1. Subtitle Title I Federal School Accountability Office of School Improvement and Turnaround Indiana Department of Education March 2012

2. Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

3. Terminology AMO: Annual Measurable Objective is the annual target for the percentage of students whose test scores must be proficient or above in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. TAT: This refers to the Technical Assistance Team visit Priority and Focus schools could receive from IDOE. Bottom 25%: The bottom 25 percent of student scores in each school, whether or not they belong to a subgroup. ESEA Subgroup: Groups of at least 30 students that represent Overall, Asian, African American, Hispanic, White, Free or Reduced, Limited English Proficient, and Special Education test takers.

4. What has changed? Current Federal Accountability for Title I Schools Based on AYP 4 special designations –Comprehensive-intensive –Comprehensive –Comprehensive-support –Focus Prescribed interventions New Federal Accountability for Title I Schools Based on A-F model 4 special designations –Reward –Priority –Focus –Focus-targeted LEA- and school-selected interventions

5. School Placement Category Overview Title I Served Schools Only Reward Schools Focus-Targeted Schools Focus Schools Priority Schools The state’s Highest Performing Schools and High-Progress Schools ‘A,’ ‘B, ‘or ‘C’ school which fails to meet the requirements for each subgroup. Schools which earn a ‘D’ rating that are not Priority or have a graduation rate <60% for 2 years. Schools which earn an ‘F’ and/or are classified as persistently low-achieving.

6. Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

7. Reward Schools Highest Performing Schools Schools which receive an ‘A’ for two consecutive years (Begins 2013-2014) High-Progress Elem. & Middle Schools High Growth in bottom 25% and top 75% subgroup for both E/LA & math (Begins Immediately 2012-2013) High-Progress High Schools Significant improvement in its not- proficient population in E/LA & Math (Begins Immediately 2012-2013) Reward Schools Receive (at a minimum): Excellence in Teaching Grant bonus Best practices highlighted by IDOE

8. Focus-Targeted Schools Bottom 25% Focus-Targeted schools can simultaneously be Priority, Focus or Reward ESEA Subgroups - Fails to meet growth requirement from baseline year, or - Is 2+ grades behind the school overall 1 or more ESEA subgroups… - Do not meet their AMO, or - Earn a ‘D’ or ‘F,’ or - scores 2+ grades below the school OR To exit Focus-Targeted status a school must… Meet the performance targets from the AMO for each subgroup Improve grade for each subgroup to a ‘C’ or higher

9. Scenarios Made-Up Middle School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘B.’ ESEA Subgroups 9 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Reward School and Focus-Targeted year 1. Reward status comes from high growth in Bottom 25% The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 9 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Bottom 25% Showed high growth in E/LA and Math

10. Scenarios Mock Middle School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘A.’ ESEA Subgroups All subgroups met AMOs and growth targets. Focus-Targeted year 1. Focus-Targeted status comes from the Bottom 25% receiving a ‘C,’ two grades lower than the overall performance grade. Bottom 25%Rating of a ‘C’

11. Focus-Targeted School Requirements Focus-Targeted Yr 1 & 2 Modify School Improvement Plan to target deficient subgroups. LEA must notify families the school did not meet requirements for this/these subgroups. Focus-Targeted Yr 3 & 4 Same as Year 1 & 2 LEA must modify relevant federal grant applications to include specific intervention strategies for this/these subgroup(s) IDOE will offer technical assistance to LEAs to made the appropriate modifications to the school’s School Improvement Plan and federal grant application Focus-Targeted Yr 5 & beyond Same as 1-4 LEA must complete quarterly monitoring reports with evidence of progress towards goals tied to the specific intervention strategies

12. Focus Schools School Performance Rating Schools that receive a ‘D’ and had a C or higher the previous year. Consistently Low Graduation Rate High schools with a graduation rate <60% for 2+ consecutive years (n ≥ 30) To exit Focus status a school must… Improve performance rating to a ‘C’ or higher for consecutive years or Earn reward school status just one year and Improve graduation rate to 60+% for consecutive years (if needed)

13. Focus School Requirements Universal Requirements All interventions must align to Mass Insight’s High Quality, High Poverty Framework and the Turnaround Principles, and are subject to review by IDOE. Focus Yr 1 Identify and implement THREE interventions based on a school- based root cause analysis. Focus Yr 2-4 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Option to focus resources on 1 strategically selected intervention. Focus Yr 5 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Participate in IDOE School Quality Review Focus Yr 6 Implement interventions identified in previous year’s IDOE report. SIG funding will not be provided to LEAs that do not comply.

14. Priority Schools School Performance Rating Schools that receive a ‘F’ rating Persistently Low-Achieving Schools Schools which earn a ‘D’ and/or an ‘F’ for two or more consecutive years To exit Focus status a school must… Improve performance rating to a ‘C’ or higher for consecutive years or Earn Reward school status just one year

15. Priority School Requirements Universal Requirements All interventions must align to Mass Insight’s High Quality, High Poverty Framework and the Turnaround Principles, and are subject to review by IDOE. Priority Yr 1 Identify and implement 3 interventions based on a school-based root cause analysis. Priority Yr 2-3 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data Flexibility to focus resources on 1 strategically selected intervention. Priority Yr 4 Revise school improvement plan based on previous year’s data IDOE Technical Assistance Team Quality Review Priority Yr 5 Implement interventions identified in previous year’s IDOE report. SIG funding will not be provided to LEAs that do not comply. Priority Yr 6 Schools will be subject to state intervention pursuant to PL 221.

16. Agenda School Placement Category… Overview Definitions Scenarios

17. Bayside High School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Graduation Rate Not- Proficient Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ 58% Grad Rate Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 2 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus-Targeted year 1. The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 2 of 14 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs.

18. Scenarios Bayside High School (2012-2013) Performance Rating Not- Proficient Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ High growth in Math Graduation Rate 59% Grad Rate 2011-2012 Focus-Targeted School 58% Graduation Rate Focus School year 1 Focus Target year 2 Despite the ‘C’ rating, the graduation rate is below 60% for the second straight year. High growth in math alone does not increase the school status.

19. Scenarios Glenbrook North Middle School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ ESEA Subgroups 9 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Reward School and Focus-Targeted year 1. Reward status comes from high growth in Bottom 25% The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 9 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Bottom 25% Showed high growth in E/LA and Math

20. Scenarios Glenbrook North Middle School (2012-2013) 2011-2012 Bottom 25% Reward School and Focus Targeted Showed high growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 4 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus-Targeted year 2. Lost Reward School due to Bottom 25% only showing high growth in Math. The Focus-Targeted status comes from the 4 of 12 ESEA subgroups failing to meet AMOs. Performance Rating Overall the school earned a ‘C’

21. Scenarios Happiness Elementary School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 7 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus School year 1 Focus Targeted year1 Focus status is due to the ‘D’ performance rating.

22. Scenarios Happiness Elementary School (2012-2013) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘C.’ High growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 4 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs 2011-2012 Happiness was a Focus School Holding year for a Focus School and Focus Targeted year 2. Holding because they need another year of ‘C’ or higher to remove from Focus status. High growth in math alone does not increase the school status.

23. Scenarios Happiness Elementary School (2013-2014) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Bottom 25% did not show high growth ESEA Subgroups 6 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs 2012-2013 Happiness was in a holding year. Focus School year 2 Focus-Targeted year 3 Year 2 because the count does not reset in a holding year.

24. Scenarios Joyful Elementary School (2011-2012) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ Did not show high growth. ESEA Subgroups 5 of 12 subgroups did not meet AMOs Focus School year 1 Focus Targeted year 1 Focus status is due to the ‘D’ performance rating.

25. Scenarios Joyful Elementary School (2012-2013) Performance Rating Bottom 25% Overall the school earned a ‘D.’ High growth in Math ESEA Subgroups 6 of 14 subgroups did not meet AMOs 2011-2012 Joyful was a ‘D’ Focus School year 1 Priority School Focus Targeted year 2 Priority comes from being a persistently low-achieving school.

26. Upcoming Trainings March 29 –Intervention Criteria WebEx: Mass Insight, Turnaround Principles, Rigor Tiers and Funding April 10 –Intervention Selection WebEx: Root Cause Analysis, Data–Driven Intervention Selection, Logic Model to Guide Implementation April 24 –Intervention Monitoring WebEx: Protocols and Documentation Requirements

27. Reminders Join School Improvement Learning Connection Community FAQ will be posted and updated weekly All WebEx’s are recorded and posted in the Learning Connection Community

28. Contact Information Accountability Questions http://www.doe.in.gov/improvement/accounta bility/f-accountability Laura Cope lcope@doe.in.gov Jim Larson jlarson@doe.in.gov