Achievement, Education Week, v25, n13, p13-14, Nov 2005.
What an effective educational benchmarking process would have to do to actually improve instruction would be to:
Determine exactly what materials, methods and behaviors result in actual improved performance outcomes
Determine exactly what methods and behaviors can be measured for each teacher’s performance
Measure the teacher’s behaviors and performance as instruction is being delivered
Analyze the metrics and prescribe changes for the teacher before instruction gets too far off track.
Review data in a timely fashion and continue to revisit
Take the time to make adjustments as dictated by the data
Teacher observations with constant reinforcement and revisiting
Encourage collaboration for best interests of students
PSSSTTTT -Have You Heard About Remediation Recovery ???
8 VAC 20-131-30. Student Achievement Expectations
In kindergarten through grade 12, students may participate in a remediation recovery program as established by the board in English (Reading) or mathematics or both.
Students who receive some sort of remediation (whether during the school day or after school) may qualify for this program.
Administrators need to ensure that if remediation is implemented within the school day, the SOA requirements for regular classroom instructional time are met.
Remediation Recovery Data
Some schools showed a promising SOL pass rate for remediation recovery students. Some schools did not.
Some schools showed a limited or small number of students who were coded as remediation recovery.
A school with a 100% remediation recovery pass rate did not necessarily have a successful remediation program.
What does the data tell us about remediation recovery programs in schools Accredited with Warning?
Some Sample Remediation Data 99% 77 78 100% 28 28 School A 37% 126 339 34% 48 141 School D 78% 14 18 57% 8 14 School C 6% 0 6 0% 0 1 School B R & R Pass % R & R Passed Math R & R R & R Pass % R & R Passed English R & R School
Questions To Ask About Remediation Recovery
1. Who is being coded and when is the coding taking place?
2. Who is receiving remediation?
3. What remediation materials were being utilized?
4. Does the pass rate increase:
a. According to the number of hours of remediation?
b. For in-school or after-school remediation (attendance)?
c. Depending upon whether a teacher or tutor provides the remediation?
5. Were valid benchmark /formative assessments used to select remediation students and plan the remediation program?
6. Is there a difference in the pass rate for math and reading?
7. How much did remediation recovery help your final pass rate?
Remediation Recovery Tracking Sheet *Key: A = After-school B = Before-school C = In-class S = Supplemental Educational Services (SES) N C, S Y 5 John Adams B, C Y N 4 Sarah Smith A, S Y B, C Y 3 Jane Doe *Type(s) of Math Remediation Math Remediation? Y/N *Type(s) of Reading Remediation Reading Remediation? Y/N Grade-level Student
A Tale of Two Teachers
Meet Jane Doe who teaches third grade.
She tested her students following an instructional unit about fractions.
Eight of her students performed poorly on the test.
On the next day, she reviewed the test items and solutions with them.
The eight students were re-tested; however, they performed poorly again.
Meet John Einstein who also teaches third grade.
He tested his students following an instructional unit about fractions.
Eight of his students performed poorly on the test.
He conducted an item analysis and used the results to plan lessons for the eight students by dividing them into two groups.
On the next day, he taught a lesson to two small groups of students using colored teddy bear counters instead of fraction models.
What do you think happened when he re-tested his eight students?
October 1st Status Report
Due to the Office of School Improvement (OSI) by October 1st for three consecutive years after the school has been Accredited with Warning
Reports the status of implementation of the three-year school improvement plan and progress toward meeting the goals of the plan
Requires the superintendent’s signature prior to submission to OSI
October 1st Status Report - Format
1) If the Department of Education (DOE) SIP form or a locally-developed SIP form containing a status reporting column was used, complete the status reporting column and attach the annual report cover sheet .
2) If a SIP form was used that had no means for reporting status of implementation, use the DOE Annual Report form (Status of Implementation of Three-Year School Improvement Plan) found at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Forms/
October 1 Update Cover Page
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THREE-YEAR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(8 VAC 20-131-310.H.)
DUE OCTOBER 1
Office of School Improvement
Annual Report for the Year School Name:
Targeted Academic Area(s): School Number:
Grade Levels Served:
Revised Three-Year School Improvement Plan
Attached? Yes No
October 1 Status Summary Page Goal Statement: ______________________________________________ Explanation for Strategies Not Implemented According to Projected Time Frame Evidence of Progress Status /Progress Made Strategies Developed to Meet Goal
October 1 Status Summary Page Goal Statement: Increase differentiation of instruction in all classrooms Lesson plan notebooks and summary data Lesson plan reviews indicated 60% of the time this was being accomplished according to a rubric Differentiation of Instruction Explanation for Strategies Not Implemented According to Projected Time Frame Evidence of Progress Status /Progress Made Strategies Developed to Meet Goal
October 1 Status Summary Page Goal Statement: To sustain Professional Development to improve instruction The evidence indicated a need for additional training, peer observations, and modeling 70% of walkthroughs did not document the use of the newly learned strategies Teachers received professional development regarding the Marzano strategies Professional development monitoring Explanation for Strategies Not Implemented According to Projected Time Frame Evidence of Progress Status /Progress Made Strategies Developed to Meet Goal
October 1 Status Summary Page Goal Statement: To utilize student benchmark data to design and deliver remediation. On-Going In-progress Complete Students averaged 80% passing rate on retests after remediation Groups were formed and regrouped each 9 weeks according to teacher review of data Benchmark data utilized to form remediation groups Explanation for Strategies Not Implemented According to Projected Time Frame Evidence of Progress Status /Progress Made Strategies Developed to Meet Goal
Academic Review Follow-up
Your AR team leader/consultant may be able to offer assistance with:
The October 1 Status Report
Individual or department “coaching”
Analysis and use of student data
Anything, except the lunch menu!!!
What happens in year 4, 5 and beyond?
8 VAC 20-131-300.C states that a school shall be rated Accreditation Denied based on its academic performance during academic years ending in 2006 and beyond if it fails to meet the requirements to be rated Fully Accredited for the preceding three consecutive years or for three consecutive years anytime thereafter.
As outlined in 8 VAC 20-131-315, as an alternative to the Memorandum of Understanding required of schools rated Accreditation Denied, a local school board may choose to reconstitute the school and apply to the Board of Education for a rating of Conditionally Accredited . The application shall outline specific responses that address all areas of deficiency that resulted in the Accreditation Denied status.
Quote of the Day
“ There are ramblers and there are travelers. The ramblers will wind up where they will and probably won’t remember how they got there.
The travelers will probably reach their destination, especially if there are rest stops and information booths along the way.
As leaders, change agents, and group facilitators, we staff the rest stops and information booths.”