Transcript Document

Requirements for
Focus Schools
Contractors’ Meeting
March 4, 2013
Presenter: Yvonne A. Holloman, Ph.D.
1
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)
Flexibility Waiver
2
Purpose of ESEA Flexibility
ESEA scheduled
for
reauthorization in
2007
Flexibility offered to
promote reform and
respond to state
concerns
Congress failed
to reauthorize
Disproportionate
percentage of
schools misidentified
as underperforming
3
Flexibility Principles
College- and career-ready standards and
assessments
Differentiated supports and
interventions for underperforming
schools
Teacher and principal evaluation systems
4
Under the provisions of the two-year flexibility waiver granted by
USED on June 29, ambitious but achievable annual measurable
objectives (AMOs) have been set for student subgroups, including
new “proficiency gap groups” comprising students who historically
have had difficulty meeting the commonwealth’s achievement
standards.
5
System of Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability, and Support
Gap Group 1
(unduplicated)
Students with Disabilities
English Language Learners
Economically Disadvantaged
Gap Group 2
Black students,
not of Hispanic origin*
Gap Group 3
Hispanic students,
of one or more races*
*to include students with disabilities, English language learners, and
economically disadvantaged students
6
Reading benchmarks will be reset based on the performance of students
during 2012-2013 on new reading SOL tests reflecting the increased rigor
of the 2010 English standards.
7
Mathematics benchmarks are based on student achievement on the rigorous new Standards of
Learning (SOL) tests introduced last year and are designed for the specific purpose of cutting in
half the gap between Virginia’s lowest- and highest-performing schools.
Mathematics Annual Measurable Objectives
Accountability Year
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Assessment Year
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
All Students
61
64
66
68
70
Proficiency Gap Group 1
47
52
57
63
68
Proficiency Gap Group 2
(Black Students)
45
51
56
62
67
Proficiency Gap Group 3
(Hispanic Students)
52
56
60
65
69
Students with Disabilities
33
41
49
57
65
LEP Students
39
46
53
59
66
Economically Disadvantaged
Students
47
52
57
63
68
White Students
68
69
70
71
72
Asian Students
82
73
73
Continuous progress
8
What other individual subgroups must meet
AMOs?
All Students
Gap Group 2
Students with Disabilities
English Language Learners
Economically Disadvantaged
Black Students
Gap Group 3
Hispanic Students
Focus Schools
Gap Group 1
Other Subgroups under Safeguard
Students with Disabilities
English Language Learners
Economically Disadvantaged
White
Asian
9
Focus Schools
10
Focus Schools
•States must identify ten percent of the state’s Title I
schools as focus schools based on:
•
•
Low performance in one or more proficiency gap groups
Total: 72 schools
11
Methodology for Proficiency
Gap Group Calculation
• Virginia will rank order schools by proficiency gap
points:
• Calculate difference between the AMO target and each gap
group’s performance in reading and mathematics to
determine proficiency gap points
• Sum the proficiency gap points in reading and mathematics
(exclude any group that exceed or meet target)
• Rank schools in order of the total number of average
proficiency gap point
• Identify 10 percent of Title I schools with the most gap
points
12
Establishing
Proficiency Gap Group Points
Gap Group
Gap Group 1
Gap Group 2
Gap Group 3
Reading
Target
Reading
Performance
Reading
Performance
Gap Points
73
74
NI*
76
66
10
75
64
11
*NI – Not Included because the gap group met or exceeded the subject area target
13
Establishing
Proficiency Gap Group Points
Gap Group 1: NI
Gap Group 2: 10
Gap Group 3: 11
Sum Groups: 21
Divide by number of gaps: 21 / 2
Gap Points for Reading: 10.5
14
Schools with Highest Proficiency Gap
Group Points
21 22 23 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP GP
Identify from the list of schools ranked by
proficiency gap points a number equal to
10 percent of the state’s total Title I
schools = 72 Schools
15
Division Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaborate with an external VDOE contractor
and participate in a needs sensing interview
Convene a division leadership team including
representatives of:
– Title I
– Instruction
– Special education
– English language learners
– Principals of each focus school
Meet as a division leadership team on a monthly
basis
Develop, implement, and monitor a division
improvement plan that is aligned with the needs
of each focus school
Participate in quarterly meetings with focus
schools to review data and make decisions
about needed technical assistance
Modify division improvement plan on a
quarterly basis based on data analysis
School Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Convene a school leadership team including a
member of the division leadership team
Utilize a VDOE-approved adaptive reading
assessment program to determine student
growth at least quarterly
Utilize the Algebra Readiness Diagnostic Test
(ARDT) provided by the VDOE (required only for
focus schools with grade 5 or higher)
Develop, implement, and monitor a school
improvement plan
Develop an intervention strategy for all students
who have failed an SOL assessment or failed to
meet the fall PALS benchmark
Regularly analyze a variety of data points to
make strategic, data-driven decisions, and
implement the needed interventions for
identified students
Modify school improvement plan on a quarterly
basis based on data analysis
16