Pla Methdology 3 19 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Pla Methdology 3 19 2010

on

  • 448 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
448
Views on SlideShare
447
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Pla Methdology 3 19 2010 Pla Methdology 3 19 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • “Persistently Low Achieving” in WashingtonGreg LobdellCo-founder and Director of ResearchCenter for Educational Effectivenessgreg@effectiveness.org
  • Today’s Outcomes
    Understand the definition of “Persistently Low Achieving” in Washington
    Understand the application of this definition in the context of WA
    Understand the Profile of these 47 buildings
    What’s Next…
    Dialogue and Discussion
  • Project Background- The Why?
  • Definitions
    • Persistently lowest-achieving: Schools with three consecutive years of data in the lowest 5% in both reading and mathematics and secondary schools with a weighted average of graduation rates less than 60% over a three-year period.
    4
  • Proficiency…
  • Definitions
    • Weighting is equal between reading and mathematics
    • Weighting is equal between elementary and secondary schools
    • Graduation rate weighted-average is based on the number of students for each year
    • Graduation rate is calculated as required in Guidance on School Improvement Grants, January 21, 2010 consistent with C.F.R. § 200.19(b)
    6
  • Definitions
    Title I eligible: Based on SY 2009-10 student data, a school is considered Title I eligible if:
    Poverty percentage is 35% or more; or
    The school’s poverty percentage is greater than or equal to the district’s poverty average
    Lack of Progress: The school’s percent increase or decrease (slope of linear regression) over the most recent three-year period compared to the state slope
    7
  • Progress…
  • Slope == Progress
    3% Improvement Per Year
  • Tier Definitions
    Tier I School
    Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that-
    • Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State or the five lowest-achieving such schools (whichever number of schools is greater); or
    • Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years.
    Tier II School
    Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds that-
    • Is among the lowest achieving five percent of secondary schools or the five lowest-achieving secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds; or
    • Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years;
    Tier III School
    Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school.
    10
  • Newly Eligible
    • Tier I: Title I eligible elementary schools that are no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school that is defined as a “persistently lowest-achieving school” in Tier I and that:
    • Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.
    • Tier II: Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school that is defined as a “persistently lowest-achieving school” in Tier II or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years and that:
    • Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.
    • Is in Step 5 of Improvement with a declining improvement trend
    11
  • Key References
    “SIG-G”: Guidance on School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA of 1965. US Dept. of Education December 18, 2009 and updated January 20, 2010
    http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/guidance20100120.doc
    Interim final requirements for School Improvement Grants
    http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2010-1/012110a.pdf
    12
  • Data Sources
    21 Independent data sources
    Demographic information by district: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
    Demographic information by school: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
    AYP & Title I information by school: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
    Graduation rates by school 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
    2009-10 Title I eligibility and status (Oct ‘09 data)
    13
  • The “Alternative” Methodology…
  • Key Concepts
    ‘Persistently’ requires 3 years of data in Reading and Math
    Secondary: grades 7 – 12 (WAC 392-348-235)
    As SIG-G requires, proficiency calculated for all-students, continuously enrolled, following AYP Accountability Workbook
    Minimum of N of 30 applied for all students tested in a building by content area per year
    16
  • Key Concepts
    Tier Size:
    The number of schools in the consideration-set (for Tiers I and II) is calculated based on Title and AYP status before “minimum N” rule is applied (as per SIG-G).
    Schools that had 2009 data but are closed in 2009-10 are removed from overall consideration-set before creating the sizes for each tier.
    17
  • Defining Tiers: Tier I
    18
  • Defining Tiers: Tier II
    19
  • Key Concepts
    Following SIG-G: Added Ranks Method for 6 ranks
    If there are N schools in consideration-set: this results in a value for each school between 6 and6 x N
    If ranking 450 schools
    If your school was top ranked in each year in both reading and math your added-rank = 6
    If your school was the bottom ranked in each year in both reading and math your added-rank = 2700 (6 x 450)
    20
  • Key Concepts
    FINAL rank-ordering (3-level sort):
    Schools in lowest-5% in BOTH reading and math (at least once in each over 3 years)
    Total “added ranks”
    Progress
    21
  • Added Ranks Method
    22
    Schools in lowest 5% only in 1 content area
    Schools in lowest 5% in Both Reading and Math
  • Applying Sort-Order
    23
    Note two schools with “Added Rank” = 961. Progress defines who ranks above and below.
  • Summary Example
    Tier 1: 450 schools in consideration set (ranks 1 to 450)
    School 4: in bottom 5% in both reading and math
    School 3: Larger ‘added rank’ than 1 & 2
    Schools 1 & 2: Tie in added ranks so next step is “progress”
    24
  • Validation
    US Department of Education approval of methodology wasthe critical step!
    OSPI Student Information and Assessment division
    Integrated data-set validated back to individual components
    All “missing data” confirmed (or fixed)
    Bottom-up and top-down creation of tiers and the final lists
    25
  • Who/Where/Why?Profile of Tiers I and II
  • Visually…
  • Added Ranks Method
    40
    Consequence of this Methodology:
    • In very small schools, volatility (year to year) is typically larger
    • One year has a significant impact on “added rank”
  • Questions, Comments?greg@effectiveness.org
  • What About The WA Accountability Index?
    Reading, Writing, Math, & Science
    Those outcomes are each measured using four indicators:
    achievement of students who are not from low-income families;
    achievement of students from low-income families;
    achievement of all students when compared to “peers” (those with similar student characteristics, such as the percentage of students who have a disability, are learning English, are designated as gifted, come from low-income families, and are mobile); and
    improvement in the achievement of all students from the previous year.
    The average of the resulting 20 measures comprises the overall index
    SB6696 and Required Action…
  • Innovative Leadership
    Getting Ahead of the Curve
  • Innovative Leadership
    Proactively working on internal “turnaround” projects
    Segmentation of schools in a performance management framework
    Comprehensive School Review- the “Deep Dive”
    Aggressive research-based interventions
  • Consider- If this was your district…
  • What would you do as a leader?
    Policy to solution or is policy the problem?
    Beliefs drive behavior…or does behavior drive beliefs?
    Institutions: “collective values” or “collective interests”?
    More about this after dinner with Gene…
  • Questions, Comments?greg@effectiveness.org
  • Comprehensive Planning
    Organizational Management
    Financial Management
    Monitoring of Intervention
    Professional Development
    Leadership
    Teaching and Learning
    Student
    Achievement
    Increased Student Achievement
    CEE
    Data Foundation/Comprehensive School Profile
  • References You Can Use
    Primary
    Beat The Odds (2006). Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2006). Why Some Schools With Latino Children Beat the Odds…and Others Don’t. Tempe, AZ.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, jointly with Center for the Future of Arizona. (aka: “Beat The Odds (2006) ).
    Elmore, R. (2004).Knowing the Right Things to Do: School Improvement and Performance-Based Accountability. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association- Center for Best Practices.
    Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Fixen, D.L. et al. (2005).Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231)
    School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007). School Turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Public Impact, Academic Development Institute- prepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerii.org/ (aka: School Turnarounds (2007)).
    Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004).Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research. Olympia, WA. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
    Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2003).Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. A research-based resource for school leadership teams to assist with the School Improvement Process. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Olympia, WA.
    Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008).Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct?Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.
    Secondary
    Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) (2005). Longitudinal Change in Staff Perceptions of the 9 Characteristics of High Performing Schools in OSPI SIA Cohort-II and III Schools. Redmond, WA: Center for Educational Effectiveness.
    Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.
    Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.
    Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters, Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.