Lynn SodatSchool Improvement Specialist

804-786-7018Lynn.Sodat@doe.virginia.gov

September 25, 2012

Understanding the Academic Review Process for all schools not fully accredited

Conducting the On-site Academic Review Compensation Information Differentiated Technical Assistance Team (DTAT) Practice with scenarios Team time to share contact and calendar information Regional Liaisons Only: The Needs Sensing Interview

Refer to Manual:

“Overview of the Academic Review Process: A Handbook for All Schools

That Are Not Fully Accredited”

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/academic_reviews/index.shtml

Described in the Standards of Accreditation Board-approved process must include:◦[On-site] Academic Review◦Adoption of a research-based instructional

intervention (if warned in English or mathematics)◦Develop 3-year school improvement plan (SIP),

which must address the on-site review findings 9 components

Step 1 Review of Accountability Data and Assignment of Contractor

Step 2 Needs Sensing Interview and Formation of School and Division Support Teams

Step 3 On-Site Review

Step 4 School Improvement Planning

Step 5 Quarterly Reporting and Early Warning System

Step 6 Differentiated Technical Assistance

See page 10 in manual YEAR 1:◦Tier 1 and 2 will work with Regional Liaisons and

Academic Review Contractors◦Tier 3 (Focus Schools) will work with Division Liaisons◦Tier 4 (Priority Schools) will work with State Facilitators

and Lead Turnaround Partner (LTP) All will receive academic reviews We might be asked to serve as team members on

one or more Focus School reviews

YEARS 2 and 3:◦Monitoring of plan◦Technical assistance as needed

YEAR 4 and beyond◦Accreditation Denied Status MOU with State Board of Education

OR◦Conditional Accreditation Must be requested and approved by State Board MOU with State Board of Education 3 year maximum to earn full accreditation

Needs sensing interview – 3 objectives To determine division’s capacity with respect to

the 7 elements on the division level change map To determine initial needs for each identified

school that can be addressed by the Differentiated Technical Assistance Team

To model for the division how to use a change map and needs sensing interview protocol◦The division will complete this process using the school

level protocol with each identified school prior to the on-site review

To be conducted October - November ◦One per divisions to include:

Warned schools (years 1-3) Provisionally accredited schools (years 1-2) Focus schools Schools identified due to not meeting federal AMOs

◦Conducted by Regional Liaison or Division Liaison◦Division level leadership team members participate◦Summary report provided to OSI◦DTAT referral form provided to OSI

Formation of School and Division Support Teams◦Division Team:

Principal of identified school(s) Division’s top elementary, middle, and secondary leaders Title I, Special Education, ELL (if applicable)

◦K-12 focus◦Regular review of data to make decisions about

resources, policies, and strategies◦Develops division-level goals to address needs of

identified school(s) Warned = monthly meetings Provisionally Accredited = quarterly meetings

◦School Team: Principal of identified school One member of the division team Instructional staff, guidance, special education

◦Develops of School Improvement Plan◦Monitors implementation of plan◦Adjusts plan regularly and documents progress Warned = monthly meetings Provisionally Accredited = quarterly meetings

To be conducted after the needs sensing interview – November – February

Focus schools – led by Division Liaison Priority schools – led by LTP Warned or Provisionally Accredited Schools

(not Priority or Focus) – led by Regional Liaison or Academic Review Contractor

Logistics◦1 to 2 contractors on team◦2-3 LEA representatives on team◦2 day on-site review ◦Emphasis on area of warning

See also “On-site Academic Review Handbook”http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/academic_reviews/index.shtml

All identified schools will use the Indistar® web-based school improvement planning tool

Developed by the Office of School Improvement (OSI) and the Center on Innovation and Improvement (CII)

Free for all schools in VA (voluntary schools must enter into user agreement)

Schools must be trained by OSI to use the tool All identified schools will be trained or re-trained

by OSI in 2012-2013 as the platform has changed

Training sessions for warned and provisionally accredited schools:◦October 30, 2012 – Session 1◦November 15, 2012 – Session 2◦December 4, 2012 – Session 3◦January 8, 2013 – Session 4◦February 7, 2013 – Session 5

All Indistar® questions should be directed to Dr. Yvonne Holloman ◦Yvonne.Holloman@doe.virginia.gov ◦804-225-2064

Identified schools required to review data points on a regular basis (the ABCs)◦Attendance◦Behavior◦Course performance

Data must be uploaded into a data query system at least quarterly

Option 1a: DataCation◦$500 per school◦Can be used K-12◦Can upload data monthly

Option 1b: VEWS ◦High schools only (research-validated by National High

School Center and VDOE for grade 9)◦Free◦Can upload data quarterly

Option 2: Comparable system – must be approved by OSI

Option 3: Complete quarterly report – must be approved by OSI

Team of OSI Contractors that provides technical assistance/professional development to schools and/or divisions based on identified needs

Regional Liaisons, Academic Review Contractors, Division Liaisons, and State Facilitators send referrals to DTAT to initiate process

Schools and divisions may also self-refer Support provided through a variety of delivery

models Orientation webinar for schools November 8,

2012 at 10:00 a.m.

Refer to Manual:

“On-site Academic Review Handbook”

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/academic_reviews/index.shtml

Section 3 Before the On-site Academic Review (Preparation)

Section 4 During the On-site Academic Review (Participation)

Section 5 After the On-site Academic Review (Follow-up)

Coming soon – recorded sessions corresponding to each of these topics to be posted on our web site – to be recorded October 15

What the division will do: Receive notification information on September

26, 2012 Participate in introductory webinar on October 4,

2012 Receive from Regional Liaison or Division Liaison

notification of needs sensing interview and academic review dates for identified school(s) – October, 2012

Assign LEA division contact and LEA on-site academic review team members – October, 2012

Form division team and begin meeting to address identified school issues (K-12) – October, 2012

Division representative assigned to serve on school team – October, 2012 (will also participate in Indistar® training)

Division level team members will participate in needs sensing interview – October or November, 2012

Division to conduct school level needs sensing interview and submit summary to OSI – 2 weeks prior to on-site review

What the school will do: Principal will receive (from superintendent)

notification information sent on September 26, 2012

Principal will participate in introductory webinar on October 4, 2012

Form school team – October, 2012 High schools only - Principal will view high school

requirements video by October 15, 2012 and will adhere to required timelines

Participate in Indistar® training and begin developing plan – beginning October, 2012

Principal will participate in needs sensing interview conducted by division – summary due to OSI 2 weeks prior to on-site review

Principal will complete required self-assessments and will provide additional required information to OSI 2 weeks prior to the review (see page 9 of handbook)

Principal will ensure that all additional requested information is accessible to academic review team during the review (see pages 9-10 of handbook)

What the Regional Liaison or Academic Review contractor will do:

Receive on-site review schedule from Regional Liaison

Receive job assignment from University Instructors

Receive needs sensing interview summary and initial DTAT request information from OSI

3 weeks prior to review: email principal and division contact to confirm date – establish starting and ending times

2 weeks prior to review: receive master schedule, interview schedules, and self-studies from principal – develop review schedule

1-2 weeks prior to review: email principal and team members to reconfirm date, send out review schedule; ask principal about lunch

Review data and make initial recommendations regarding indicators to review

2 days prior to review: prepare team packets◦ Review schedule◦ School report card (can make a single copy)◦ Needs sensing interview summary (can make single copy)◦ DTAT referral forms (can make single copy)◦ Other self study summaries (summaries only – do not include

individual teacher surveys)◦ Observation forms◦ Interview forms as needed◦ Copy of Indicators for Review◦ Copy of Essential Actions◦ Confidentiality form

Load needed electronic documents onto laptop for use during review

Send final instructions to team members if needed (your contact information, materials they need to bring, etc.)

What the division will do: Provide 2-3 team members to serve on team Division superintendent or designee will attend exit meetingWhat the school will do: Provide all needed elements noted on pages 9-10 of manual Facilitate staff (and sometimes student) participation in

interviews Provide any additional materials requested during the

course of the review The principal will be available at all times during the review All teachers will be available to observe during the review,

with lesson plans available for review

What the regional liaison or academic review contractor will do:

Lead the team through the review Serve as the point of contact for the school and division Ensure that the schedule is followed (with adjustments

as necessary) Maintain confidentiality – collect all materials at the

end of each day and receive signed confidentiality forms from all participants

Facilitate the development of the draft report Lead the exit meeting

Introduction Team and principal will participate Go over schedule for the two day period Goal is to assist school and division in targeting

areas for improvement Confidentiality will be maintained Oral exit interview at end of second day Written summary to be provided

approximately 3 weeks later

Initial Meeting with Team Go over information in packets Determine indicators for review –these should

guide the team’s work over the two day period Review schedule and make any changes

needed Review self-studies Confidentiality

Interviews Use protocol in manual Do not write down participant names Explain to participants that the goal is to

gather information, find themes, etc., not to single anyone out or to evaluate personnel

Interviewer notes will be collected at the end of the review

HINT: Keep track of how may interviews are completed for your summary report

Observations Use protocol in manual (select the most appropriate) You may write teacher names and/or room numbers, but

do not include these in the exit meeting or in the summary Look for themes as you enter multiple rooms You may observe alone, in pairs, or multiple observers may

go to a room over time if necessary Review lesson plans if they are available—note if they are

not available You may take handouts or materials if they are offered Observer notes and other class materials will be collected at

the end of the reviewHINT: Keep track of how may observations are completed for your summary report

Document Review Review all documents provided (at least a

sample) – not everyone needs to review everything

Do not hesitate to ask for relevant documents that you need to see if it has not been provided, even if it was not on the original information request

Explain to all document reviewers that all information is confidential (ex. discipline data, special education files) HINT: Keep track of which documents

are reviewed for your summary report

Debriefing – end of day 1 Meet with the team at the end of the first day◦Discuss preliminary findings◦Adjust schedule to get the most out of the second

day◦Collect all materials◦Collect confidentiality forms◦Determine whether the team needs to meet at the

beginning of Day 2

Developing the Draft Report Begin by 11:00 on the second day Use the template in the handbook (pages 79-87) Evaluation of Indicators◦Most review teams evaluate 10-12 indicators◦ Include a comment for every indicator evaluated – base

your comments on evidence, and use complete sentences

◦Document themes or trends◦Ratings based on consensus

Review of Relevant Data◦Total classroom observations completed—if 2

people observed in one room, record 2 observations

◦Total number of individuals interviewed (staff and students)

◦Check the self-studies completed and reviewed◦For documents reviewed, comments are optional

Narrative Summary◦Be specific, and use complete sentences

3 to 4 strengths 3 to 4 areas needing improvement

◦ If no unusual circumstances, “No unusual circumstances were noted.”

◦ Examples of recommendations concerning school improvement process: “The school improvement team needs to consistently meet on a

monthly basis, with agendas and minutes recorded in Indistar® to document the team’s progress”

“The Indistar® plan is well-developed.” “Staff and other stakeholders should be regularly informed of

the school improvement team’s priorities and progress.”

Essential Actions◦Five to a maximum of eight◦Essential Actions should be aligned with your

findings from the indicators reviewed that were rated 1 or 2

◦On the template, include only the Essential Action Number and Description – do not fill out the rest of the table

Include for all schools EA 7.1 “Develop or revise the School Improvement Plan to address findings of the Academic Review team, seek approval of the plan from the local school board, and submit the plan to the Department of Education Staff.”

Include for all schools warned in English or mathematics EA 7.2 “Select and implement an instructional intervention that meets identified needs in English and/or mathematics.”

Exit Meeting◦LEA team members may or may not attend◦Division superintendent or designee will attend◦School principal will attend◦Orally review written draft of summary◦Focus on evidence and themes◦Answer questions regarding process or next steps◦Discuss Follow-up Form and Research-based

Interventions Form◦Explain that written summary will be sent to

superintendent, division contact, and principal within 3 weeks

What the division will do: Continue to support the school to develop, implement,

monitor, and modify the school improvement plan Develop or revise division-level goals to support the

school’s improvement efforts The division contact will complete the Follow-up Form

and submit to OSI by May 1 The division contact will complete the Research-based

Intervention Form for all schools warned in English or Mathematics and submit to OSI by June 1

The school improvement plan will be submitted in Indistar® by June 18

What the school will do: Modify the school improvement plan to include indicators

and/or tasks that address the Essential Actions Continue to monitor the plan, documenting progress and

making additional modifications as necessary in Indistar ® The principal will work with the division contact to

complete the Follow-up Form and submit to OSI by May 1 The principal will work with the division contact to

complete the Research-based Intervention Form for all schools warned in English or Mathematics and submit to OSI by June 1

The school improvement plan will be submitted in Indistar® by June 18

What the Regional Liaison or Academic Review Contractor will do:

Review and make final edits to the Academic Review Summary Report

Submit the Academic Review Summary Report to OSI within 5 business days

Submit the DTAT Technical Assistance Form to OSI within 5 business days

What the Regional Liaison will do: Review all submitted Academic Review Summary

Reports, make additional edits, and submit to OSI within 5 days

Complete quarterly reports Receive the Follow-up Report Forms and complete

the Follow-up section of the Academic Review Summary Reports; submit to OSI

Submit additional DTAT requests as needed

A middle school is Accredited with Warning in mathematics ◦ Current year score is 49%◦ 3 year average is 69%

The school was not warned in history; however, they made accreditation with a 3 year average score of 71% and the current year score was 60%

There were 469 discipline incidents in 2011-2012, and 439 incidents in 2010-2011

The results of the needs sensing interview indicated that the school does not have an articulated vision statement, the school does not use formative assessments, and there are no established communication mechanisms with the two feeder elementary schools

A DTAT request was sent to OSI from the school for assistance with school improvement planning basics

VSM 1.10 Providing opportunities for those affected by organizational changes to have input into the development of expectations and procedures related to the changes SCORE = 2 (Occasionally)

Notes: According to teacher interviews, the staff reported that they do not have input into the school improvement plan unless they are on the leadership team. Interview participants also indicated that the decisions made by the school leadership team are not consistently communicated to the rest of the staff.

L 1.13 Providing opportunities for teachers to experiment, practice, and obtain feedback as they integrate newly learned skills into their repertoire of instructional practices SCORE = 1 (No Evidence)

Notes: According to teacher interviews, a review of the professional development calendar, and school staff meeting agendas, there were only three professional development sessions held during the course of the school year. Two sessions were held prior to the beginning of the year and one was held in October. No additional sessions are planned for the year. None of these sessions focused specifically on mathematics. Staff reported that they do not receive feedback related to professional development following instructional observations, and they have not received follow-up guidance or training with respect to the professional development topic for their October session (Instructional Strategies that Work by Marzano and Pickering)

CIA 1.8 Differentiating instruction to meet the identified needs of individual students and groups of students SCORE = 2 (Occasionally)

Notes: According to classroom observations, a review of lesson plans, and a review of observations completed by the principal, teachers do not consistently differentiate instruction. Small group, differentiated instruction was observed in only one classroom, which was a special education resource classroom. Several observations forms that had been completed by the principal noted that teachers need to differentiate instruction. There was no evidence of planning for differentiated instruction in the lesson plans reviewed.