1 / 18

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN NEVADA: PART 2

This article provides an overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements for implementing rigorous interventions in chronically underperforming schools in Nevada. It discusses the comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) schools, more rigorous options (MRO), and strategies such as additional state supports and innovation zones. State highlights and promising practices are also included.

mwalters
Download Presentation

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN NEVADA: PART 2

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. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTIN NEVADA:PART 2 State Board of EducationAugust 29, 2019

  2. Federal Requirements: ESSA Overview • The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) requires State Education Agencies (SEAs) to implement more rigorous interventions for chronically underperforming schools • Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools that fail to meet the exit criteria (Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(I) of ESEA, ESSA, 2015)

  3. Overview of More Rigorous Options (MRO) • Intensive and targeted support provided by the State Education Agency (SEA) to Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools that do not exit designation • Required implementation to begin no later than the state-determined exit year • Flexibility in the support provided during the first 1-4 years of identification and once CSI schools enter MRO intervention

  4. Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) Flow Chart

  5. More Rigorous Options (MRO) Options for MRO1 • Additional State Supports • Innovation Zones and Managed Partnerships • Receivership and Extraordinary Authority Districts • Charter Conversion • Closure 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  6. MROs in Nevada State ESSA Plan • Partnership with evidence based non-profit provider • Required evidence-based professional development and curriculum • Transition to only evidence based interventions with implementation support from  evidence based providers that meet ESSA Evidence Levels 1, 2, and 3 • Use Empowerment or Autonomy state designation to create operational flexibility at the school level to implement evidence-based interventions. • The conversion to an A+ school where an individual school is still part of the LEA, but it receives and controls 100% of the funding and has the ability to waive district policies that inhibit their ability to execute their transformation plan • Redesign (led by an evidence based support provider) • Restart/Reconstitution (led by a high quality principal)  • Charter conversion through the Achievement School District • Closure • Other more rigorous improvement strategies Note: Bolded text signifies that interventions are currently in place.

  7. Option #1: Additional State Supports1 • Strategy is focused on strengthening partnership, building district capacity, and serving in a support role • Promising Practices: • Conducts comprehensive needs assessment and revises school improvement plans with the district (AZ, CT, and OR) • Aligns resources to school improvement priorities (IA and OR) or determines how funds are used (OR, PA, and VT) • Monitors more frequently (AZ, OR, VA, and VT) or to inform early interventions (IL, KY, and OR) • Audits district and school capacity to lead improvement efforts (DE and ID) 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  8. Additional State Supports:State Highlights Oregon: The SEA determines an appropriate MRO (e.g., directs how to use resources/funds, increases coaching and on-site monitoring, reviews district capacity, requires targeted professional learning, and requires engagement in collaborative problem solving). Arizona: The SEA leverages a cross-divisional team to conduct comprehensive district and school needs assessments, identify new evidence-based MROs, and write new plan with the district. Monitoring and technical assistance are also increased. Kentucky: The SEA leverages a team of on-site Educational Recovery Staff to support each CSI-identified school in the first year of identification.

  9. Option #2: Innovation Zones and Managed Partnerships1 • Strategy is focused on school- or district- autonomy and flexibility, with the district maintaining full governance or a shared governance structure between the district and the state or an advisory council • Promising Practices: • Embeds evidence-based interventions in schools and evaluation for continuous improvement (MA, IN, and TN) • Aligns systems and conducts feedback loops so schools and the district are leveraged and accountable for change (TN) • Supports and includes feeder schools in the innovation zone (IN and TN) 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  10. Innovation Zones and Managed Partnerships: State Highlights Indiana: The State Board determines the intervention and requires the intervention. With the Transformation Zone, districts retain control but must receive support and technical assistance from a partner provider focused on areas for improvement. Tennessee: Districts can create district-run innovation zones that allow for flexibility in staffing, programming, and budget. Principals have autonomy (e.g., to hire their own staff members, provide performance bonuses, and extend the school day). Massachusetts: A non-profit, Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership (SEZP), manages select underperforming schools, in collaboration with the state, district, and local union.

  11. Option #3: Receivership and Extraordinary Authority Districts1 • Strategy is focused on using state legal authority to temporarily remove local control in order to take over governance of a district or school or appoint governance to an external provider • Promising Practices: • Partners with a university or research group to develop measures for evaluating impact, inform continuous improvement, and share information with stakeholders (LA, MA, and TN) 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  12. Receivership and Extraordinary Authority Districts: State Highlights Louisiana: The SEA can place a low-performing school in the Recovery School District (RSD) and require the district to develop a rigorous improvement plan with the RSD. The district is accountable to the state board. Massachusetts: The SEA can exercise its authority for a district-wide takeover through receivership. Strategies include leveraging data to inform instructional practices, having rigorous performance goals, supporting school autonomy and accountability, creating a career ladder system, and expanding learning time.

  13. Option #4: Charter Conversion1 • Strategy is focused on providing a school of choice to replace or serve as an alternative to a chronically struggling school • Promising Practices: • Builds peer networks so educators can share best practices, collaborate, and discuss common problems of practice (MA) • Supports collaboration among charter operators to share services and minimize operational costs (LA) • Communicates with and guides parents to navigate charter offerings (CO, IN, and LA) • The Nevada Achievement School District (ASD) was established by the 2015 legislature and repealed by the 2019 legislature 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  14. Charter Conversion: State Highlights Indiana: A partnership between Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and charter schools allow schools to be autonomous under external management, but still a part of the district. The state can approve the school district’s plan to improve these schools through the creation of an innovation network school, as a restart or charter. Tennessee: The Tennessee Achievement School District (ASD) has the authority to take over schools or districts through New Start charters, Phase-in schools, or Takeover.

  15. Option #5: Closure1 • Strategy is focused on ensuring educational excellence for all students by permanently closing or phasing out a chronically low-performing school • Promising Practices: • Engages stakeholders early to develop a vision and address inequities (TN) • Implements policies and procedures that drive strong student outcomes after closure (FL) 1Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

  16. Closure: State Highlight Florida: The state requires a planning document to guide districts through closure, and the plan must be approved by the State Board of Education. The district must monitor student outcomes and personnel assignments for three years post-closure to capture capacity and impact in other district schools.

  17. Next Steps • NSPF and school designations will be released in September 2019 • NDE anticipates the third part of the school improvement presentations to be focused on CSI schools and presented in October 2019 • NDE will host work sessions to further understand, discuss, and inform the State’s MROs Questions? Office of Student and School Supports (OSSS) • Dr. Seng-Dao Yang Keo, OSSS Director: skeo@doe.nv.gov • Gabby Lamarre, Esq., Title I Director and Federal Liaison: glamarre@doe.nv.gov • Maria Sauter, Title IV Director: msauter@doe.nv.gov • Karl Wilson, Title III Director: karlwilson@doe.nv.gov

  18. Appendix Acronyms • Additional Targeted Support and Intervention (ATSI) schools • Comprehensive Support and Intervention (CSI) schools • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) • Local education agency (LEA) • More Rigorous Options (MRO) • Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) • State education agency (SEA) • Targeted Support and Intervention (TSI) schools Citation: Developing More Rigorous Options to Transform Outcomes for Kids: A Primer for State Agency Staff and Thought Partners. (Unpublished draft, June 2019). Corbett Education Consulting LLC for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide nonprofit organization of department heads of elementary and secondary education. It supports, trains, and provides resources for state education agencies to further its commitment to ensure all students are prepared for college, career, and life.

More Related