Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Webinar Michigan Department of Education August 26, 2011.

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Webinar

Michigan Department of EducationAugust 26, 2011

2

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools

Agenda Brief review of the state statute that is

the basis for the state School Reform/Redesign Office (SRRO)

Brief review of the state requirements for schools on the Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools (PLA) list

Review of the metrics that lead to a school being placed on the PLA list

Resources and talking points for staff and the media

3


State Statute Review

4

State law requires identification of lowest achieving schools by September 1 of each year beginning in 2010

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


State Requirements and Timeline

6


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/redesign officer (SRRO)

Schools without approved plans or those not making progress under its plan are subject to further action

7

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


8

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


9

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


10

If the SRRO disapproves a plan, or if the school does not achieve satisfactory results, the SRRO will: Place the school into the State School

Reform/Redesign District (SRRD) Impose one of the four approved

intervention models Amend collective bargaining agreement to

implement plan SRRO may appoint a chief executive officer

(CEO) (for one school or multiple schools)


11


SRRO must approve a redesign plan if it contains all of the required elements of the intervention

If SRRO disapproves a redesign plan, the LEA may appeal the disapproval to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)

SPI decision is final

12


Communicating with staff, the local board and the local media

13

Persistently Lowest Achieving SchoolsTimeline

August 26, 2011 Department notification 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 February 6, 2011 Changes submitted January 9 thru Feb 7 Opportunity to appeal SRO disapproval

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

14


What happens if the building does not make sufficient progress? The SRRO recommends that the school be

placed in the School Reform/Redesign District (SRRD)

Duties and powers of the SRRD are transferred to the Educational Achievement Authority: A statewide public school district Made up of those schools assigned to it by

the SRRO or schools that are under a EM

15

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Opportunity for Technical Assistance

September 8 and October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Banquet Rooms 1-4Lansing CenterLansing, 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.

16

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Department staff will review the

timeline, the four redesign models, the redesign template, and issues surrounding the use of existing state and federal funds, and answer your questions

Please rvsp by September 1, 2011 with the total number attending from your district to Jill Baynes at: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

17


Questions??

18

Understanding the ranking metric Some of you may have questions about

the metric used to identify the schools on the Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools list

For those of you that don’t have questions about the metric, we will look forward to seeing you on the 24th

For those of you who would like to understand the metric in greater detail, we invite you to remain with us a bit longer for a review of the metrics

August 26, 2011 19

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

August 26, 2011 20

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!

August 26, 2011 21

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 9 total schools on the Tier I list

5 from path 1 4 from path 2

August 26, 2011 22

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!

August 26, 2011 23

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

August 26, 2011 24

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools by Tier

Tier I List 9

Tier II List 89

Total 98

August 26, 2011 25

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

May 17, 2010 26Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding

Two-Year Average Percent Proficient

4-year slope (improvement)



Two-Year Average % Improving minus

% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

HS Math Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Index

2/3

1/3

HS ReadingPercentile Rank

HS MathPercentile Rank

E/MS ReadingPercentile Rank

E/MS MathPercentile Rank

Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Start with raw data

% proficient

% improving minus % declining (MEAP)

% improvement trend slope (MME)

May 17, 2010 27Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

HS Math Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Index

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Index

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate z-scores

Z-scores are a statistical method usedto level the playing field between…

ELA and Math

Elementary/Middle and High schools

Achievement and Improvement

Positive z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) above the

pool average the school is

Negative z-scores show how manystandard deviations (SD) below the

pool average the school is

May 17, 2010 28Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

HS Math Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Score

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate a combinedProficiency/improvement

score and percentilerank for each…

Subject(ELA vs. math)

Level of School(elementary/middleversus high school)

May 17, 2010 29Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding






% Declining



% Declining


z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

z-score

HS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

HS Math Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Reading Score

2/3

1/3

E/MS Math Score

2/3

1/3





Ave

rage

of a

ll A

ssig

ned

Per

cent

ile R

anks

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

(ran

king

on

the

aver

age

of a

ll pe

rcen

tile

rank

s m

etric

)

Calculate average andoverall percentile rank

August 26, 2011 30

Examples Examples are shown for a high

school and for an elementary/middle school in the following slides

May 17, 2010 31Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Average of 3.8021% more

students improving than declining

67.0596 average percent proficient

Average of 7.0891% more

students declining than improving


Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

0.9455 SD below the

mean

0.2177 SD above the

mean

0.9917 SD below the

mean

0.2476 SD above the

mean

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

-0.5211 (composite)

2/3

1/3

-0.5786 (composite)

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Readingpercentile rank =

10.4869

Mathematics percentile rank = 13.1086

Ave

rage

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 1

1.79

78

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 8

.947

4(o

nly

8.94

74 p

erce

nt o

f sch

ools

in p

ool h

ad a

low

er a

vera

ge p

erce

ntile

ran

k)

May 17, 2010 32Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

s

Ele

men

tary

/Mid

dle

Sch

ool R

eadi

ngH

igh

Sch

ool

Mat

hem

atic

sH

igh

Sch

ool

Rea

ding


Losing 1.48% proficiency per year

Losing 2.26% proficiency per year


Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

0.8408 SD below the

mean

0.6909 SD below the

mean

0.8822 SD below the

mean

1.0748 SD below the

mean

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

-0.7668 (composite)

2/3

1/3

-0.9504 (composite)

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

Not applicable

2/3

1/3

ReadingPercentile Rank =

10.0592

Mathematics Percentile rank = 5.6213

Not applicable

Not applicable

Ave

rage

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 7

.840

3

Ove

rall

Per

cent

ile R

ank

= 6

.140

4(o

nly

6.1

404%

of s

choo

ls in

poo

l had

a lo

wer

ave

rage

per

cent

ile r

ank

)

Specific School Data You can see an individual school’s

data in the schematic format by clicking on

August 26, 2011 33

34

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

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

Creating the PLA Statewide List Your school might be anywhere on this

statewide list.

August 26, 2011

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

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

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 and Redesign Officer (SRRO)

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)

Creating the Tier I List

August 26, 2011

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

Identifying the Tier II Pool

August 26, 2011

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 SRRO

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)

Creating the Tier II List

August 26, 2011

o 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

o These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue


August 26, 2011

o 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

o These are schools in pink lower than the highest school in bright blue

o Switch these schools to bright blue

o This is the rest of the Tier II list of PLA schools. These schools are also under the responsibility of the SRRO


August 26, 2011

o 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

o These are the schools in gray whose performance is lower than the highest school in bright red or bright blue.

o These schools are not under the responsibility of the SRRO

Other Low Achieving Schools

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

School Title IFunding Category

School AYP Status

Not in Corrective Action, Restructuring, or Improvement

(Making AYP)

In Corrective Action,Restructuring, or Improvement

(Not Making AYP)

Receives Title I funding Not eligible for any pool Eligible for the Tier I Pool

Is a secondary school that is eligible for but does not receive Title I funding Eligible for the Tier II Pool Eligible for the Tier II Pool

Is not a secondary school, and is eligible for but does not receive Title I funding Not eligible for any pool Not eligible for any pool

Is not eligible to receiveTitle I funding Not eligible for any pool Not eligible for any pool

August 26, 2011

Top to Bottom Ranking

MDE will publish a separate Top to Bottom Ranking of all schools, using our preferred methodology.

To view this ranking, go to http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-37818_56562---,00.html

The PLA statewide ranking is produced only in order to implement the federal rules for identifying PLA schools.

August 26, 2011 46

http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-37818_56562---,00.html



47

Contact InformationFor Persi

Deborah Clemmons

State School Reform Office

[email protected]

Jill Baynes

Department Analyst

517-335-2741

August 26, 2011


48

Contact InformationFor Questions Regarding Data or Metrics:

Joseph Martineau, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability

[email protected]

Venessa Keesler, Ph.D.

Manager, Evaluation, Research and Accountability

[email protected]

517-373-1342

August 26, 2011



Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Webinar Michigan Department of Education August 26, 2011.

Documents

lowest achieving schools

pla schools

multiple schools

plan srro

timeline slide

final slide

action slide

plan plans