SECC Information Request Focus School Interventions ... · 440 Knox Abbott Drive, Suite 200 | Cayce, South Carolina 29033 | 803-936-0750 | secc.sedl.org Information REQUEST Focus

440 Knox Abbott Drive, Suite 200 | Cayce, South Carolina 29033 | 803-936-0750 | secc.sedl.org

InformationR E Q U E S T

Focus School Strategies, Practices, and Achievement

Date April 30, 2014

Request 01244

As a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s invitation to each state education agency (SEA) to request flexibility regarding certain requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico were approved for ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) flexibility.1 In exchange, these SEAs were required to submit comprehensive plans that were designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and enhance instruction.

“States with waivers must identify three categories of schools based on their performance: Reward, Priority, and Focus schools” (Riddle, 2012, p. 7)2. Riddle defined each category of school and said, “Focus schools have large achievement gaps between subgroups or have one or more low-performing subgroups, and must implement targeted interventions” (2012, p. 8).

To inform its work with Focus Schools, an SEA that is served by the Southeast Comprehensive Center (SECC) at SEDL inquired about state-based support for Focus Schools, specifically,

1. What interventions (strategies and practices) have been effective and meaningful in narrowing achievement gaps to aid schools in moving off a Focus Schools list? What are the best practices?

2. If a school is still on a Focus Schools list, are the gaps narrowing enough that exiting the list is likely in the future?

This report addresses the key questions above and includes a discussion of the procedure for selection of the materials featured herein, general limitations, and specific information that pertains to school improvement efforts for Focus Schools.

1 From Elementary & Secondary Education ESEA Flexibility, U.S. Department of Education, March 7, 2014. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html 2 From What Impact Will NCLB Waivers Have on the Consistency, Complexity and Transparency of State Accountability Systems? Wayne Riddle, Center for Education Policy, October 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=411

440 Knox Abbott Drive, Suite 200 | Cayce, South Carolina 29033 | 803-936-0750 | secc.sedl.org 2


PROCEDURE The Information Request team took the following actions to obtain information regarding strategies and practices for improving achievement in Focus Schools:

• Contacted the state education agencies that are served by SECC—Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina

• Requested assistance from the REL Southeast via the REL Reference Desk

• Conducted online searches—through Bing, EBSCO Academic Search Elite, and ERIC—to locate resources that examined interventions for supporting persistently low-performing schools, using a combination of these terms: Focus Schools, school improvement plan, progress monitoring, compliance monitoring, differentiated support, coaching, mentoring, leadership development, transformation model, graduation rate, exiting Focus Schools status, interventions and Focus Schools, narrowing achievement gaps, best practices, effective interventions, needs assessment, turnaround interventions, promising practices, interventions closing the achievement gap, targeted solutions subgroup performance, proficiency gap, strategies for special populations, English language learners, and students with disabilities

Following the literature searches, the team reviewed 25 resources and selected 12 for inclusion in this report based on the items meeting at least two of the selection criteria. The criteria were as follows: (a) publication date within the past 10 years, (b) state practices in use as of January 2012, and (c) content addressing interventions (strategies and practices) for improving achievement in Focus Schools. The selected resources consist of a report from the REL Southeast and the following from several SEAs: two frequently asked questions documents, two guidance documents, one handout, one menu, one module, two presentations, one report, and one web page. To view abstracts of these materials, see the Resource Summaries section of this request. In addition to the above resources, the request team reviewed information provided by staff from three SECC states that responded to the center’s communication—Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. A summary is provided in Table 1, Responses From SECC States Regarding Focus School Support.

GENERAL LIMITATIONS At present, the education field does not have a strong evidence base around interventions (strategies and practices) that may aid SEA staff and educators in increasing achievement in Focus Schools. Therefore, materials selected for this request center around various non-peer-reviewed resources as well as descriptions of state policies and practices provided by staff in SECC states. The majority of the 12 selected resources discuss interventions for Focus Schools in nine states—Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. It is unclear if the interventions described in these resources were derived from evidence- or research-based studies or if they represented best practices in the field. Further, it is unclear how each resource defined the term intervention and if there were similar definitions across the resources. The resources do not identify specific interventions that have been proven to be effective in narrowing achievement gaps between subgroups or in assisting schools in exiting focus status. The resources also do not discuss best practices for achieving the aforementioned objectives. Rather, the resources primarily consist of summaries of information obtained from the states and/or organizations.



Regarding the selected resources, the strategies and practices identified on page 4 of this request were chosen based on scanning the resources rather than a systemic analysis. Therefore, it is possible that this list of strategies and practices might not represent all that were described in the resources. In addition, the information that was provided by the SECC states regarding Focus Schools is experiential and describes their efforts in this area. The request team did not attempt to determine if the strategies and practices that were described by the states are supported by a research base. The request team provides the above comments to assist stakeholders in making informed decisions with respect to the information presented. SECC does not endorse any strategies, practices, or guidelines described in this report. OVERVIEW As stated earlier, the Information Request team contacted the SECC states regarding support for Focus Schools and received three responses. Responses from the states are summarized below along with the key questions, which are repeated from page 1 of this report.

TABLE 1. RESPONSES FROM SECC STATES REGARDING FOCUS SCHOOL SUPPORT

Contact Question 1: What interventions (strategies and practices) have been effective and meaningful in narrowing achievement gaps to aid schools in moving off a Focus Schools list? What are the best practices?

Question 2: If a school is still on a Focus Schools list, are the gaps narrowing enough that exiting the list is likely in the future?

Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) Ann Allison Education Administrator School Turnaround Program [email protected] April 8, 2014

ALSDE began supporting its first group of 150 Focus Schools in January 2014, so it does not yet have sufficient data to respond to the key questions.

Not applicable

Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) Staci Curry Office Director, School Support Services, Office of Federal Programs [email protected] March 19, 2014

Currently, the primary intervention that MDE is implementing with Focus Schools is the use of MS SOARS (the state’s Indistar system) to guide leadership teams in best practices. Optional support includes GOALS training that guides school teams through data analysis, schoolwide goal setting, and intervention implementation.

The department anticipates a large number of Focus Schools exiting at the end of Year 2, based on Year 1 results. Any schools not exiting will be required to implement additional supports, such as GOALS training to ensure that school teams are appropriately implementing effective strategies for improvement.



TABLE 1. RESPONSES FROM SECC STATES REGARDING FOCUS SCHOOL SUPPORT

Contact Question 1: What interventions (strategies and practices) have been effective and meaningful in narrowing achievement gaps to aid schools in moving off a Focus Schools list? What are the best practices?

Question 2: If a school is still on a Focus Schools list, are the gaps narrowing enough that exiting the list is likely in the future?

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) George Hancock Coordinator, School Improvement Grants [email protected] March 18, 2014

NCDPI is in the process of converting its new accountability model (new scoring) and identifying trends for Focus Schools.

The department uses the Multi-Tiered System of Support, which incorporates the North Carolina Responsiveness to Instruction (R t I ) model. Below is a link to the RtI site: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/responsiveness/

Based on reviews of the selected resources, the request team identified a number of strategies and practices that are required or recommended in nine states—Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. A few were common across several states.

• Creation of local education agency (LEA) and building-level needs assessments • Development of targeted plans and/or implementation of data-driven goals (MO, OH, VA) • Establishment of leadership teams at the district, building, and teacher levels • Use of expanded learning time • Use of job-embedded professional development • School participation in collaborative networks • Use of a uniform planning process tool to support schools and districts (OR, VA, WI) • Requirement for schools to conduct annual evaluations • Use of specialists, facilitators, instructional coaches, turnaround coaches, data coaches, or

similar staff who are trained in data analysis, developing plans to address student gaps, and professional development (MI, ND, NH)

• Use of research-based interventions, such as RtI (MO, ND, WI) • Provision of a list of technical assistance providers • Use of supplemental educational services, parental involvement initiatives, research proven

instructional programs, after-school programming, early childhood education services, and/or individualized tutoring

Additional information about Focus School support in the nine states is provided in the Resource Summaries.



RESOURCE SUMMARIES Michigan Department of Education. (2012). Sharpening Michigan’s School Improvement Tools. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MI-Excel_Supports_for_ Priority_ and_ Focus_Schools_395146_7.pdf This publication provides a description of Michigan’s revised system of support for low-performing schools, MI Excel. Core principles and state-level partners, which were used by the SEA, are listed. The redesigned system targets its interventions at the district level as well as at the building level. MI Excel assists districts in building their capacity to lead school improvement through the use of specialists and facilitators that are trained in data analysis and professional development. These personnel also aid the local education agencies in prioritizing human and fiscal resources. “Districts have powerful tools for change and should support the development of appropriate structure, systems, skills, and resources” (p. 9). Priority Schools in Michigan are placed under the management of the State School Reform/Redesign Office. Title I funding requirements and building level set-aside options are listed. A detailed description of the customized, intensive support specified by state interventionists also is explained. In addition, a four-year timeline of Priority School activities is provided. The structures and supports required by LEAs for Focus Schools are stipulated. District set-aside options also are listed. Detailed descriptions of the responsibilities of the district improvement facilitator are outlined, along with the district toolkit, which was created by the SEA. Additionally, a four-year timeline of activities is provided. The four designations of Reward Schools are provided in the closing section of the report. School incentives, which are not financially based, are described. Missouri Department of Education. (2012, June). Missouri’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Flexibility Waiver Approval Accountability Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/qs-esea-flexibility-waiver-accountability-faq.pdf This is a frequently asked question (FAQ) document developed by the Missouri Department of Education to address its ESEA Flexibility Waiver. The topics covered are the timeline for proficiency and subgroup populations. Questions and responses that address the requirements for school improvement, LEAs, and highly qualified teachers also are specified. The document provides definitions of Reward, Priority, and Focus Schools. In addition, required interventions and supports and timelines addressing implementation and exit status are provided to guide LEAs.



Missouri’s FAQ document states that Focus Schools will be required to implement the following interventions (p. 4):

• Improve classroom instruction • Develop and implement appropriate, evidence-based instructional strategies that are

found to be effective for all students and subgroups • Develop common formative and summative assessments • Establish a culture of professional collaboration that focuses on a school climate that is

conducive to high expectations and provides a safe environment for learning • Increase staff effectiveness in using data to inform and improve instruction • Use data to document progress and inform instructional practices • Provide increased time for professional collaboration • Use mapping to support continuous development of all adults (teachers and leaders) • Implement Missouri’s leader standards • Implement with fidelity the strategies identified in the LEA and school improvement plans • Maintain and report monthly on leading indicators • Use feedback from regional partners to improve instruction, learning, and leadership

New Hampshire Department of Education. (2013, October). Frequently Asked Questions: Title I Priority and Focus Schools. Retrieved from http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/priority-focus/documents/faq.pdf This document discusses how a school is named a Focus School and details requirements for using specific interventions through Indistar and through the use of turnaround coaches, instructional specialists, or data coaches. There are a few specific interventions that schools can use even if they are not using Indistar. The document provides a list of 35 FAQs for Priority and Focus Schools. Questions and answers that have direct applicability to this request are listed below (pp. 3–5).

5. What is a turnaround coach? A turnaround coach can provide the push and guidance necessary to drive instructional

improvements. A turnaround coach can provide technical assistance to assist with assessing current performance, developing a plan to address student gaps, monitoring implementation plans, measuring the impact of the plan, and making revisions to the plan.

7. What is the process for determining who is on the NH DOE’s vetted list of turnaround coaches?

A proposal must be submitted to NH DOE by an individual or entity and be vetted in order [for an individual] to be approved as a turnaround coach.

13. What is a data coach? A data coach will be available to work with school leadership at no cost to provide intensive

support with a diagnosis of strengths and gaps in the educational program and those outcomes that led to the school’s designation. Data coaches review data tools, initiate conversations around data protocols, build data teams, and provide training to improve instruction.



17. What is a principal mentor? A principal mentor must undergo extensive training and serves in a day-to-day capacity to

assist with administrative and managerial functions of the school. North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.) Menu of Possible Interventions for Low Achieving Students Guidance, Practices, Programs, Strategies and Resources. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/title1/progress/menus/menulowest.pdf This resource is a list of interventions in a menu format that offers 20 different options for Priority and Focus Schools. The list is not meant to be exhaustive but provides potential options for schools along with additional information in the form of embedded links that contain additional resources and strategies. Districts and schools may select options from the list or choose their own interventions. Interventions that are applicable to this request are summarized below (pp. 1–4).

Instructional Coaches The use of instructional coaches has the potential to improve teacher performance and increase student achievement. The department of public instruction has an entire web page devoted to strategies and resources dealing with instructional coaches. The resources include a presentation for an Education Commission Meeting, 12-16-08; Instructional Coaches Introduction; Job Responsibilities of an Instructional Coach; and Funding Sources for Instructional Coaches. Resources for districts and schools implementing instructional coaching include an instructional coaches toolkit, presentations, sample job descriptions for literacy and mathematics coaches, qualifications for coaches, and questions and answers for coaches.

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): North Dakota School Success Stories

This resource (developed by the North Central Comprehensive Center) documents seven schools that have made substantial improvement in student achievement scores. The interviews of the school administrators listed the strategies each school used, how data was being used to inform instruction, and what steps were being taken by administrators.

Statewide System of Support Consultant Team North Dakota’s Title I office has a list of consultants with experience and expertise in a variety of school improvement areas to be able to provide support to schools.

Professional Development

The SEA indicates that professional development should encompass several elements, including (a) data analysis to help schools identify and target their areas of need and (b) study groups to enable teachers to work together to focus on student learning, explore resources, and share knowledge and experiences.



The presentation indicates that Focus Schools are expected to participate in collaborative networks; evaluate themselves annually; develop a comprehensive achievement plan that is committed to evidence-based interventions and fixed improvement goals; and agree to externally-directed, deeper diagnosis from a school appraisal team while being assisted by a school support team. Several contact names are provided for additional information. The second presentation explains that Oregon’s ESEA waiver requires the use of a uniform planning process tool to support schools and districts. After reviewing processes and planning tools being used by other states, Oregon chose a tool that is used by 26 other states. The Customized Planning Process Tool (CPPT) is a customizable, indicator-based model of planning based on best practice research that incorporates self-evaluation, planning, monitoring, and analysis of progress for continuous improvement. The presentation includes a walk through of the online Indistar tool, including how to enter data; assess indicators; and create, implement, monitor, and sustain a plan. Additionally, the presentation includes links to Indistar; assessment scores; indicator examples; and steps explaining how to view, export, and print school reports. REL Southeast. (2014, March 28). Ask A REL Response. Focus School Turnaround. Retrieved from http://rel-se.fcrr.org/download/ask-a-rel/curriculum-and-instruction/Ask_a_REL_Focus_School_Turnaround.pdf REL Southeast developed this report to address SECC’s request for information regarding Focus Schools. The questions addressed in the response were as follows: “What interventions have proven to be the most successful for schools across the US that have been able to get out of their focus school status? What research is available on Focus Schools that have turned around and have been successful in closing achievement gaps?” The report provides summaries for 10 resources that address strategies for turning around low-performing schools and/or reducing achievement gaps between subgroups. However, the report indicates that none of the 10 cited resources reflected what would be deemed rigorous research, such as randomized controlled trials.

Each of the 10 cited resources includes a citation and an abstract/summary. To determine specific details regarding the research methodology and evidence/results, each resource would need to be individually investigated. However, the abstract/summary should provide the information needed to determine if that resource warrants additional review that may yield the desired information.

Although the questions specifically address Focus Schools, most of the resources concentrate on the broader topic of turning around persistently low-performing schools. Topics and strategies varied from intervention models to limitations/challenges to scaling up turnaround efforts. Several of the resources involve case studies as a methodology to explore strategies or implementation practices to explain why some schools with similar demographics “beat the odds” and improved dramatically while other schools employing similar reforms showed minimal growth or remained stagnant.



Virginia Department of Education. Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement Focus School Guide. (2012–2013). Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/focus_schools/focus_school_guide.pdf This guidance document discusses the Focus School requirements developed by the Virginia Department of Education’s Office of School Improvement. The guide begins with the provision of background information on the ESEA Flexibility Waiver. A number of interventions for the identified Focus Schools and their individual divisions are also listed. In the next component of the document, a description of the required school- and division-level teams, including their review and monitoring protocols, are provided. Additionally, an entire section is dedicated to the use of the web-based planning tool, Indistar. The remaining sections focus on quarterly data and improvement planning, the use of the Adaptive Reading Assessment Programs and the Algebra Readiness Diagnostic Test, as well as a brief description of support from the Differentiated Technical Assistance Team. This document also contains appendices that provide additional information, including several forms:

• Virginia Timeline, Memorandum of Understanding and Focus • Data System Approval Form • The 45-Day Pre-Standards of Learning (Pre-SOL) Instructional Plan • Indistar Training Schedule • Indistar Rubric • Adaptive Reading Assessment Program—Approval Form • Technical Assistance Request Form

Additionally, the document includes charts and diagrams as well as information on action steps, processes, protocols, and tasks to perform using hypothetical school scenarios. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Title I Focus Schools: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://focus-schools.dpi.wi.gov/focus_faq This resource is a specific component of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) website that addresses frequently asked questions about Focus Schools in Wisconsin. The website includes several subdivisions through which questions are categorized based on common topics. The first section provides an overview and rationale for the changes in the state accountability system, including a detailed definition of Focus Schools. The second section addresses specific details regarding how Focus Schools are identified. An interesting facet of this process is that beginning in the 2011–2012 school year, DPI will identify a new cohort of Title I Focus Schools once every 4 years. The state will concentrate efforts on that group of schools long-term over 4 years and not add additional schools to that cohort. The next cohort will be selected in the 2014–2015 school year. Another section addresses specific FAQs regarding the interventions required by DPI. Part of the state’s reform strategy involves application of tools such as Indistar and broader research-based interventions such as RtI. This section also includes answers to questions regarding the roles and responsibilities of the DPI liaisons for Focus Schools. Subsequent sections include questions centered on the process that DPI uses to monitor Focus Schools' implementation of required interventions, exit



criteria for Title I Focus Schools, and the funding to support the implementation of Focus School requirements. This agency’s website does not address how or to what extent interventions or best practices have narrowed achievement gaps in Focus Schools in Wisconsin. However, the website does mention that DPI deliberately made a four-year commitment to support each identified cohort of Title I Focus Schools. This concentrated long-term commitment should enable DPI and Focus Schools to identify the most effective interventions and best practices as well as determine which Focus Schools can then be used as models for efforts to improve school performance. However, such reports or data have not yet been developed.

Information Requests are customized reports that are prepared to fulfill requests for information by the departments of education of the states served by the Southeast Comprehensive Center at SEDL. The requests address topics on current education issues related to the requirements and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For additional information, visit the SECC website at secc.sedl.org.

Wesley A. Hoover, PhD, SEDL President and CEO Vicki Dimock, PhD, SEDL Chief Program Officer Robin Jarvis, PhD, SEDL Program Director Beth Howard-Brown, EdD, SECC Project Director Chris Times, MBA, SECC Communications Associate and Publication Editor

Information Request Team: Ramona Chauvin, PhD, Program Associate; Don Doggett, MEd, Program Associate; Beth Howard-Brown, EdD, Project Director; Concepcion Molina, EdD, Program Associate; Lisa Raphael, PhD, Research Associate; and Chris Times, MBA, Communications Associate

Alabama State Liaison: Heidi Goertzen, MEd ([email protected]) Georgia State Liaison: Glenda Copeland, MA ([email protected]) Mississippi State Liaison: Debra Meibaum, MAT ([email protected]) North Carolina State Liaison: Shirley Carraway, EdD ([email protected]) South Carolina State Liaison: Don Doggett, MEd ([email protected])

The Southeast Comprehensive Center is a project of SEDL. SEDL Headquarters 4700 Mueller Blvd. Austin, TX 78723 800-476-6861 www.sedl.org

Southeast Comprehensive Center at SEDL 440 Knox Abbott Drive, Suite 200 Cayce, SC 29033 803-936-0750 secc.sedl.org

Copyright© 2014 by SEDL. SECC is one of 15 regional centers established by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The primary goal of the regional centers is to build the capacity of the state education agencies and statewide systems of support to implement ESEA. Links to the other regional centers, the content centers, and ED may be found on the SECC website (secc.sedl.org). The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from ED. The contents do not, however, necessarily represent the policy of ED, and one should not assume endorsement by the federal government.

Documents

SECC Information Request Focus School Interventions ... · 440 Knox Abbott Drive, Suite 200 | Cayce, South Carolina 29033 | 803-936-0750 | secc.sedl.org Information REQUEST Focus