1. Maine’s ESEA Waiver and Title I School Improvement Implementation of Principle 2 Monitor Schools Rachelle Tome March 9, 2015

2. Maine’s ESEA Waiver Requirements 3 Principles: Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership http://www.maine.gov/doe/accountability/ Rachelle Tome2

3. Develop and implement a State-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support School-based accountability system built on multiple measures Priority, Focus, Monitor, Progressing, Meeting, and Reward schools System of supports Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives 6 year trajectory Cuts the percentage of students who are not proficient in reading or math in half by 2017-18. Individualized for school, subject, subgroup Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support Rachelle Tome3

4. 1)Identify Priority Schools (5% of Title I Schools) 2)Identify Focus Schools (10% of Title I Schools) 3)Review remaining schools for Monitor, Progressing or Meeting status a)Participation b)Whole group targets c)Super-subgroup targets (SSG) d)Within School Achievement Gaps (WSAG) e)School Accountability Index (SAI) f)Additional indicators (ADA/Grad rate) Monitor Schools-Identification Rachelle Tome4

5. Six-year Proficiency Targets* Reading or Math% Proficient 2011-12 % Non- proficient ½ difference to 100 New Target 2017-18 Whole group62381981 Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-Subgroup Example: (Imaginary) Pineville Middle School’s proficiency rates in the 2011-12 school year are as follows: Rachelle Tome5

6. Six-year Proficiency Targets* Reading or Math% Proficient 2011-12 % Non- proficient ½ difference to 100 New Target 2017-18 Whole group62381981 Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups 74261387 Economically Disadvantaged 52 482476 Students with Disabilities 36 643268 Limited English Proficient 26 743761 Super-Subgroup 40 603070 Example: (Imaginary) Pineville Middle School’s proficiency rates in the 2011-12 school year are as follows: Rachelle Tome6

7. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Targets* The annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for Pineville Middle School will be determined by dividing into 6 equal increments the percentage number needed to reach the proficiency target over 6 years. An AMO will be determined for each school, each tested subject and each student sub-group. Reading or Math % Proficient 2011-12 ½ % Non- proficient AMO For each year % Proficient 2012-13 % Proficient 2013-14 Whole group62193.265.268.4 Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Super-subgroup Rachelle Tome7

8. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Targets* The annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for Pineville Middle School will be determined by dividing into 6 equal increments the percentage number needed to reach the proficiency target over 6 years. An AMO will be determined for each school, each tested subject and each student sub-group. Reading or Math % Proficient 2011-12 ½ % Non- proficient AMO For each year % Proficient 2012-13 % Proficient 2013-14 Whole group62193.265.268.4 Major Racial /Ethnic subgroups 74132.276.278.4 Economically Disadvantaged 522445660 Students with Disabilities 36325.339.344.6 Limited English Proficient 26376.232.238.4 Super-Subgroup403054550 Rachelle Tome8

9. Within school Gaps Reading and Math-For each eligible subgroup Absolute-% at or above proficient Progress (School Target)Total Subgroup Variance At or above target = 20 points Progress to % at or above proficient target Difference: Highest performing group vs Lowest performing group % of target X 20 (maximum of 20 points) (2018 Target - 2011 baseline) ÷ 2 = Goal Goal ÷ 6 = Incremental annual increase goal (Actual ÷ Annual goal) X 20 (maximum 20 points) Rachelle Tome9

10. Within school Gaps Group Math Abs Perf Math new trajectory % of target reached X 20 points Math progress (AMO) % of target reached X 20 points Math Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pts) Total Sbgroup Variance High-Low Whole82.0088.0078.0010.60 CAU82.0088.0092.7%18.5478.00100% +20.0038.6 BLK34.0066.0094.1%18.8237.790%18.0536.87 HISP AS SES51.0075.0074.6%19.6154.294%18.8338.44 SWD37.0060.0054.1%10.8126.7100% +20.0030.81 LEP25.0055.0040.0%8.0017.5100% +20.0028.00 Rachelle Tome10

11. Within school Gaps Group Math Abs Perf 20 pts max Math Progress 20 pts max Math Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pt max) Math- TL Subgroup Variance High-Low Read Abs Perf 20 pts Read Progress 20 pts Read Subgrp TL (% 0f 40 pts) Read-TL Sbgroup Variance High-Low Whole14.6920.0086.721%41.464%17.5120.0093.768%26.772% SES11.3620.0078.405%16.0720.0090.169% SWD5.9813.7649.343%11.1620.0077.900% LEP8.5018.1966.735%12.2419.8680.235% CAU16.3220.0090.807%18.2220.0095.553% BLK10.5520.0076.368%15.5420.0088.847% HISP9.8815.0462.318%19.7620.0099.412% AS10.8015.7166.295%12.6916.3672.640% Rachelle Tome11

12. Within school Gaps Total Subgroup Variance for reading: rank ordered: 25% of schools with highest gaps identified Total Subgroup Variance for math: rank ordered: 25% of schools with highest gaps identified Rachelle Tome12

13. School Accountability Index (SAI) Calculated and rank ordered. Schools with grades 3-8 and high school will have two indexes.

14. Monitor Schools identification Rachelle Tome14 CategoryExpectation Participation95%No-Monitor Whole GroupTargets met or progressing- reading or math No-monitor SSGTargets met or progressing-reading or math No-monitor WSAGRanked above 25%- reading and mathNo-Monitor SAIRanked above 15%No-Monitor OAIADA or grad rate metNo-Monitor Each Title 1 school meeting any of the following will be categorized as a Monitor school (unless it is a Priority or Focus school)

15. Monitor Schools identification Additional considerations: A school with a testing enrollment of fewer than 20 in the whole school (small school) that would have qualified for Priority school status based on the School achievement and progress analysis (3 year avg. and progress) in the first year of the accountability system- If the school’s data continues to be below the threshold used for identifying Priority schools in year 1, the school will be reclassified as a Priority school. Schools identified as Monitor for 3 consecutive years will be reviewed and added to either the Priority group for low achievement and progress in the whole school, or the Focus group for low performing subgroups. Rachelle Tome15

16. School Improvement Plan School-based improvement team Self Assessment 2013-14 considerations DOE improvement consultant assigned FY 14 ESEA Accountability Project Sheet Intervention plan Improvement activities Measureable objectives Applications opened March Not required: School choice, Supplemental educational Services, Set-asides Requirements for Monitor schools Rachelle Tome16

17. Funding: Targeted Title I accountability funds (Consolidated application) Districts may set aside up to 20% of district allocation to support improvement activities. ESEA reallocated improvement funds-. If available, based on individual school needs Supports for Monitor schools Rachelle Tome17

18. Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet Project Description: Define the activities/strategies to be undertaken to accomplish the purpose. Rachelle Tome18

19. Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Project Description: To describe school improvement activities for Pineville School - identified as a monitor school during the 2014-15 school year. Rachelle Tome19

20. Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet Project A: Required for ESEA Monitor schools (optional funding amount up to 20% of the district's Title IA allocation.) Response should briefly outline how the school will implement the following three “Response to Intervention” indicators:  The school will use an identification process (including ongoing conversations with instructional leadership teams and data points to be used) for all students at risk of failing or in need of targeted interventions.  The school uses a tiered, differentiated intervention process to assign research-based interventions aligned with the individual needs of identified students (the process includes a description of how interventions are selected and assigned to students as well as the frequency and duration of interventions for Tier 2 and Tier 3 students).  The school uses a monitoring process (including a multidisciplinary that meets regularly to review student intervention outcome data and identifies “triggers” and next steps for unsuccessful interventions) for targeted intervention students to ensure fidelity and effectiveness. Response should outline the specific activities and strategies that will occur as part of the school’s improvement plan during 2014-15 Rachelle Tome20

21. Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Project A: Pineville School – Monitor Status Classroom teachers will meet on a weekly basis in grade-level teams to review local student data (DRA, NWEA, Star, etc.), identify students needing additional support, and create individualized student action plans for identified students. The leadership team will meet on a monthly basis to monitor intervention system by reviewing student action plans, analyzing school wide data (formative), and providing ongoing support to teachers. Rachelle Tome21

22. Supports for Monitor schools ESEA Accountability Set-Aside Project Sheet EXAMPLE Outcome/Performance Indicators: Describe how you will know that the project is successful. By June 2015, grade-level teams will meet weekly to discuss student data and create individualized action plans for struggling students. By June 2015, the leadership team will meet monthly to identify trends in the data and plan at least three professional development seminars for teachers. By June 2015, 100% of the teachers will attend workshops on interventions for struggling students – in the areas of literacy or mathematics. Rachelle Tome22

23. Contact Info Rachelle Tome Chief Academic Officer Rachelle.tome@maine.gov Janette Kirk Title I Director Janette.Kirk@maine.gov Chelsey Fortin-Trimble Title VI/ Title I Chelsey.a.Fortin@maine.gov NCLB Clearinghouse: 207-624-6705 Rachelle Tome23