Priority Improvement/Turnaround Orientation

Part AColorado Department of Education

Fall 2013

3

Introductions

Directions

Turn to a neighbor you’ve never met and introduce yourself. Discuss your current comfort level with the UIP and share one thing you hope to get out of today’s session.

Be prepared to share with the group.

Welcome and Agenda for Today

Part A: Priority Improvement and Turnaround Orientation• What is the state accountability system?• What is the five-year timeline?

Part B: Planning for Dramatic Improvement • What is an example of a successful Turnaround school?• What conditions did they create?

Part C: Planning for Dramatic Improvement – UIP Planning • How can the UIP be used to plan for dramatic improvement?

Orientation Objectives and Goals

4

To affirm understandings of district and school performance plan types and why a district or school is identified

To understand the mechanics of the 5-year timeline

To understand how CDE staff can support districts and schools

1

2

3

Welcome and Agenda for Today’s Orientation

Part I: Welcome and Introductions • Meeting norms• Goals and objectives for this meeting

Part II: Accountability Overview• Understanding Identification • Accountability Timeline

Part III: Requirements • Timeline and guidance• What does your school/district need?

Part IV: Resources and Q & A • CDE Support and resources• Q & A• Reflections and next steps

Orientation Norms

6

Stay focused on the topics under discussion.

Engage in each other’s thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Avoid interrupting each other. Respect each other’s confidentiality.

Assume the best intentions and seek clarifications when needed. Be open to new ideas and ways of thinking.

Participate to the fullest of your ability and share your own experiences. Be present in the discussion.

Refrain from using electronics.

1

2

3

4

5

Note: This icon indicates where in the PI/TA handbook you can locate more information.

Defining the Need for Bold Action in Priority Improvement & Turnaround Districts and

Schools

• There is an unprecedented focus on how to improve our state’s lowest-performing schools; this is incredibly challenging yet necessary work.

• In most instances, intervention in these schools requires substantial system changes.

• We must identify rigorous, research-based options for PI/T schools that will yield dramatic improvements in student achievement.

• Often, improvement plans do not address the systemic challenges present in turnaround schools and districts.

• Schools in transformation must have an aligned improvement plan, strong leadership, and a relentless focus on continuous improvement.

• The options outlined in SB 163 are research-driven interventions that have a demonstrated track record of improving student achievement.

• CDE must support districts in evaluating local trends, context and need to determine the option (or combination of options) that will yield dramatic results.

• The district has the opportunity to partner with organizations that have experience in school turnaround.

The Situation The Challenge The Opportunity

7

CO Accountability Components

8

SB 09-163

ESEA Flexibility Waiver

Performance Frameworks

School & District Identification

Granted in 2012, the ESEA Flexibility Waiver further streamlined accountability by bringing state and federal accountability into closer alignment.

The CO Educational Accountability Act (SB 163) provided foundation for an aligned accountability system.

The accountability system enables CDE to identify those schools and districts with the greatest need in order to direct resources, support, and potential consequences (accountability clock).

The School and District Performance Frameworks provide one set of outcome data to determine overall district and school accountability.

Improvement Planning

All schools and districts document improvement efforts through improvement planning. Districts with greatest needs must demonstrate dramatic change; CDE and State Review Panel review these plans.

9

Academic Achievement

(15%/25%)Academic Growth

(35%/50%)Academic Growth

Gaps (15%/25%)

Post-secondary and Workforce Readiness

(35%)

• TCAP/CoAlt: % of students Proficient and Advanced

• TCAP/ACCESS: Student Median Growth Percentile. Median Adequate Growth Percentile for TCAP

• TCAP: Disaggregated Median Growth Percentile and Median Adequate Growth Percentile

• Graduation Rate• Disagg. Grad Rate• Dropout Rate• ACT Composite Score

The purpose of the Performance Framework is to:• Provide a common framework through which to understand performance and focus improvement

efforts.• Identify those schools and districts with the greatest need, in order to direct resources and

support and potential consequences

The framework provides focused attention on the following four key performance indicators:

Schools and districts receive a rating for each of the performance indicators. The ratings roll up to an overall evaluation of the district and/or school’s performance, which determines the school’s plan type assignment and the district accreditation rating.

Performance Frameworks

District Accreditation and School Plan Categories

10

• Accredited with Distinction: The district meets or exceeds statewide attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.

• Accredited: The district meets statewide attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.

• Accredited with Improvement Plan: The district is required to adopt and implement an Improvement Plan.

• Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan: The district is required to adopt and implement a Priority Improvement Plan.

• Accredited with Turnaround Plan: The district is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan.

• Performance Plan: The school meets or exceeds statewide attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.

• Improvement Plan: The school is required to adopt and implement an Improvement Plan.

• Priority Improvement Plan: The school is required to adopt and implement a Priority Improvement Plan.

• Turnaround Plan: The school is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan.

District Accreditation Categories School Plan Categories

ESEA Waiver Alignment: Federal Accountability

• Under NCLB, Adequate Yearly Progress was based on achievement of disaggregated groups compared to an annual proficiency target, leading to the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. If a single target was missed, a school/district could not make AYP. With the approval of our waiver, AYP is no longer an accountability measure for Colorado.

• Under the waiver, Title IA Focus Schools were identified in 2012-2013 (based on 2011-2012 data) if they have: (1) a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan and low achieving disaggregated student groups or (2) low disaggregated graduation rate. These schools remain Focus schools for three years until they achieve an Improvement rating or higher for two consecutive years.

• Title I schools with Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan type assignments must offer Public School Choice and SES. Districts may also reserve additional funds to support these schools.

The ESEA Waiver was designed to bring into closer alignment State and Federal Accountability

11

Accountability Clock: Yearly Actions for Districts

Year 0 – Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Pg23

Districts and Schools to participate in CDE trainings and online resources

12

State Board of Education. State Board of Education removes accreditation at the

end of year 5 and outlines required actions. This is based upon

recommendations from (1) CDE recommendations and (2) the State

Review Panel.

State Review Panel may review UIPs and may conduct site visits

CDE assigns Performance Manager to District – Support coordinated across CDE offices

Diagnostic Review for District or School

CDE Leadership Visit or Conversation. CDE executive leadership may visit the district to plan potential actions

for year 5.

State Review Panel

Educational experts from the field appointed by the State Board of Education.Who?

Responsibilities include:

• Providing a critical evaluation of the Unified Improvement Plans , including capacity of school/district to engage in dramatic change.

• Providing recommendations to the Commissioner and State Board of Education on potential actions when a school or district remain on the accountability clock for more than five consecutive years or earlier upon request.

Purpose?

Panel “shall” review UIPs for schools/districts with a Turnaround plan type and “may” review UIPs for schools/districts with a Priority Improvement plan type.

Beginning in 2013, the Panel will begin the offer site visits in select cases to further inform their recommendations to the State Board of Education.

Reports from Panel are not automatically shared with districts. Upon request, CDE will release a report for a school or district if it is available.

Of Special Note

13

Turnaround Actions: Locally-Driven, State-Driven

District Reorganization

Management Change in District or School

Conversion to Charter School

Innovation Status

School Closure

Other Options

Employ a Lead Turnaround Partner

Bold Actions for Dramatic

Improvement

Potential Actions Recommended by CDE,

SRP and/or Directed by the State Board of Education

• The State Board may act on on one or more of these recommendations by the Commissioner and/or State Review Panel

• At the end of the clock, the State Board shall remove a district’s accreditation and reinstate after the district takes a mandated action.

• The State Board may act early on a district or school in Turnaround.

Some of these actions have been used successfully to bring about significant improvement in districts and schools.

CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS:

1. Leadership2. Instructional Infrastructure3. Culture of Performance

14

Agenda

15

Part I: Welcome and Introductions (15 minutes)• Meeting norms• Goals and objectives for this meeting

Part II: Accountability Overview (40 minutes)• Understanding Identification • Accountability Timeline

Part III: Requirements (50 minutes) • Timeline and guidance• What does your school/district need?

Part IV: Resources and Q & A (25 minutes) • CDE Support and resources• Q & A• Reflections and next steps

What is Unified Improvement?

Alignment A system to align improvement planning requirements for state and federal accountability into a “single” plan.

DocumentationA common format for schools and for districts to document improvement planning efforts. Schools/districts on accountability clock must demonstrate a coherent plan for dramatic change and adjustments over time. Reviews conducted by CDE and the State Review Panel.

Transparency A process for including multiple voices, including staff, families and community representatives. Plans are also posted publicly.

Best PracticeA statewide strategy to promote improvement planning based on best-practice, including use of state and local data and engagement in a continuous improvement cycle.

Support A mechanism for triggering additional supports through CDE (especially for schools/districts on accountability clock).

UIP Timeline for Districts and Schools with Priority Improvement & Turnaround

PlansActivity: Deadline:

Optional UIP submission for CDE review (for PI/T districts only). Oct. 15, 2013

Local Board holds public hearing on UIP. Fall 2013 (after 30 days from notification)

CDE assigns final accreditation rating for districts. Nov. 8, 2013

CDE makes final recommendation on accreditation; State Board assigns school rating to district and approves school ratings.

Dec. 4, 2013

Local Board adopts UIP. District and Schools with Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan submit UIPs for review.

Jan. 15, 2014

CDE Reviewers provide feedback and require/recommend any modifications to UIP.

January/February 2014

Submit revised UIP to CDE for a spring plan re-review of “required” changes to UIP. Some schools may be required to resubmit.

March 30, 2014

Submit UIP to CDE for publication on SchoolView (ALL PLANS) April 15, 2014

*Note change: Only PI/T districts/schools need to

submit, regardless of

grant status.

Note: State Review Panel will conduct site visits and review UIPs on an ongoing basis.18

Parent Notification and Public Hearing

Release of Preliminary

SPFs

Districts notify

parents within 30

days

Local Board hold hearing 30 days after notification

Local Board adopts PI or Turnaround

Plan and submits to

CDE

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Aug 15 Tumbleweed

Elem receives PI plan type

Sept 14District X

sends notification

to Tumbleweed parents, inc plan type,

reason, and info on

hearing.

Nov 1District X

holds public hearing for school, inc

progress on plan.

Dec 10District X adopts

Tumbleweed UIP and

submits to CDE.

Example

Summary

Unified Improvement Planning: Special Requirements

Data Narrative

Action Plan

Addenda

• Priority Performance Challenges extend across system

• Demonstrates magnitude of challenge

Schools and Districts with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan type have some additional requirements.

School District

• Same

• Targets set to move before end of clock• Action plan demonstrates bold actions• Include parent involvement strategies

• Targets set to move before end of clock• Action plan demonstrates bold actions• Support for schools on clock

• Turnaround addendum• Other grants, as specified in

prepopulated report

• Turnaround addendum• Other programs and grants, as

specified in prepopulated report

20

Federal Accountability for Priority Improvement & Turnaround Districts

Title I

Title IIA

Title III Program

Must set aside portion of the Title IA to support professional learning targeted towards priority performance challenge (i.e. PPC set-aside in Consolidated App).

District must have a narrow scope for Title IIA funds. Activities should align to performance challenges and be aligned to state priorities (including: 1. professional learning, 2. recruitment, retention, distribution of effective teachers, or 3. ensure highly qualified teachers.

Submit an improvement plan that identifies the challenges of the current English Language Development plan and strategies that the district will implement to address the academic and linguistic needs of ELLs.

Who? What?

Districts with PI/T DPF

Title III Grantees that miss AMAOs for two consecutive years

Districts with PI/T DPF

21

Federal Accountability for Priority Improvement & Turnaround Schools

Title IA

Title IIA

School must offer:• Public School Choice

AND/OR• Supplemental Educational Support (SES)

Focus and Priority Schools must include data analysis addressing achievement of disaggregated student groups that did not meet expectations (including graduation rates). Actions should include strategies to address the academic and linguistic needs of identified groups.• UIP Title IA School-wide and Targeted Assistance

plans submitted in 2012-2013 UIP fulfill program plan requirements for this year.

District must target Title IIA to support these schools

Who? What?

Schools with a PI/T Plan Type (SPF)

Any school with PI/T Plan Type (SPF), regardless of Title IA eligibility

22

Welcome and Agenda for Today’s Orientation

23

Part I: Welcome and Introductions • Meeting norms• Goals and objectives for this meeting

Part II: Accountability Overview • Understanding Identification • Accountability Timeline

Part III: Requirements • Timeline and guidance• What does your school/district need?

Part IV: Resources and Q & A • CDE Support and resources• Q & A• Reflections and next steps

“We’re from the State and we’re here to help!”

Grant EligibilityThe Competitive Grants and Awards Unit at CDE is dedicated to enhancing school improvement through federal and state grant opportunities. Schools and districts should consider pursuing grants based on improvement strategies and eligibility. Please continue to check the CDE Competitive Grants Webpage at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/cga/index.asp

25

Diagnostic Review (Prerequisite for SIS Grant)

School Improvement Support (SIS)

Tiered Intervention Grant for schools (TIG)

Time Span 2013 – June 2014 2013 – June 2015 Spring 2014 – June of 2017

Approximate Amounts

$50,000 per school $100,000 per school Up to 2 million per school

Eligibility Criteria Title I•Focus Schools•Turnaround Schools•Priority Improvement Schools

Title I•Focus Schools•Turnaround Schools•Priority Improvement Schools

Lowest performing 5% of Title I and Title I eligible schools in the state

CDE Support and Services

26

CDE has established systems, processes and teams designed to support districts and schools in implementing reform strategies. This support includes on-going technical assistance, performance monitoring, and community engagement in support of turnaround work.

Provides technical assistance and support for PI/TA districts and schools:• Assigns a Performance Manager to serve as key

point-person between the district , the school, and CDE

• Holds professional learning opportunities to address specific needs of PI/TA districts and schools.

Provide support to districts in engaging stakeholders in the improvement process.

Partners with the district to monitor the performance of district and schools:• Facilitates performance monitoring meetings• Supports district and school in implementing

improvement strategies by coordinating resources and support.

Maintain an embedded and consistent presence in the school and district.

1 2

3 4

School and District Performance Unit

Support Performance Monitoring

Community Engagement Partnership

Questions & Answer Session

27

Parking Lot

?

Reflection Questions

• What questions do you have about the accreditation process? What additional tools do you need to help you understand the DPF/SPF?

• What questions do you have about the accountability clock?

• How will you communicate the PI/TA message to your stakeholder groups?

• What types of support would be most helpful to you from CDE?

Conclusions and Next Steps

What did we accomplish today? Recapping Today’s Session.

• We shared information about how schools and districts are identified as Priority Improvement/Turnaround.

• We gained a deeper understanding of the timeline of the ‘5-year Accountability’ clock. We discussed requirements for PI/T districts and schools.

• We shared information about CDE support and services.

What’s coming next?

28

Contact Us!

29

School and District Performance Unit

Peter Sherman Sherman_p@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6758

Wendy Dunaway Dunaway_w@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6995

Cindy Ward Ward_c@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6675

Chad Auer Auer_c@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6913

Lindsey Dulin Jaeckel Dulin_l@cde.state.co.us (720) 357-4831

Jhon Penn Penn_j@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6632

John Condie Condie_j@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6630

Tina Goar Goar_T@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6608

Planning Unit

Lisa Medler Medler_l@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6993

Erin Loften Loften_l@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6642

Accountability and Data Unit

Alyssa Pearson Pearson_A@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6855

Jessica Knevals Knevals_J@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6778

Federal Programs

Cheryl Miller Miller_c@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6214

Jennifer Phillips Phillips_J@cde.state.co.us (303) 866- 3905

Brad Bylsma Bylsma_b@cde.state.co.us (303) 866-6937