Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance

1. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – Technical Assistance Michigan Department of Education September 8, 2011

2. 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.

3. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools State Statute Review

4. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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!

8. 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 • 9total schools on the Tier I list • 5 from path 1 • 4 from path 2

9. 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!

10. 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

11. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools by Tier • Tier I List 9 • Tier II List 89 Total 98

12. 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

13. Start with raw data % proficient % improving minus % declining (MEAP) % improvement trend slope (MME)

14. Calculate z-scores Z-scores are a statistical method used to level the playing field between… ELA and Math Elementary/Middle and High schools Achievement and Improvement Positive z-scores show how many standard deviations (SD) above the pool average the school is Negative z-scores show how many standard deviations (SD) below the pool average the school is

15. Calculate a combined Proficiency/improvement score and percentile rank for each… Subject (ELA vs. math) Level of School (elementary/middle versus high school)

16. Calculate average and overall percentile rank

17. Examples • Examples are shown for a high school and for an elementary/ middle school in the following slides.

18. September 8, 2011

20. 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.

21. 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, 2011

22. 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). August 26, 2011

23. Creating the PLA Statewide List • Your school might be anywhere on this statewide list. August 26, 2011

24. 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. August 26, 2011

25. 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. August 26, 2011

26. Creating the Tier I List • 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) August 26, 2011

27. Identifying the Tier II Pool • 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. August 26, 2011

28. Creating the Tier II List • 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). August 26, 2011

29. Creating the Tier II List • 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. • These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue. August 26, 2011

30. Creating the Tier II List • 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. • These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue. • Switch these schools to bright blue. • This is the rest of the Tier II list of PLA schools. These schools are also under the responsibility of the SRO. August 26, 2011

31. Other Low Achieving Schools • 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. • These are the schools in gray whose performance is lower than the highest school in bright red or bright blue. • These schools are not under the responsibility of the SRO.

32. 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. August 26, 2011

33. 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.

34. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools State Requirements and Timeline

35. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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.

36. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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.

37. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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

38. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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.

39. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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)

40. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools 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.

41. 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

42. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • 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

43. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • Opportunity for Technical Assistance October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Banquet Rooms 1-4 Lansing Center Lansing, 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.

44. Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools • The Four Reform Models • Transformation • Turnaround • Closure • Restart

48. Lessons Learned • Plan early and often • Set high expectations • Signal a change (quick wins) • Require all staff to change (not optional) • Start, Stop, Continue

49. Lessons Learned • Increased Learning Time • More is not necessarily better • Incentives • Keep Everyone Informed • Involve the Right People • School Board, students, community

50. Success Stories • Romulus Middle School • Saginaw High School • Dixon Elementary