Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance

Michigan Department of EducationSeptember 8, 2011

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


State Statute Review

September 8, 2011

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.


September 8, 2011

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

September 8, 2011

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

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!

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

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!

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

September 8, 2011

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools by Tier

Tier I List 9

Tier II List 89

Total 98

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

September 8, 2011Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)



Two-Year Average % Improving minus

% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

HS Math Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Index

2/3

1/3

HS ReadingPercentile Rank

HS MathPercentile Rank

E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank

E/MS MathPercentile Rank

Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Start with raw data

% proficient

% improving minus % declining (MEAP)

% improvement trend slope (MME)


men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

HS Math Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Index

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate z-scores

Z-scores are a statistical method usedto level the playing field between…

ELA and Math

Elementary/Middle and High schools

Achievement and Improvement

Positive z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) above the

pool average the school is

Negative z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) below the

pool average the school is


men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

HS Math Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Score

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate a combinedProficiency/improvement

score and percentilerank for each…

Subject(ELA vs. math)

Level of School(elementary/middleversus high school)


men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

HS Math Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Score

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate average andoverall percentile rank

September 8, 2011

Examples Examples are shown for a high

school and for an elementary/ middle school in the following slides.

September 8, 2011

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Average of 3.8021% more

students improving than declining

67.0596 average percent proficient

Average of 7.0891% more

students declining than improving


Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

0.9455 SD below the

mean

0.2177 SD above the

mean

0.9917 SD below the

mean

0.2476 SD below the

mean

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

-0.5211 (composite)

2/3

1/3

-0.5786 (composite)

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Readingpercentile rank =

10.4869

Mathematics percentile rank = 13.1086

Ave

rage

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 1

1.79

78

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 8

.947

4(o

nly

8.94

74 p

erce

nt o

f sch

ools

in p

ool h

ad a

low

er a

vera

ge p

erce

ntile

ran

k)


men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding


Losing 1.48% proficiency per year

Losing 2.26% proficiency per year


Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

0.8408 SD below the

mean

0.6909 SD below the

mean

0.8822 SD below the

mean

1.0748 SD below the

mean

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

-0.7668 (composite)

2/3

1/3

-0.9504 (composite)

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

ReadingPercentile Rank =

10.0592

Mathematics Percentile rank = 5.6213

Not applicable

Not applicable

Ave

rage

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 7

.840

3

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 6

.140

4(o

nly

6.1

404%

of s

choo

ls in

poo

l ha

d a

low

er

aver

age

perc

entil

e r

ank

)

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

School Reform button in the center of the page.

September 8, 2011

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

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).


Creating the PLA Statewide List Your school might be anywhere on this

statewide list.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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 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.



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

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 IFunding 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 funding Not eligible for any pool Eligible 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 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 Not eligible for any pool

Is not eligible to receiveTitle I funding Not eligible for any pool Not eligible for any pool


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.

The PLA statewide ranking is produced only in order to implement the federal rules for identifying PLA schools.

September 8, 2011


State Requirements and Timeline

September 8, 2011


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

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.


September 8, 2011

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


September 8, 2011

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.


September 8, 2011

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)


September 8, 2011

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.


September 8, 2011

Persistently Lowest Achieving SchoolsTimeline

August 26, 2011 Department notification and webinar September 8, 2011 1st technical assistance meeting-

Lansing Center

October 4, 2011 2nd 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

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


September 8, 2011

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Opportunity for Technical Assistance

October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Banquet Rooms 1-4Lansing CenterLansing, 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

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools The Four Reform Models

Transformation Turnaround Closure Restart

September 8, 2011

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

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

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

Success Stories

Romulus Middle School

Saginaw High School

Dixon Elementary

September 8, 2011

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

Specific Helpful Sites

School Turnaround Support(org)

Doing What Works

September 8, 2011

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

Network Meetings

Timeline is out

Opportunities to network

SIG funded schools in attendance

Teams are welcome, including teachers

September 8, 2011

Principal-Led Academies

Academy facilitated by MDE

Led and planned by principals

Learning communities

Experts from within

September 8, 2011

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

Professional Development Opportunities

School Improvement Conferences

Speakers that are brought to Michigan

Book studies

September 8, 2011

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

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

Beating the Odds Schools

A concrete example

A suggestion from a local superintendent

A conference with the Beating the Odds Schools

September 8, 2011


Redesign Template

September 8, 2011


Questions??

September 8, 2011


Individual Planning Time

With

School Teams

September 8, 2011

PLA Contact Information

Deborah Clemmons

State School Reform Office

[email protected]

Jill Baynes

Department Analyst

517-335-2741

September 8, 2011

Data or Metrics Contact Information Joseph Martineau, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability

[email protected]

Venessa Keesler, Ph.D.

Manager, Evaluation, Research and Accountability

[email protected]

517-373-1342

September 8, 2011

Documents

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance