Missouri School Improvement Program: Support and Intervention 2014

2014·2.2 MB·English

by  Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Missouri School Improvement Program:
Support and Intervention
© 2014 MoDESE
Missouri School Improvement Program:
Support and Intervention
The Missouri State Board of Education and the ACCREDITATION
Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Department) are dedicated to ensuring
that children have access to good community schools The Missouri School Improvement Program, or MSIP,
that prepare them for college and career success. is the Department’s process for distinguishing the
performance of schools in valid, accurate and meaningful
ways. The goal of the system is to promote continuous
The Missouri School Improvement Program: Support improvement in the public schools of the state. Missouri
and Intervention holds districts and schools accountable has a dual responsibility for the quality of education
for the same performance standards and indicators, yet provided to its citizens. First, it must ensure that all
takes a differentiated approach to state support based on schools meet certain minimum standards. Second, it has
district performance and need. The following principles a responsibility to see that the schools continue to strive
are central to the development of this plan: for excellence in preparing students for an increasingly
• A focus on children and families competitive world. MSIP incorporates these two
• Access to high-quality schools for every child responsibilities.
• Solutions to meet the needs of each district
and community
• Early intervention and prevention Begun in 1990, this evaluation system has evolved to
• High expectations for all students include a wide range of student test scores, career and
WHY THE URGENCY
Thousands of Missouri’s children are attending
school in provisionally accredited or unaccredited
districts. According to the Department’s classification
system, such districts are not providing children
with education that meets the state’s standards for
academic achievement. The majority of students in
our unaccredited districts across the state are falling
devastatingly short of attaining the basic numeracy and
literacy skills necessary for success in school and in life.
The 1993 Outstanding Schools Act allows parents of
children who are attending school in such a district
to transfer their children to a school in an accredited
district. Upheld twice by the Missouri Supreme Court
in 2013, the law demands that the unaccredited school
district pay tuition to the other school district and
provide for the transportation of a student attending a
school in an accredited district. A consequence of the
law as currently written and interpreted by the courts is
that an unaccredited district faces the danger of financial
collapse when the transfer provisions are enacted.
2 © 2014 MoDESE
college readiness measures, graduation rates, attendance rates and subgroup achievement scores. These measures
are then calculated and reflected in school- and district-level Annual Performance Reports (APRs). Each year, the
Department reviews the APRs and follows a four-step process in making recommendations to the State Board of
Education.
Step 1 - The Department releases district Annual Performance Reports. The percent of overall points earned on the
APR defines the APR Status that year, using one of the following classification categories. Multiple APRs are used
to determine district classification; one year of APR status does not represent a district’s classification by the State
Board of Education.
Accreditation Levels Percent of Points Earned
Accredited with Distinction The district earned a minimum of 90% or more of the APR
points possible AND meets other criteria established by the
State Board of Education.
Accredited The district earned 70% or more of the APR points possible.
Provisionally Accredited The district earned 50% or more of the APR points possible.
Unaccredited The district earned less than 50% of the APR points possible.
Step 2 - The Department reviews each district’s accreditation status and the APR supporting data for the three most
recent APRs to identify trends and status in performance outcomes. This information is used to determine support
and, if necessary, interventions in districts.
Step 3 - The Department reviews each school’s accreditation status and the APR supporting data for the three most
recent APRs to identify trends and status in performance outcomes. This information is used to determine support
and, if necessary, interventions in schools with coordination at the district level.
Step 4 - The Department uses the data review process described in “Step 2” to make district accreditation
classification recommendations to the State Board of Education. Recommendations are made based on APR status
and APR trends and may include other factors as appropriate, e.g., Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP)
goals, previous audit reports, financial status, and/or leadership stability.
More information about MSIP accreditation criteria and methodology is available at:
http://dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/MSIP-5-comprehensive-guide-3-13.pdf.
SUPPORT
All Missouri public schools have access to numerous school improvement supports provided by the Department
including, but not limited to:
• Model Comprehensive Literacy Plan
• Model curriculum
• Data team training
• Webinars, videos, and professional development presentations
• Summer training sessions
• Digital library of formative assessments
• Educator Evaluation System
• Missouri Growth Model
• Missouri Comprehensive Data System Portal
In an effort to further advance the goal of reaching the Top 10 x 20 in student performance (a major improvement
effort that aims for student achievement in Missouri to rank among the top 10 performing states by 2020), the
Department is using a tiered support system aligned to the approved MSIP Process Standards. The Process Standards
address the instructional and administrative processes used in schools. They include standards on the following:
© 2014 MoDESE 3
• Teachers and Leaders
• Quality Instruction – including curriculum, assessment (both formative and summative), effective use of data to
inform decisions, effective teaching/learning practices and professional development
• Governance
Parent and community involvement are integrated throughout all areas. A complete description of the Resource and
Process Standards can be located in Appendix F.
As stated earlier, the Department uses the APR to distinguish the performance of schools in valid, accurate and
meaningful ways. Identifying trends in student performance allows for a data-driven, early-detection support system
for schools and districts. A tiered system provides optional access to high-quality educational supports for all schools
and targeted, required supports and interventions to schools most in need. This approach maximizes the use of
resources and is flexible enough to meet the many unique needs of the diverse schools in the state.
INTERVENTION
The Department has the authority and the responsibility to offer more supervision, assistance and, if necessary,
intervention to prevent districts or schools from falling below accredited levels or, if already below accredited levels,
to provide assistance and intervention to prevent districts or schools from failing. Incremental change has been tried
for years and has not worked. This plan outlines when and how the Department will provide support, assistance and,
if necessary, intervention to ensure all children are provided access to a local, high-quality education.
The Missouri School Improvement Program: Support and Intervention is a tiered approach to early identification
and early intervention for schools and districts. Optional support components are available to all schools and dis-
tricts (Tier I). When schools do not perform adequately, additional supports are applied (Tier II, Tier III and Tier IV).
Supports and interventions intensify if schools continue to demonstrate a lack of improvement or a decline in perfor-
mance. An increasing level of support is provided with each tier.
4 © 2014 MoDESE
Tig ht
& In t e r v e n tio n
S u p p o rt
S t a t e
m st
Missouri School Improvement Program: Support and Intervention L oAccredited with Distinction and Accredited Districts with at least District o s e75% of possible APR points and no schools with less than 70% CSIP (Tier I) District Oversight of Accredited Districts with less than 75% of possible APR points and/or 2 consecutive years of decline ≥ 5% of points and/or school(s) with less than CSIP (Supports Optional)70% and/or within district achievement gape (Tier II a)d Department Oversight of Tier II for two or more consecutive yearsCSIP (Supports Recommended/(Tier II b)Intervention Possible) m a nPc• Targeted Audit(s)reoAProvisionally Accredited Districtsvci• Regional School Improvement Teacs(Tier III)ir oe• Performance Contractndiatlle yd Unaccredited • Performance ContractU Districtsn• Fiscal Monitor Approveda (Tier IV)c c• Governance ReviewedLro ew LapseddAll Operational Elements of Previous District Cease to Exiit e d
c r e dit P e rfo r
c
A
Hig h
© 2014 MoDESE 5
SUMMARY OF MSIP DESIGNATION CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS
Drawing from lessons learned in both the MSIP and other school improvement initiatives, the following table out-
lines the supports and interventions that will be provided to districts and schools as part of the Missouri School
Improvement Program. The Department will provide increasing levels of support to districts and schools that are
underperforming.
Plan Monitoring
Designation Supports
Requirements Requirements
Accredited Comprehensive Items Not Supports available to all districts such as:
with School Waived - Formative and Summative Assessments
Distinction Improvement Checklist - Growth Model
Plan (CSIP) - Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
Accredited (CSIP) Items Not Supports available to all districts such as:
District Waived - Formative and Summative Assessments
Checklist - Growth Model
- Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
Accredited (CSIP) Items Not Supports available to all districts such as:
District Waived - Formative and Summative Assessments
(Tier II a) Checklist - Growth Model
- Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
A score be-
low 75% on District notified of status and recommended
the Annual research-based practices
Performance
Report (APR)
Two consecu-
tive years of ≥
5% decline on
the APR
One or more
of the dis-
trict’s schools
score less than
70% on the
APR
Largest
within-district
achievement
gap
6 © 2014 MoDESE
Plan Monitoring
Designation Supports
Requirements Requirements
Accredited Department- Items Not Waived Supports available to all districts such as:
District (Tier approved district Checklist - Formative and Summative Assessments
II b) CSIP - Growth Model
Targeted audit(s) - Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
Meets criteria based on review
indicated of the district’s Targeted audit(s) determine research-based
in Tier II a data interventions
above for two
consecutive Focused
years monitoring
determined by the
Department
Provisionally Performance Items Not Waived Department may appoint an on-site
Accredited contract between Checklist instructional monitor
District (Tier local board and
III) the State Board Targeted audit(s) Supports available to all districts such as:
of Education based on review - Formative and Summative Assessments
of the district’s - Growth Model
Department- data - Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
approved
district CSIP Regional School Targeted audit(s) determine research-based
and school level Improvement interventions that must be implemented by the
improvement Team (RSIT) district and/or school. Audits include such areas
plan outline the is activated – as:
actions necessary Chaired by the - Teacher/Leader Effectiveness
to meet the Department - Quality Instruction
terms of the - Governance and Finance
performance Monthly
contract monitoring and Community-school compact executed
assistance from
the Department
Unaccredited Performance Regional School Department may appoint an on-site
District (Tier contract between Improvement instructional monitor
IV) local board and Team (RSIT)
the State Board continues Supports available to all districts such as:
of Education - Formative and Summative Assessments
continues Monthly - Growth Model
monitoring and - Teacher/Leader Evaluation Model
Implementation assistance from
of Department- the Department Targeted audit(s) determine research-based
approved interventions that must be implemented by the
district CSIP district and/or school. Audits include such areas
and school-level as:
improvement - Teacher/Leader Effectiveness
plan continue - Quality Instruction
- Governance and Finance
© 2014 MoDESE 7
Plan Monitoring
Designation Supports
Requirements Requirements
Community-school compact executed
Unaccredited
District (Tier
Department appoints transition task force
IV)
(continued)
State Board of Education reviews district’s
governance structure and determines
appropriate option
Department appoints fiscal monitor and
conducts onsite finance audit to determine fiscal
solvency
ACCREDITED OR ACCREDITED WITH district superintendent and school board recommending
research-based practices.
DISTINCTION
If the downward trend continues for two or more
If the district is accredited or accredited with distinction
years after identification, the Department asks the
the Department offers the district access to, but does not
district to submit for review its Comprehensive School
require, support and assistance.
Improvement Plan (CSIP).
Districts in this classification category must maintain a
The Department follows up quarterly and offers
Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) and
additional assistance toward meeting the improvement
continue to submit the MSIP Items Not Waived Checklist
goals outlined in the CSIP until the district scores more
(http://dese.mo.gov/forms/MO5002723.pdf).
than 75 percent on its Annual Performance Report, all
schools in the district receive more than 70 percent on
In an effort to prevent districts from declining to
their Annual Performance Reports, and the district is not
provisional or unaccredited designations, the Department
identified for a significant within-district achievement
offers support for success, assistance and intervention if
gap.
a district meets any one of these criteria:
• A district receives a score of less than 75 percent on
the Annual Performance Report (APR), the summary
of the state’s evaluation and accountability tool
(MSIP)
• A district’s Annual Performance Report shows two
consecutive years of ≥ 5 percent decline
• One or more of the district’s schools score less than
70 percent on the Annual Performance Report that
year
• The district has a large within-district achievement
gap for one or more of the five super subgroup
populations (Black, Hispanic, English Language
Learners, students with Individualized Education
Plans, or students who qualify for Free and Reduced
Price Lunch)
DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE
The Department identifies the district’s performance
trends through a review of the three most recent Annual
Performance Reports for the district and its schools.
If the review shows that any of the criteria in this
section are met, the Department issues a letter to the
8 © 2014 MoDESE
LOCAL BOARD EXPECTATIONS Regional School Improvement Team (RSIT) starts the
intervention process with a review of all relevant data.
The district administration has the responsibility to Appropriate audits will be directed by the RSIT, if not
inform its local board of education of the district’s status previously completed, and the results will be used to
on the Annual Performance Report (APR) and the steps develop the revised district Comprehensive School
being taken to improve student performance. The local Improvement Plan (CSIP) and appropriate School-Level
board should closely monitor progress when the district Improvement Plan (SIP) to inform the development of
earns a score of less than 75 percent on the Annual the performance contract. The audits may focus on one
Performance Report or has two consecutive years of or more of the following (Appendix A):
≥ 5% decline on its Annual Performance Report, has • Community Involvement
one or more schools with scores of less than 70 percent • Comprehensive School Improvement Plan
on the report, and/or has been identified as having a • Curriculum and Assessment
significant within-district achievement gap. • Data
• Educator Effect
District leadership and school board members will • Finance
ensure the following: • Governance
• Resources are directed toward improvement • Parent Involvement
initiatives. • Professional Learning
• The district maintains financial stability.
• All MSIP requirements are met. REGIONAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
TEAM AND CSIP APPROVED BY THE
A district that continues in this status after two years
DEPARTMENT
receives increased Department attention. At that point,
the attention may include a targeted audit(s) conducted
by a review team. These may or may not be conducted The Regional School Improvement Team (Appendix B)
on-site. The purpose of the audit is to examine a district’s is comprised of the district superintendent, school board
capacity to improve student performance as aligned member(s), building personnel as determined by the
with the Process Standards in the Missouri School superintendent, local project manager, the Department’s
Improvement Program (MSIP). The audits may focus on Area Supervisor, and other key stakeholders.
one or more of the following (Appendix A):
• Community Involvement The modified CSIP/SIP outlines how and when the
• Comprehensive School Improvement Plan district and/or school shall fulfill contract expectations.
• Curriculum and Assessment The Regional School Improvement Team will hold the
• Data district accountable for implementing its improvement
• Educator Effect plan and will assist in removing barriers that are counter
• Finance to improvement.
• Governance
• Parent Involvement CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT
• Professional Learning
At this point, the district’s local board of education and
A district exits this level of assistance by improving the State Board of Education will engage in the creation
district performance so that the district earns more than of a performance contract (Appendix D), which binds
75 percent on its Annual Performance Report, all schools the district and schools to annual targets and specific
in the district earn above 70 percent on their Annual interventions. Members of the local board will present
Performance Report, and the district is not identified as the performance contract to the State Board of Education
having a significant within-district achievement gap. for its consideration and approval.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED As part of the performance contract, the district will:
• Provide high-quality early childhood education for
In addition to the supports available in the previously all 3-4 year olds.
outlined tiers, a provisionally accredited district • Create opportunities for meaningful parent/
receives a more intensive level of intervention and community involvement.
monitoring. Focus is placed on district-level systems and • Extend school year programming (http://dese.
on individual schools with less than 70 percent of the mo.gov/qs/fedprog/sig/documents/qs-model-school-
possible points on the Annual Performance Report. calendar-2013-2014.pdf.).
• Extend opportunities for school day programming
Under the leadership of the Area Supervisor, the beyond the traditional 6½ hour school day.
© 2014 MoDESE 9
• Provide a structured afterschool program for students of school buildings.
who are not proficient in English language arts and • Other recommendations for serving the educational
mathematics. needs of the students residing in the unaccredited
• Provide a structured afterschool program in district.
partnership with a community agency, non-profit
group, or other organization. GOVERNANCE
• Participate in the Missouri Leadership for
Excellence, Achievement and Development
The State Board of Education determines whether to
(MOLEAD) program or Leadership Academy.
maintain the current governance structure (locally-
• Determine and provide local wraparound services.
elected school board), lapse the district’s corporate
organization and appoint a special administrative board,
The school district exits Tier III designation after
lapse the district’s corporate organization and determine
regaining accreditation by State Board of Education
an alternate governance structure under direct oversight
classification. Failure to meet or make substantial
of the State Board of Education, or lapse the district
progress toward meeting the annual targets, to implement
and attach the territory of the lapsed district to one or
the selected interventions with fidelity, or to fully meet
more districts or divide the district into multiple school
all terms and conditions results in more intensive levels
districts within the territory of the lapsed district. The
of intervention and monitoring.
State Board of Education in its sole authority can take
any option at any time. The decision is based on such
UNACCREDITED factors as the size of the school district, district financial
status, classification of neighboring school districts, and
geographic proximity of other adequately performing
SUPPORTS AND INTERVENTIONS
districts.
Districts that are classified as unaccredited continue to
The intention of this plan is to provide interventions to
build on the supports that are available to all districts in
assist local districts in maintaining or, when necessary,
Tiers I and II, and the interventions provided in Tier III.
regaining full accreditation and local autonomy. A
detailed outline of each the State Board of Education’s
The State Board of Education is authorized to review
options for unaccredited districts follows, along with a
district governance as provided by the authority in
description of the exiting conditions leading to increased
162.081 RSMo, which states that whenever any school
local autonomy.
district is classified unaccredited, the State Board of
Education will:
• Review the governance of the district to establish
Option A:
the conditions under which the existing school board
• Allow continued governance by the existing
shall continue to govern; or
school district board of education under terms
• Determine the date the district shall lapse and
and conditions established by the State Board of
determine an alternative governing structure for the
Education
district.
○ Extends for a maximum of three (3) additional
years the performance contract signed by the
While the Department has the authority to take
elected board and State Board of Education at the
immediate action in districts that have been classified as
provisionally accredited level of intervention.
unaccredited, there will be a transition period from the
○ Retains transfers eligibility for students to
interventions in Tier III to those in Tier IV.
an accredited school district in the same or
adjoining county.
To assist the State Board of Education in its review of
○ Maintains employee contracts.
district governance, a Transition Task Force is appointed
○ Permits lapsing of district and further
by the Commissioner to advise the Department. The
determination of governance by State Board
transition plan should provide recommendations for:
of Education pending annual review of student
• Organization and school oversight with a detailed
performance.
description of the governance structure and
responsibilities at each level.
Option A EXIT CONDITIONS:
• Advisory committees.
• If the district meets specific established performance
• Community partnerships.
standards, the Department will recommend to
• Recruiting and identifying high-quality educators to
the State Board of Education that the district be
teach and lead in the schools.
reclassified as provisionally accredited and that the
• Identifying sponsors to maintain the local operation
provisionally accredited level of intervention be
10 © 2014 MoDESE