Floridas Differentiated Accountability Program

1
FloridasDifferentiated Accountability Program

• Leadership Our Bridge over Troubled
  Waters
• The 63d Annual Joint Conference
• FSBA, FADDS, FSBAA, FEN, FERMA,
  SUNSPRA, FELL

Jay Pfeiffer, Deputy Commissioner Accountability,
Research, and Measurement Nikolai Vitti, Bureau
Chief School Improvement and Accountability Lead
Regional Education Director December 3,
2008 Tampa, Florida
2
Floridas School Grading ModelandNo Child Left
BehindsAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Model
3
Floridas School Grading System50 based on
Current-Year FCAT Performance, 50 based on
Learning Gains
While Floridas school grading system places
extra emphasis on the learning gains of the
lowest performers in reading and math, it does
not specifically address the performance of
subgroups as does AYP.
3
4
Floridas School Grading SystemA Scaled Approach
4
5
Count of Schools by Grade 2003-04 through
2007-08
5
6
AYP All or None

• 39 Components
• 36 subgroup-based components
• 4 measures (percent-tested math percent
  tested reading proficiency in math
  proficiency in reading) x 9 subgroups
• Plus
• 3 school-wide components
• graduation rate
• writing proficiency
• school grade
• For a Yes on AYP, a school must not fail to
  meet the AYP criteria for any component.

6
7
Florida Schools Making AYP ( 24 in 2008)

• 2008 vs. 2007

7
8
Federal Pilot Program Differentiated
Accountability

• Overall trend in Schools in Need of Improvement
  (SINI) increasing across states as annual targets
  for AYP increase.
• March 2008 U.S. Dept. of Education recognizes
  wide variation in the extent of academic problems
  in schools identified as in need of improvement
  (SINIs), announces a pilot program for up to 10
  states.
• New program allows states to vary the intensity
  and type of interventions to match academic areas
  in need of improvement.

8
9
Federal Core Principles

• AYP Determinations as in approved accountability
  plan
• Clear and understandable to the public
• Schools identified for improvement as provided
  for in the accountability plan
• Differentiation method is clear and is based
  primarily on math and reading proficiency
• Transition to model must consider current status
  of schools
• Process for differentiation are data driven and
  understandable
• All Title I schools are subject to intervention
  and the interventions escalate over time
• Interventions are educationally sound provide
  evidence of effectiveness, describe how resources
  will be leveraged
• The model is designed to result in increased
  numbers of students participating in public
  school choice and supplemental education services
• There must be at least one category of
  differentiation that focuses on a subset of the
  lowest performing schools that have not met
  achievement targets in five years these get the
  most significant interventions

10
Floridas Model

• Florida selected by the U.S. Department of
  Education on July 1, 2008.
• Total of six states approved.
• Aligns and integrates Floridas School Grading
  Accountability System with the Federal NCLB
  Accountability System.
• Separates schools with comparatively fewer
  problem areas from those with more widespread
  problem areas.
• Provides a seamless support system for the two
  merged accountability programs through regional
  delivery.

10
11
Aligning AYP and School Grades for Differentiated
Accountability
Correlation between AYP Criteria Met and School
Grades (2007)
11
12
Developing Floridas Model
Preliminary Differentiated Accountability Model
(2006-07 Data) All Title I SINI Schools in
2006-07
12
13
Collapse All of Group I and Part of 2, New
Group I
Collapse Part of Group 2, all of 3, and 4 New
Group II
14
SINI Schools in Improvement Action or
Preventative Status
SINI Schools with long term problems in
Corrective Status
15
Schools generally performing well which have
missed few AYP components
Schools performing poorly which have missed
multiple AYP components
16
The Basic Idea to differentiate SINI Schools
based on a combination of School Grades AYP
Status with progressive interventions for schools
that continue to not make AYP
Differentiation
Progressive Interventions
17

Break out schools that have missed AYP for 5
years Examine four questions 1. Has the of
non-proficient students in reading stayed the
same or increased since 2003? 2. Same question
for math. 3. Are 65 or more of the schools
students non-proficient in reading? 4. Same
question for math.
18
Identify schools that the answer for at least
three of the four questions is yes, create an
additional cell that includes only those schools

19
Strategies and Interventions

20
At all stages, Floridas proposal combined
monitoring assistance, services, Choice options,
and collaboration as authorized under the No
Child Left Behind Act as well as the substantial
assistance provided under the States A plan.
21
Based on 2007-08 School Grades and AYP
Non-Title I D schools are included in Prevent
II non-Title I F and Repeating F schools are
included in Correct II.
21
22
Floridas Approved Program
23
Major Changes

• Streamlines School Grades and Adequate Yearly
  Progress accountability systems
• Combines accountability, monitoring, and
  focused/intimate support
• Increases interventions, monitoring, and support
  as school grades and AYP declines
• Delivers support through a five-region model
• Provides Supplemental Educational Services first,
  then Choice

24
Major Changes

• Operationalizes services through interventions
  and regional support organized around nine areas
• Improvement Planning
• Leadership
• Educator Quality
• Professional Development
• Curriculum Aligned and Paced
• Continuous Improvement Model
• Choice with Transportation
• Supplemental Educational Services
• Monitoring Plans and Processes

25
School Categories
26
Intervene Selection Criteria

• I.
• D or F Title I school in 2008
• OR
• Repeating F (two F grades in a four year
  period), regardless of Title I or SINI status in
  2008
• AND
• Has answered Yes to three out of four
• Has the percentage of non-proficient students in
  reading increased since 2003?
• Has the percentage of non-proficient students in
  math increased since 2003?
• Are 65 percent or more of the schools students
  non-proficient in reading?
• Are 65 percent or more of the schools students
  non-proficient in math?

OR
II. Also included are chronic F schools (Title I
and non-Title I) that are current Repeating F
schools and have earned four F grades in last six
school years (2003-2008)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Intervene Status Stages

• Exit Intervene Status Progress Made
• School improves letter grade to C or higher and
  increases the overall percent of AYP criteria met
  by one subgroup in Reading in one in Mathematics
• School is no longer Intervene

29
Intervene Status Stages

• Transitional Status
• School increases performance by one or more
  letter grades but does not increase AYP
  performance by one subgroup in Reading in one in
  Mathematics
• School continues all previous interventions in
  2009-10, conducts data analysis, and develop an
  action plan
• If the school makes progress it will move to Exit
  Intervene Status
• If the school does not make progress it will move
  to Full Intervene Implementation

30
Intervene Status Stages

• Full Intervene Implementation
• School does not meet Transitional or Exit
  Intervene Status
• Reassign students and monitor progress
• Restructure as a district-managed turnaround
  school
• Close and reopen as a charter
• Contract with a private entity to run the school

31
Differentiated Accountability Requirements
32
Roles of the School, District and State

• Prevent I school directs intervention, district
  provides assistance, state monitors
• Correct I district directs intervention, state
  reviews progress
• Prevent II district directs intervention and
  provides assistance
• Correct II school and district implement
  state-directed interventions
• Intervene school and district implement
  state-directed interventions and face possible
  closure, state monitors

33
Overview of Requirements

• Improvement Planning Incorporates state and
  federal requirements for improvement planning for
  schools and districts
• Leadership Requires leadership team to have a
  demonstrated success record
• Educator Quality Targets quality teachers to
  low-performing subgroups

34
Overview of Requirements

• Professional Development Targets professional
  development to low-performing subgroups
• Curriculum Alignment and Pacing Requires
  evidence-based curriculum, pacing guides, and
  access to rigorous coursework

35
Overview of Requirements

• Continuous Improvement Ensures the use of
  formative and diagnostic assessments and
  data-driven instruction
• Choice with Transportation Choice for SINI 2-5
• Supplemental Educational Services SES for all
  SINIs
• Monitoring Processes and Plans Requires
  monitoring teams with clearly defined roles and
  monitoring plans

36
Overview of Requirements

• Priority for implementation in the 2008-09 school
  year - Intervene, F, and Repeating F schools
• Districts must make every effort to ensure
  implementation of requirements in Correct II
  schools during this school year
• In cases of non-compliance, the district must
  have a comprehensive plan for addressing the
  requirement

37
Overview of Requirements

• All Intervene, Repeating F, and F schools are
  either in full compliance or working on attaining
  compliance

38
Regional Support System
39
Regional Approach

• Regional Executive Directors
• Regional Leader/Bureau Chief
• Change agents with a prior success record of
  increasing student achievement
• Instructional Specialists
• Content and pedagogy experts

40
(No Transcript)
41
Regional Executive Directors

• Region 1 -Nikolai Vitti (Lead Director/Bureau
  Chief) Nikolai.Vitti_at_fldoe.org
• Region 2 Leila Mousa Leila.Mousa_at_fldoe.org
• Region 3 Joseph Burke Joseph.Burke_at_fldoe.org
• Region 4 Gail Daves Gail.Daves_at_fldoe.org
• Region 5 Jeffrey Hernandez Jeffrey.Hernandez_at_fl
  doe.org

42
Roles and Responsibilities

• Regional Offices will
• Meet with Superintendents and District Leadership
  Teams to discuss Differentiated Accountability
• Review and approve School Improvement Plans for
  Intervene, Repeating F, and F Correct II schools
• Work with district staff to support
  low-performing schools
• Conduct Instructional Reviews
• Provide professional development and coaching to
  district and school leadership teams to improve
  teaching and learning
• Provide support in the school improvement
  planning, implementation, and evaluation process
• Provide support in data analysis and continuous
  improvement

43
Details

• http//www.flbsi.org