Priority SchoolsSeptember 25, 2015

Support Team• Ms. Annette Barnes, Assistant Commissioner for Public School

Accountability• Mr. Elbert Harvey, Coordinator of Public School Accountability• Dr. Richard Wilde, Director of School Improvement• Ms. Tiah Friazier, School Improvement Specialist• Dr. Robert Toney, School Improvement Specialist• Ms. Janie Hickman, School Improvement Specialist• Dr. Denise Airola, Office of Innovation for Education

Priority Schools CalculationsDenise AirolaOffice of Innovation for EducationSeptember 25, 2015

ESEA Flexibility Requirements

• Priority Schools—USDE Definition• http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexi

bility/resources/eseaflexdefs04162012.pdf (page 3)

• Pages 98-99 http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Flexibility/AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request.pdf

USDE Definition of Priority Schools• Among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in

the state based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on statewide assessments, … and has a demonstrated lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group;

• Title I participating or Title I eligible high school with graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or

• A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using SIG funds….

Added Ranks Method: Original SIG Guidance

Page 6

Method• Post appeals assessment scores for non-mobile

students were used.• 2012, 2013, and 2014 percent proficient or above (P/A) for math and literacy. • Schools were ranked on percent P/A each year for

each subject. • Rank of 1 = highest percent P/A• Higher rank, lower percent P/A (approx. 1045

schools year to year)• Feeder schools take on status of paired school.

Adding Ranks• Overall three year rank = sum of ranks for math and for

literacy • Ranged from 14 to 6275

• 2014 rank (2014 math rank + 2014 literacy rank)• Ranged from 4 to 2119

• 3 yr. Weighted Rank = overall 3 yr. + 0.80 (2014 rank)• Gives credit for improved performance and relative

rank in 2014• Ranged from 17.2 to 7970.2

• Newly identified Priority Schools in 2015 had a Weighted Rank Value greater than 7533 (lowest 5%).

ExampleThree year rank = 2014 math rank +2014 literacy rank + 2013 math rank + 2013 literacy rank + 2012 math rank + 2012 literacy rank

Three year rank = 988 + 1008 + 996 + 1000 + 981 + 964 = 5937

Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 3 Year Rank + 0.80 * (2014 math + literacy ranks).

Weighted Rank Value (WRV) = 7534 = 5937 + .80 * 1996

Final List

• Previous Priority Schools that had not exited Priority status

• Newly identified Schools with Weighted Rank Value greater than 7533 (lowest 5%).

 Priority Schools

New Priority Designation  N=10*

Lit + Math Combined Performance 2014 Mean (SD)Max PerformanceMin Performance

45.18 (4.10)

51.7240.38

Lit + Math Combined Performance 2013 Mean (SD)Max PerformanceMin Performance

45.80 (13.42)

58.938.70

Literacy Performance 2014 Mean (SD)Max PerformanceMean Performance

48.63 (16.71) 61.86

0.00

ESEA Flexibility Approved RequestAugust 6, 2015

Priority Schools

E SEA Waiver• ADE Website http://www.arkansased.gov/

• Topics A-Z Select E

• Select ESEA Flexibility

• To view the approved request http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Flexibility/AR_Approved_ESEA_Flexibility_Request.pdf

USDOE ESEA Flexibility All States

• A – Z Topics• Select S• Select School Improvement• Select Related Laws• Select U.S Department of Education – ESEA

Flexibility Site http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

ESEA Flexibility Highlights

• Priority Schools Pages 98-110

• Focus Schools Pages 110-123

Please read the entire document for clarity on how teacher effectiveness, RTI, assessment, planning and support from ADE and District are all to integrate.

Priority Schools Year 1

Semester 1 Activity (Pg. 103)

• Commissioner meets with principals and superintendents

• ADE assigns lead SIS (School Improvement Specialist) to LEA and Priority School(s)

• School Leadership Team in collaboration with district leadership team conducts a school and district “diagnostic analysis and needs assessment” (Details on Pg. 103-104)

Priority Schools Year 1 (continued)

Needs Assessment includes but not limited to:

• Human Resources alignment of ACSIP to needs allocation of fiscal resources aligned with needs

• School schedule provides time and plan for teachers to collaborate

• Teacher team structure focuses on collaboration to meet student needs

• PD plan aligned with this needs assessment• Teacher team effectiveness in data use, problem

identification, problem clarification and problem solving

Priority Schools Year 1 Semester 2

Year 1 Semester 2 (Pg. 105)

• District assigns a locally hired site based SIS

• School and district leadership teams agree on MOU related to levels of autonomy accountability, and sanctions for minimal IMO progress (Pg. 105)

• ADE district/school agree/specify on a professional development plan to build the leadership capacity

• ADE, district, school develop a three year priority improvement plan with identified Interim Measurable Objectives (Pg. 105)

Priority Schools Year 1 Semester 2 (continued)

• Locally hired SIS reports weekly to ADE

• Locally hired SIS engages leadership team and school board in ongoing development

• ADE SIS and school leadership team provides quarterly report to State Board of Education

* Priority schools and their LEA (District) that fail to show progress may be subject to losing flexibility in the use of the state and/or federal categorical dollars