1. 1 University of the State of New York State Education Department Office of Accountability Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review (SQR) 2011-2012

2. Why is this year’s AYP determination different than previous years? Factors contributing to schools not making AYP in 2010- 2011: Sunset of statistical adjustment for the SWD subgroup Change in grades 3-8 ELA and math testing dates Change in the methodology for equating grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments Changes to the grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments, making them less predicable Increase in the high school graduation rate goal and progress targets Higher proficiency standards established for grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments are not a primary factor for schools and districts failing to make AYP in 2010-2011.

3. The Tsunami of Improvement Schools 2009-102010-11 (Preliminary) IMPROVEMENT STATUSNYC Rest of StateTotalNYC Rest of StateTotal Improvement (year 1) - Basic1728 45 133298 431 Improvement (year 1) - Focused510 15 71118 189 Improvement (year 1) - Comprehensive5219 71 18279 261 Improvement (year 2) - Basic1261851217 Improvement (year 2) - Focused4101461319 Improvement (year 2) - Comprehensive191332451358 Corrective Action (year 1) - Focused10162612719 Corrective Action (year 1) - Comprehensive251237211940 Corrective Action (year 2) - Focused71320101424 Corrective Action (year 2) - Comprehensive10818251136 Restructuring (year 1) - Focused56119918 Restructuring (year 1) - Comprehensive1392210 20 Restructuring (year 2) - Focused6511336 Restructuring (year 2) - Comprehensive11132410818 Restructuring (Advanced) - Focused2182916622 Restructuring (Advanced) - Comprehensive1034014311860178 TOTAL 320216 536 676680 1356

4. Groups Failing AYP 2009-10 AllSWD Native American AsianBlack Hispanic WhiteLEPEDMR Grades 3-8 ELA3701045011324270193444150 Grades 3-8 Math2416802169220210 Preliminary Data for 2010-11 AllSWD Native American AsianBlack Hispanic WhiteLEPEDMR Grades 3-8 ELA4571312318424366394206010 Grades 3-8 Math424100129414306552815750 AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress ED = Economically disadvantaged ELA = English language arts LEP = Limited English proficient MR = Multiracial SWD = Students with disabilities

5. Schools Making AYP 2008-09 3-8 ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP93%99%81%84%99%94% Failed AYP7%1%19%16%1%6% Total100% 2009-10 3-8 ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP64%95%74%78%99%73% Failed AYP36%5%26%22%1%27% Total100% Preliminary Data for 2010-11 3-8 ELA3-8 MathHS ELAHS Math 3-8 Science Graduation Rate Made AYP56%64%70%73%99%76% Failed AYP44%36%30%27%1%24% Total100%

6. 6 IDEA and NCLB Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states must determine whether a school district Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs Intervention or Needs Substantial Intervention. Beginning with the 2011-12 school year, New York has aligned its IDEA determination performance criteria with the criteria used under the Differentiated Accountability system for the subgroup of students with disabilities. NCLB = No Child Left Behind

7. IDEA Determination Criteria Needs Assistance District failed to make AYP for students with disabilities and/or one or more schools in the District are in Improvement or Corrective Action status for students with disabilities and/or Unresolved noncompliance for 12- 24 months Needs Intervention District has one or more schools1 that are in Restructuring and/or identified as Persistently Lowest Achieving and/or Schools Under Registration Review (SURR); and in one or more of these schools, the school failed to make AYP for students with disabilities on an accountability criterion for which the school is identified and/or Unresolved noncompliance for more than 24 months Needs Substantial Intervention Unresolved noncompliance for more than 36 months resulting in substantial failure of the district to provide FAPE

8. 8 What is the School Quality Review? The School Quality Review (SQR) is a school improvement support and intervention strategy for schools identified in the Improvement (year 1) phase of New York State’s Differentiated Accountability (DA). This strategy is designed to empower districts and give them the support and assistance necessary to take primary responsibility and have greater latitude in developing and implementing improvement strategies to address the needs of schools in the Improvement phase. SQR involves the development of a culture of review and ongoing improvement to guide schools and districts on a continuous journey of improvement. A research-based, reflective, self-assessment process provides identified schools and districts with guidance on key factors that affect school success

9. Role of District Superintendents (DSs) Basic Schools District responsible for completing the portfolio of evidence review DSs check to ensure that the Basic SQRs for schools within their component districts are completed in the format and timeframe pursuant to Commissioner’s regulations Focused and Comprehensive Schools DS/ DS representative is the SQR Team Lead in Title I schools outside the Big Five. The district is responsible to convene the SQR team, in conjunction with the DS/DS representative, and may ask the DS to supplement the team with content area/subgroup specialists. 9

10. 10 2011-12 SQR Basic Reviews A School Quality Review (SQR) is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Basic schools that are identified for the performance of a single student group on a single accountability measure. The SQR Basic is led by the District team and is a portfolio of evidence review. When a school is identified for students with disabilities, a Special Education School Improvement Specialist (SESIS) from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Center (RSE-TASC) is assigned to the school to participate in the SQR to the extent resources permit. If a district does not meet its Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) for the subgroup of limited English proficient/English language learners (LEP/ELL), the specialist from the Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network (RBE-RN) who is assigned to the district will support the SQR process, to the extent resources permit. The District is responsible for completing the SQR report. District Superintendents (DS) or the DS representatives check to ensure the completion of the Basic SQRs in the format and timeframe pursuant to Commissioner’s Regulations for Title I schools outside the Big Five.

11. Role of SESIS in the Differentiated Accountability Reviews Subgroup specialist added to the Team Instructional walk through – bringing additional information to the SQR team on how school provides special education instruction to students with disabilities with a focus on –literacy, –specially-designed instruction and –behavior supports Participation in discussions with the district teams (SQR, ESCA, JIT) to share data/information on these reviews to inform reports

12. 12 INITIATING IMPLEMENTATION Quality Indicators (QI) and QI Supporting Documentation documents distributed to the Improvement (year 1) Basic school. COMPLETION OF DOCUMENTATION School completes Quality Indicators (QI) self-assessment document and submits the QI and supporting evidence to the district SQR Team, along with a summary of the results of the structured instructional walkthrough conducted by SESIS, if applicable. BASIC REVIEW REPORT For Title I Schools Outside the Big Five SQR report is generated by the district and a written and electronic copy and completed QI is submitted to the District Superintendent (DS). DS will have ten days to provide comments and recommendations. The district will then have 30 days to revise the report and submit to SED. Alternately, if the DS finds the report meets the minimum requirements pertaining to the SQR, the DS will forward the report directly to SED. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION District SQR Team reviews completed QI document and supporting evidence, in conjunction with Educational Plans and relevant school background information and data, to confirm the school’s self- assessment. 2011-2012 Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review (SQR) for Improvement (year 1) Basic Schools BASIC SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A SINGLE STUDENT GROUP ON A SINGLE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE SUBMISSION OF TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The school submits a grant application to help plan for the SQR and implement the recommendations in the SQR report. Schools will complete a Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP) that reflects report recommendations and implement goals accordingly. BASIC REVIEW REPORT For non-Title I Schools and Schools in the Big Five SQR report is generated by the district and a written and electronic copy of the Basic Report and completed QI document is submitted to SED.

13. 13 2011-12 SQR Focused and Comprehensive Reviews The SQR is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Focused schools identified for more than one accountability measure ( ELA, mathematics, science or graduation rate), but not the ALL student group or for more than one accountability student group within one accountability measure, but not the ALL student group. The SQR is conducted in Improvement (year 1) Comprehensive schools identified for the performance of the ALL student group or the performance of all groups except the ALL student group. The SQR for Focused and Comprehensive schools in Improvement are on-site reviews that are conducted in 1 to 2 days or 2 to 3 days, respectively. The DS/DS Representative or a State Education Department (SED) Liaison leads the review. The SQR Team is composed of 3-5 individuals (i.e., the Team Lead, a district representative, content/subgroups specialists and other staff), as needed. SESIS and RBN-RN specialists will be assigned to the extent resources permit. The SQR Team Lead (i.e., the DS/DS Representative or the SED Liaison) is responsible for the completion of the SQR report.

14. 14 INITIATING IMPLEMENTATION Quality Indicators (QI) and Supporting Documentation documents distributed to Improvement (year 1) Focused and Comprehensive schools. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTATION School completes QI self-assessment document and submits the QI with Educational Plans and any other supporting evidence to the SQR Team Lead – the District Superintendent (DS)/ DS Representative or SED Office of Accountability (OA) Liaisons, along with a summary of the results of the structured instructional walkthrough conducted by the SESIS, if applicable. SQR REPORT A SQR report of findings and recommendations will be generated and distributed to the district/school. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION The SQR Team reviews completed QI, in conjunction with Educational Plans, relevant school background information and data to confirm the school’s self-assessment. 2011-2012 Differentiated Accountability School Quality Review (SQR) for Improvement (year 1) Focused or Comprehensive Schools FOCUSED SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE ( ELA, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE OR GRADUATION RATE), BUT NOT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP OR FOR MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDENT GROUP WITHIN ONE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT NOT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP. COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ALL STUDENT GROUP OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL GROUPS EXCEPT THE ALL STUDENT GROUP. SUBMISSION OF TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The school will submit a grant application to help plan for the SQR and implement the recommendations in the SQR report. Schools will complete a CEP that reflect report recommendations and implement goals accordingly. ON-SITE REVIEW Focused - 1 to 2 days Comprehensive- 2 to 3 days For Focused schools - The SQR Team conducts an on-site review focusing on the accountability measure(s) and student group(s) identified. For Comprehensive schools- The SQR Team conducts an on-site review focusing on any systemic issues that are unique to the school, as they relate to the accountability measure(s) and student groups identified.

15. 15 SQR Quality Indicators (QI) Data Collection, Analysis and Utilization Teaching and Learning School Leadership Infrastructure for Student Success Professional Development Facilities and Resources

16. 16 Process for Developing the SQR Report for Focused and Comprehensive Schools Quality Indicators DocumentDocuments Review Classroom Observations Interviews w/parents, staff and students Develop Findings and Recommendations Exit Conference with School Superintendent or Designee Development and Submission of Written Report Schools use the SQR Findings and Recommendations in the development of the two-year Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP)

17. Funding -Districts with Title I schools are eligible for Title I School Improvement Funds 1003 (a) - $20,000 per school plus $10 for each student enrolled in an identified school. -BOCES may use CoSer 6213 to charge districts for services based on reasonable and necessary costs. Districts may use their Title I 1003(a) improvement grants to pay for these services. 17

18. 18 Important Resources:  http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/ http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/  www.engageny.org www.engageny.org  www.nysed.gov/rttt www.nysed.gov/rttt  Commissioner’s Regulations 100.2p Upcoming Webinars: October 6 th – October 14 th Contact Information: albanysit@mail.nysed.govalbanysit@mail.nysed.gov or 518-474-5923(ROS) siteam@mail.nysed.govsiteam@mail.nysed.gov or 718-722-2647 (NYC)

19. 19 School Quality Review Participant Feedback Form DIRECTIONS: Please complete; your feedback will help to make improvements to the process in the future. Name_______________ Date of meeting _______________ District________________ Date of webinar __________________ 1.Do you have a better understanding of the School Quality Review Process for 2011/12? Yes No 2.Were informational materials helpful and appropriate? YesNo 3.Was the presentation clear, and were appropriate responses provided YesNo to participant questions? For the items below: 1 indicates a very basic level of knowledge 5 indicates a very thorough level of knowledge 4.Please indicate your level of knowledge regarding School Quality Review Team requirements and procedures, 1 2 3 4 5 prior to the presentation. 5.Please indicate your level of knowledge regarding 1 2 3 4 5 School Quality Review Team requirements and procedures, after the presentation. 6.Please specify any types of information which should be included or deleted for future presentations: 7.Please indicate any comments/recommendations which you feel may improve School Quality Review process or items you would like more information about in future presentations: Other_________________________________________________________________________________________