1 / 42

Florida s Differentiated Accountability Program

Florida's School Grading Model and No Child Left Behind's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Model. 3. Florida's School Grading System: 50% based on Current-Year FCAT Performance, 50% based on Learning Gains. . . While Florida's school grading system places extra emphasis on the learning gains of the lowest performers in reading and math, it does not specifically address the performance of subgroups as does AYP. .

corbin
Download Presentation

Florida s Differentiated Accountability Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Program Leadership: Our Bridge over Troubled Waters The 63d Annual Joint Conference FSBA, FADDS, FSBAA, FEN, FERMA, SUNSPRA, & FELL Good afternoon, etc. I am pleased to be here with my colleague from the Florida Department of Education, Nikolai Vitti as well as Jeff Eakins from Hillsborough County Schools.Good afternoon, etc. I am pleased to be here with my colleague from the Florida Department of Education, Nikolai Vitti as well as Jeff Eakins from Hillsborough County Schools.

    2. Florida’s School Grading Model and No Child Left Behind’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Model Before we get into the details about differentiated accountability, let me give you a quick review of Florida’s starting place with respect to state and federal accountability when the possibility for this program- differentiated accountability - was announced in the spring of 2008. Before we get into the details about differentiated accountability, let me give you a quick review of Florida’s starting place with respect to state and federal accountability when the possibility for this program- differentiated accountability - was announced in the spring of 2008.

    3. Florida’s School Grading System: 50% based on Current-Year FCAT Performance, 50% based on Learning Gains Florida’s school grading system is built upon the performance of individual school children in grades 3-11. It is a point system where half of the points awarded are computed based on the percent of students who are proficient or better; half of the points are based on learning gains achieved by students from one year to the next with special attention to lower performing students. While Florida’s school grading system places extra emphasis on the learning gains of the lowest performers in reading and math, it does not specifically address the performance of subgroups as does AYP. Florida’s school grading system is built upon the performance of individual school children in grades 3-11. It is a point system where half of the points awarded are computed based on the percent of students who are proficient or better; half of the points are based on learning gains achieved by students from one year to the next with special attention to lower performing students. While Florida’s school grading system places extra emphasis on the learning gains of the lowest performers in reading and math, it does not specifically address the performance of subgroups as does AYP.

    4. Florida’s School Grading System: A Scaled Approach Florida’s school grading system has the advantage of employing end results that are familiar to the public (grades) while recognizing gradations of performance. It is not an all-or-none system. Florida’s school grading system has the advantage of employing end results that are familiar to the public (grades) while recognizing gradations of performance. It is not an all-or-none system.

    5. Note: In 2007, standards were raised with the introduction of FCAT science and Adequate Progress for the Low 25 in math to the school grading components. In Florida law, schools performing poorly- those that are repeating F schools, those receiving Fs for the first time, and D schools are to be monitored by the state department and receive additional services aimed at their improvement. Note: In 2007, standards were raised with the introduction of FCAT science and Adequate Progress for the Low 25 in math to the school grading components. In Florida law, schools performing poorly- those that are repeating F schools, those receiving Fs for the first time, and D schools are to be monitored by the state department and receive additional services aimed at their improvement.

    6. AYP: All or None 39 Components: 36 subgroup-based components: 4 measures (percent-tested math; percent tested reading; proficiency in math; proficiency in reading) x 9 subgroups Plus 3 school-wide components: * graduation rate * writing proficiency * school grade For a “Yes” on AYP, a school must not fail to meet the AYP criteria for any component. AYP addresses key subgroup performance but is an all-or-none system. Failure to meet AYP requirements in only one of the 39 components means that a school does not make AYP. Thus, a school meeting 97% (but not 100%) of AYP criteria does not make AYP. AYP adds the provision that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014 which results in annual proficiency targets which increase every year. Schools receiving federal funding through Title I of NCLB that miss AYP for more than one year in a row, enter a status called “Schools in Need of Improvement” or “SINI.” Schools in SINI status are to receive progressively more aggressive services and attention the longer they are in SINI status – schools in this status for 5 years or more are to restructured. AYP addresses key subgroup performance but is an all-or-none system. Failure to meet AYP requirements in only one of the 39 components means that a school does not make AYP. Thus, a school meeting 97% (but not 100%) of AYP criteria does not make AYP. AYP adds the provision that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014 which results in annual proficiency targets which increase every year. Schools receiving federal funding through Title I of NCLB that miss AYP for more than one year in a row, enter a status called “Schools in Need of Improvement” or “SINI.” Schools in SINI status are to receive progressively more aggressive services and attention the longer they are in SINI status – schools in this status for 5 years or more are to restructured.

    7. Florida Schools Making AYP ( 24% in 2008): 2008 vs. 2007 While nearly 74% of Florida’s graded schools were classified as high-performing – that is they scored an A or B in 2007-08, 24% of Florida’s schools made AYP in 2008. While nearly 74% of Florida’s graded schools were classified as high-performing – that is they scored an A or B in 2007-08, 24% of Florida’s schools made AYP in 2008.

    8. Federal Pilot Program: Differentiated Accountability Overall trend in Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) increasing across states as annual targets for AYP increase. March 2008: U.S. Dept. of Education recognizes wide variation in the extent of academic problems in schools identified as in need of improvement (SINIs), announces a pilot program for up to 10 states. New program allows states to vary the intensity and type of interventions to match academic areas in need of improvement. USED: “After six years of NCLB implementation, the data has shown [that] the extent of the academic achievement problems leading to a school’s identification differs widely within states.”USED: “After six years of NCLB implementation, the data has shown [that] the extent of the academic achievement problems leading to a school’s identification differs widely within states.”

    9. Federal Core Principles AYP Determinations as in approved accountability plan Clear and understandable to the public Schools identified for improvement as provided for in the accountability plan Differentiation method is clear and is based primarily on math and reading proficiency Transition to model must consider current status of schools Process for differentiation are data driven and understandable All Title I schools are subject to intervention and the interventions escalate over time Interventions are educationally sound – provide evidence of effectiveness, describe how resources will be leveraged The model is designed to result in increased numbers of students participating in public school choice and supplemental education services There must be at least one category of differentiation that focuses on a subset of the lowest performing schools that have not met achievement targets in five years – these get the most significant interventions In selecting states for the DA pilot program, USED looked to identify states with high percentages of SINIs – high enough to impact a state’s capacity to provide meaningful reforms – with the tradeoff being that selected states would commit to building their capacity for school reform, take the most significant actions for the lowest-performing schools, address issues of teacher effectiveness, and use data to determine the method of differentiation and categories of intervention. -- Four core principle areas: Accountability (the state must maintain its current practice for determining AYP and identifying SINIs); Differentiation (the state must clearly define its processes for categorizing schools in the model); Interventions (the state must clearly define its system of interventions and how they will apply to all schools in the model); Restructuring (the state must clearly define its interventions for the lowest-performing schools). In selecting states for the DA pilot program, USED looked to identify states with high percentages of SINIs – high enough to impact a state’s capacity to provide meaningful reforms – with the tradeoff being that selected states would commit to building their capacity for school reform, take the most significant actions for the lowest-performing schools, address issues of teacher effectiveness, and use data to determine the method of differentiation and categories of intervention. -- Four core principle areas: Accountability (the state must maintain its current practice for determining AYP and identifying SINIs); Differentiation (the state must clearly define its processes for categorizing schools in the model); Interventions (the state must clearly define its system of interventions and how they will apply to all schools in the model); Restructuring (the state must clearly define its interventions for the lowest-performing schools).

    10. Florida’s Model Florida selected by the U.S. Department of Education on July 1, 2008. Total of six states approved. Aligns and integrates Florida’s “School Grading” Accountability System with the Federal “NCLB” Accountability System. Separates schools with comparatively fewer problem areas from those with more widespread problem areas. Provides a seamless support system for the two merged accountability programs through “regional” delivery. Six states approved = Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and OhioSix states approved = Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio

    11. Aligning AYP and School Grades for Differentiated Accountability When AYP results are viewed not in absolute “YES/NO” terms but in terms of the percentage of AYP criteria met, we find a basis on which school grades and AYP can be seen as more compatible. Because our proposal had to be submitted to USED in early May 2008, we did not have access to 2008 AYP and school grade results (at the time of submission).When AYP results are viewed not in absolute “YES/NO” terms but in terms of the percentage of AYP criteria met, we find a basis on which school grades and AYP can be seen as more compatible. Because our proposal had to be submitted to USED in early May 2008, we did not have access to 2008 AYP and school grade results (at the time of submission).

    12. Developing Florida’s Model After establishing compatible comparisons of AYP and school grading data, we developed a preliminary “20-cell” DA model based on schools in need of improvement status from 2006-07 AYP results and the school grades for the same year.After establishing compatible comparisons of AYP and school grading data, we developed a preliminary “20-cell” DA model based on schools in need of improvement status from 2006-07 AYP results and the school grades for the same year.

    13. CATEGORY I – Combines all of Group 1 and part of Group 2 to create A, B, and C schools that have met at least 80% of the AYP criteria. CATEGORY II – Combines part of Group 2 and all of Groups 3 and 4 to create graded and ungraded schools that have met less than 80% of the AYP criteria, as well as all D and F schools.CATEGORY I – Combines all of Group 1 and part of Group 2 to create A, B, and C schools that have met at least 80% of the AYP criteria. CATEGORY II – Combines part of Group 2 and all of Groups 3 and 4 to create graded and ungraded schools that have met less than 80% of the AYP criteria, as well as all D and F schools.

    14. SINI-Prevent – combines SINI groups 1, 2, and 3 and identifies schools that are not yet in the restructuring phase, yet need services to prevent the progression to restructuring. SINI-Correct – combines schools in SINI groups 4 and 5, and identifies schools that are in restructuring mode and for which the need for intervention is more urgent. SINI-Prevent – combines SINI groups 1, 2, and 3 and identifies schools that are not yet in the restructuring phase, yet need services to prevent the progression to restructuring. SINI-Correct – combines schools in SINI groups 4 and 5, and identifies schools that are in restructuring mode and for which the need for intervention is more urgent.

    15. Aims of consolidation: Separates schools with comparatively fewer problem areas in AYP from schools with more widespread problem areas. Separates schools with comparatively high learning gains from schools with lower gains. Helps further differentiate between improvement needs of schools by including state accountability criteria (school grading) while assigning priority status to federal accountability criteria (AYP). Directs the targeting of interventions narrowly or broadly, based on category. Aims of consolidation: Separates schools with comparatively fewer problem areas in AYP from schools with more widespread problem areas. Separates schools with comparatively high learning gains from schools with lower gains. Helps further differentiate between improvement needs of schools by including state accountability criteria (school grading) while assigning priority status to federal accountability criteria (AYP). Directs the targeting of interventions narrowly or broadly, based on category.

    17. Title I schools that are SINI 4 or more and have met less than 80% of AYP criteria or were graded D or F, and all repeating F schools (regardless of Title I status), are further analyzed using the following four questions: Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased or stayed the same (failed to improve) since 2003? Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased or stayed the same (failed to improve) since 2003? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Schools for which three or more answers are “Yes” are classified as Intervene schools. In addition, any school, regardless of Title I status, that has received 4 or more F grades in the last six years is classified as an Intervene schoolTitle I schools that are SINI 4 or more and have met less than 80% of AYP criteria or were graded D or F, and all repeating F schools (regardless of Title I status), are further analyzed using the following four questions: Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased or stayed the same (failed to improve) since 2003? Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased or stayed the same (failed to improve) since 2003? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Schools for which three or more answers are “Yes” are classified as Intervene schools. In addition, any school, regardless of Title I status, that has received 4 or more F grades in the last six years is classified as an Intervene school

    21. Based on 2007-08 School Grades and AYP

    22. Florida’s Approved Program

    23. Major Changes Streamlines School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress accountability systems Combines accountability, monitoring, and focused/intimate support Increases interventions, monitoring, and support as school grades and AYP declines Delivers support through a five-region model Provides Supplemental Educational Services first, then Choice Streamlines by joining the School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) systems. The level of support and interventions increase in lower performing schools Support will be provided through 5 regional offices that will be able to triage more expeditiously Supplemental Educational Services is provided first (SINI 1) and for all SINIs, while Choice with Transportation is provided in SINI 2-5+Streamlines by joining the School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) systems. The level of support and interventions increase in lower performing schools Support will be provided through 5 regional offices that will be able to triage more expeditiously Supplemental Educational Services is provided first (SINI 1) and for all SINIs, while Choice with Transportation is provided in SINI 2-5+

    24. Major Changes Operationalizes services through interventions and regional support organized around nine areas: Improvement Planning Leadership Educator Quality Professional Development Curriculum Aligned and Paced Continuous Improvement Model Choice with Transportation Supplemental Educational Services Monitoring Plans and Processes These are described in greater detail later in the presentationThese are described in greater detail later in the presentation

    25. School Categories Specifics on the Categories Title I schools are grouped by SINI status, school grade, and the percent of AYP criteria met. Non-Title I Repeating F, F, and D schools are included in the model to ensure continued support. Grouping by SINI Status and School Grade Prevent = SINIs in year 1 through 3 of SINI status and non-Title I D schools Correct = SINIs at or beyond year 4 of SINI status and non-Title I F schools Categorization based on school grade and percent of AYP criteria met Category I = A, B, C, and Ungraded schools that meet at least 80% of AYP criteria. Category II = schools that meet less than 80% of AYP criteria as well as all Title I and non-Title I Ds and Fs Specifics on the Categories Title I schools are grouped by SINI status, school grade, and the percent of AYP criteria met. Non-Title I Repeating F, F, and D schools are included in the model to ensure continued support. Grouping by SINI Status and School Grade Prevent = SINIs in year 1 through 3 of SINI status and non-Title I D schools Correct = SINIs at or beyond year 4 of SINI status and non-Title I F schools Categorization based on school grade and percent of AYP criteria met Category I = A, B, C, and Ungraded schools that meet at least 80% of AYP criteria. Category II = schools that meet less than 80% of AYP criteria as well as all Title I and non-Title I Ds and Fs

    26. Intervene Selection Criteria I. D or F Title I school in 2008 OR Repeating F (two F grades in a four year period), regardless of Title I or SINI status in 2008 AND Has answered “Yes” to three out of four Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased since 2003? Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased since 2003? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Most Critical Schools - Intervene Schools SINI Intervene – Lowest performing schools requiring the most intensive intervention that are a subset of Correct II schools A “D “or “F” Title I school in 2008, or A Double “F”, regardless of Title I or SINI status in 2008 AND have answered “Yes” to three out of four of the following questions: Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased since 2003? Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased since 2003? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Also included are Chronic F schools (Title I and non-Title I) that are current Double “F” schools and have earned four “F” grades between 2003 and 2008 (3 schools)Most Critical Schools - Intervene Schools SINI Intervene – Lowest performing schools requiring the most intensive intervention that are a subset of Correct II schools A “D “or “F” Title I school in 2008, or A Double “F”, regardless of Title I or SINI status in 2008 AND have answered “Yes” to three out of four of the following questions: Has the percentage of non-proficient students in reading increased since 2003? Has the percentage of non-proficient students in math increased since 2003? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in reading? Are 65 percent or more of the school’s students non-proficient in math? Also included are Chronic F schools (Title I and non-Title I) that are current Double “F” schools and have earned four “F” grades between 2003 and 2008 (3 schools)

    27. New Intervene Options - Requirements The Department met with Superintendents with Intervene schools on October 30-31, 2008. As a result of this meeting, a new category for schools that have improved a letter grade but did not make AYP was created – Transitional Status Transitional Status schools will have an additional year to implement the interventions in place at the school. If a Transitional Status schools does not meet the Ext Intervene Status criteria at the end of the 2009-10 school year, they will have to implement one of the Intervene options. New Intervene Options - Requirements The Department met with Superintendents with Intervene schools on October 30-31, 2008. As a result of this meeting, a new category for schools that have improved a letter grade but did not make AYP was created – Transitional Status Transitional Status schools will have an additional year to implement the interventions in place at the school. If a Transitional Status schools does not meet the Ext Intervene Status criteria at the end of the 2009-10 school year, they will have to implement one of the Intervene options.

    28. Intervene Status Stages Exit Intervene Status – Progress Made School improves letter grade to “C” or higher and increases the overall percent of AYP criteria met by one subgroup in Reading in one in Mathematics School is no longer Intervene

    29. Intervene Status Stages Transitional Status School increases performance by one or more letter grades but does not increase AYP performance by one subgroup in Reading in one in Mathematics School continues all previous interventions in 2009-10, conducts data analysis, and develop an action plan If the school makes progress it will move to Exit Intervene Status If the school does not make progress it will move to Full Intervene Implementation

    30. Intervene Status Stages Full Intervene Implementation School does not meet Transitional or Exit Intervene Status Reassign students and monitor progress Restructure as a district-managed turnaround school Close and reopen as a charter Contract with a private entity to run the school

    31. Differentiated Accountability Requirements

    32. Roles of the School, District and State Prevent I – school directs intervention, district provides assistance, state monitors Correct I – district directs intervention, state reviews progress Prevent II – district directs intervention and provides assistance Correct II – school and district implement state-directed interventions Intervene – school and district implement state-directed interventions and face possible closure, state monitors

    33. Overview of Requirements Improvement Planning – Incorporates state and federal requirements for improvement planning for schools and districts Leadership – Requires leadership team to have a demonstrated success record Educator Quality – Targets quality teachers to low-performing subgroups LEADERSHIP Principal and/or leadership team have a prior success record Performance appraisals include performance of subgroups not making AYP ED QUALITY Teachers assigned to subgroups not making AYP are highly-qualified and certified in field No teachers in need of improvement in Correct II and Intervene Performance appraisals based primarily on student achievement LEADERSHIP Principal and/or leadership team have a prior success record Performance appraisals include performance of subgroups not making AYP ED QUALITY Teachers assigned to subgroups not making AYP are highly-qualified and certified in field No teachers in need of improvement in Correct II and Intervene Performance appraisals based primarily on student achievement

    34. Overview of Requirements Professional Development – Targets professional development to low-performing subgroups Curriculum Alignment and Pacing – Requires evidence-based curriculum, pacing guides, and access to rigorous coursework PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Professional development plans targets subgroups not making AYP Professional Learning Communities/common planning time are also required in Prevent II – Intervene to provide opportunities for lesson studies and job-embedded professional development PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Professional development plans targets subgroups not making AYP Professional Learning Communities/common planning time are also required in Prevent II – Intervene to provide opportunities for lesson studies and job-embedded professional development

    35. Overview of Requirements Continuous Improvement – Ensures the use of formative and diagnostic assessments and data-driven instruction Choice with Transportation – Choice for SINI 2-5+ Supplemental Educational Services – SES for all SINIs Monitoring Processes and Plans – Requires monitoring teams with clearly defined roles and monitoring plans CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Also requires mini-assessments and instructional focus calendars to drive instruction MONITORING Monitoring of classroom instruction SIP and PD monitoring CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Also requires mini-assessments and instructional focus calendars to drive instruction MONITORING Monitoring of classroom instruction SIP and PD monitoring

    36. Overview of Requirements Priority for implementation in the 2008-09 school year - Intervene, F, and Repeating F schools Districts must make every effort to ensure implementation of requirements in Correct II schools during this school year In cases of non-compliance, the district must have a comprehensive plan for addressing the requirement

    37. Overview of Requirements All Intervene, Repeating F, and F schools are either in full compliance or working on attaining compliance

    38. Regional Support System

    39. Regional Approach Regional Executive Directors Regional Leader/Bureau Chief Change agents with a prior success record of increasing student achievement Instructional Specialists Content and pedagogy experts Conduct data collection and monitoring Broker targeted professional development Provide direct support through an established network Conduct data collection and monitoring Broker targeted professional development Provide direct support through an established network

    40. The five regions have been reconfigured to ensure comprehensive support to all districts and schools. It is anticipated that the most intensive support will be provided to Intervene and Correct II schools. All districts will be provided comprehensive support in capacity building to ensure they can provide the assistance necessary to improve the achievement of all their schools.The five regions have been reconfigured to ensure comprehensive support to all districts and schools. It is anticipated that the most intensive support will be provided to Intervene and Correct II schools. All districts will be provided comprehensive support in capacity building to ensure they can provide the assistance necessary to improve the achievement of all their schools.

    41. Regional Executive Directors Region 1 -Nikolai Vitti (Lead Director/Bureau Chief): Nikolai.Vitti@fldoe.org Region 2 – Leila Mousa: Leila.Mousa@fldoe.org Region 3 – Joseph Burke: Joseph.Burke@fldoe.org Region 4 – Gail Daves: Gail.Daves@fldoe.org Region 5 – Jeffrey Hernandez: Jeffrey.Hernandez@fldoe.org

    42. Roles and Responsibilities Regional Offices will: Meet with Superintendents and District Leadership Teams to discuss Differentiated Accountability Review and approve School Improvement Plans for Intervene, Repeating F, and F Correct II schools Work with district staff to support low-performing schools Conduct Instructional Reviews Provide professional development and coaching to district and school leadership teams to improve teaching and learning Provide support in the school improvement planning, implementation, and evaluation process Provide support in data analysis and continuous improvement To Date: All Intervene, Repeating F, and F schools have been visited. Instructional Reviews have been conducted and areas of strengths and weaknesses identified. Follow-up action plans have been developed that include the necessary professional development to improve instruction in the classroom. Compliance reviews on Differentiated Accountability have shown that schools and districts continue to struggle with appraisals, non-highly qualified teachers and vacancies, coaches, professional development targeting AYP subgroups, professional learning communities, the Continuous Improvement Model, and Response to Intervention. To Date: All Intervene, Repeating F, and F schools have been visited. Instructional Reviews have been conducted and areas of strengths and weaknesses identified. Follow-up action plans have been developed that include the necessary professional development to improve instruction in the classroom. Compliance reviews on Differentiated Accountability have shown that schools and districts continue to struggle with appraisals, non-highly qualified teachers and vacancies, coaches, professional development targeting AYP subgroups, professional learning communities, the Continuous Improvement Model, and Response to Intervention.

    43. Details… http://www.flbsi.org

More Related