This document provides definitions and context related to "Persistently Low Achieving" schools in Washington state. It defines what qualifies a school as persistently low achieving based on proficiency levels in reading and math over three years, as well as graduation rates for secondary schools. It outlines the methodology used to identify 47 schools falling into Tiers I and II based on these criteria. The document also provides background on data sources and validation of the methodology with the US Department of Education.

1. “Persistently Low Achieving” in WashingtonGreg LobdellCo-founder and Director of ResearchCenter for Educational Effectivenessgreg@effectiveness.org

2. Today’s Outcomes Understand the definition of “Persistently Low Achieving” in Washington Understand the application of this definition in the context of WA Understand the Profile of these 47 buildings What’s Next… Dialogue and Discussion

3. Project Background- The Why?

5. Proficiency…

7. Weighting is equal between elementary and secondary schools

8. Graduation rate weighted-average is based on the number of students for each year

9. Graduation rate is calculated as required in Guidance on School Improvement Grants, January 21, 2010 consistent with C.F.R. § 200.19(b) 6

10. Definitions Title I eligible: Based on SY 2009-10 student data, a school is considered Title I eligible if: Poverty percentage is 35% or more; or The school’s poverty percentage is greater than or equal to the district’s poverty average Lack of Progress: The school’s percent increase or decrease (slope of linear regression) over the most recent three-year period compared to the state slope 7

11. Progress…

12. Slope == Progress 3% Improvement Per Year

15. Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years;Tier III School Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school. 10

17. Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.

18. Tier II: Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school that is defined as a “persistently lowest-achieving school” in Tier II or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years and that:

19. Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.

20. Is in Step 5 of Improvement with a declining improvement trend11

21. Key References “SIG-G”: Guidance on School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA of 1965. US Dept. of Education December 18, 2009 and updated January 20, 2010 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/guidance20100120.doc Interim final requirements for School Improvement Grants http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2010-1/012110a.pdf 12

22. Data Sources 21 Independent data sources Demographic information by district: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Demographic information by school: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 AYP & Title I information by school: 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Graduation rates by school 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 2009-10 Title I eligibility and status (Oct ‘09 data) 13

23. The “Alternative” Methodology…

25. Key Concepts ‘Persistently’ requires 3 years of data in Reading and Math Secondary: grades 7 – 12 (WAC 392-348-235) As SIG-G requires, proficiency calculated for all-students, continuously enrolled, following AYP Accountability Workbook Minimum of N of 30 applied for all students tested in a building by content area per year 16

26. Key Concepts Tier Size: The number of schools in the consideration-set (for Tiers I and II) is calculated based on Title and AYP status before “minimum N” rule is applied (as per SIG-G). Schools that had 2009 data but are closed in 2009-10 are removed from overall consideration-set before creating the sizes for each tier. 17

27. Defining Tiers: Tier I 18

28. Defining Tiers: Tier II 19

29. Key Concepts Following SIG-G: Added Ranks Method for 6 ranks If there are N schools in consideration-set: this results in a value for each school between 6 and6 x N If ranking 450 schools If your school was top ranked in each year in both reading and math your added-rank = 6 If your school was the bottom ranked in each year in both reading and math your added-rank = 2700 (6 x 450) 20

30. Key Concepts FINAL rank-ordering (3-level sort): Schools in lowest-5% in BOTH reading and math (at least once in each over 3 years) Total “added ranks” Progress 21

31. Added Ranks Method 22 Schools in lowest 5% only in 1 content area Schools in lowest 5% in Both Reading and Math

32. Applying Sort-Order 23 Note two schools with “Added Rank” = 961. Progress defines who ranks above and below.

33. Summary Example Tier 1: 450 schools in consideration set (ranks 1 to 450) School 4: in bottom 5% in both reading and math School 3: Larger ‘added rank’ than 1 & 2 Schools 1 & 2: Tie in added ranks so next step is “progress” 24

34. Validation US Department of Education approval of methodology wasthe critical step! OSPI Student Information and Assessment division Integrated data-set validated back to individual components All “missing data” confirmed (or fixed) Bottom-up and top-down creation of tiers and the final lists 25

35. Who/Where/Why?Profile of Tiers I and II

46. Visually…

51. Questions, Comments?greg@effectiveness.org

52. What About The WA Accountability Index? Reading, Writing, Math, & Science Those outcomes are each measured using four indicators: achievement of students who are not from low-income families; achievement of students from low-income families; achievement of all students when compared to “peers” (those with similar student characteristics, such as the percentage of students who have a disability, are learning English, are designated as gifted, come from low-income families, and are mobile); and improvement in the achievement of all students from the previous year. The average of the resulting 20 measures comprises the overall index SB6696 and Required Action…

53. Innovative Leadership Getting Ahead of the Curve

54. Innovative Leadership Proactively working on internal “turnaround” projects Segmentation of schools in a performance management framework Comprehensive School Review- the “Deep Dive” Aggressive research-based interventions

55. Consider- If this was your district…

56. What would you do as a leader? Policy to solution or is policy the problem? Beliefs drive behavior…or does behavior drive beliefs? Institutions: “collective values” or “collective interests”? More about this after dinner with Gene…

57. Questions, Comments?greg@effectiveness.org

58. Comprehensive Planning Organizational Management Financial Management Monitoring of Intervention Professional Development Leadership Teaching and Learning Student Achievement Increased Student Achievement CEE Data Foundation/Comprehensive School Profile

59. References You Can Use Primary Beat The Odds (2006). Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2006). Why Some Schools With Latino Children Beat the Odds…and Others Don’t. Tempe, AZ.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, jointly with Center for the Future of Arizona. (aka: “Beat The Odds (2006) ). Elmore, R. (2004).Knowing the Right Things to Do: School Improvement and Performance-Based Accountability. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association- Center for Best Practices. Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Fixen, D.L. et al. (2005).Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231) School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007). School Turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Public Impact, Academic Development Institute- prepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerii.org/ (aka: School Turnarounds (2007)). Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004).Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research. Olympia, WA. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2003).Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. A research-based resource for school leadership teams to assist with the School Improvement Process. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Olympia, WA. Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008).Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct?Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22. Secondary Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) (2005). Longitudinal Change in Staff Perceptions of the 9 Characteristics of High Performing Schools in OSPI SIA Cohort-II and III Schools. Redmond, WA: Center for Educational Effectiveness. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute. Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters, Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.