North Central Association SCHOOL ACCREDITATION

AND IMPROVEMENT - Partners on the Journey -

Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Dr. Ron Costello

Associate Director of Schools Office of Catholic Education

rcostello@archindy.org

September 10, 2001

OVERVIEWContext and What is ImportantUnderstanding of P.L. 221- Data Driven

Consensogram RubricAccountability Systems

Accreditation AgenciesImprovement Planning Models

PartnersAssessment

Mandatory/State Tests Measures of Improvement Secondary – Mobility/Special situations

TimelineReporting

Most important question?Data Driven SchoolsQuestionsConclude

“We must do our best in the short term to protect current students from the worst effects of a given policy, but we we must also work to change or eliminate that policy.”

Alfie Kohn, “Fighting the Tests: A Practical Guide to Rescuing Our Schools,” Educational Leadership, January 2001

Slide # 4

Standards & Investment

Better Standards, Better Schools, 1999 Annual Report, Achieve, Inc. Http://www.Achieve.Org

Slide # 5

Consensogram RubricCategory 1 2 3 4 5

Rules to Implement PL 221-1999AccountabilityIndiana Academic StandardsAccreditationCategoriesPL 221-1999 TimelineContinuous School Improvement ProcessRoles and ResponsibilitiesConsensus-BuildingData CollectionCatholic Identity

Slide # 6

Most important question is -What is the purpose of your school?

What do you expect students to know and be able to do by the time they leave the school? (Standards)

What do you expect students to know and be able to do at the end of each year? (Benchmarks)

How well will students be able to do what they want to do with the knowledge and skills they acquire by the time they leave school? (Performance)

Victoria Bernhardt, Data Analysis

Slide # 7

Public Law 221 is an accountability system.

To determine if schools are meeting the state aims and goals for education

Local community and state are to assist schools in their efforts to meet the state goals

Slide # 8

PL 221 accountability includes:

Standards Assessment School Improvement Planning Professional Development Accreditation - remains a function of the state Incentive and Assistance Public Reporting School improvement categories

Slide # 10

School Improvement Planning Models

1. [Indiana] Title I Continuous School Improvement Process (SWP/TAS)2. Connecting Learning Assures Successful Students (C.L.A.S.S.)3. [Effective Schools] Strategic Planning for the 21St Century/Phi Delta Kappa4. High Schools That Work/Southern Regional Educational Board (HSTW/SREBIInDOE)5. Indiana Essential Schools/InDOE6. Indiana Student Achievement Institute American SAl/various Indiana entities (InSAl)7. Journey to Learning Planning and Performance Program/Indiana University Center for

Research on Learning and Technology8. Koalaty Kid/American Society for Quality (ASQ)

9. Partners on the Journey/Archdiocese of Indianapolis10. Quality Learning/Langford International11. School Improvement--Focusing on Student Performance/National Study of School

Evaluation (NSSE)12. The School Portfolio/Education for the FutureNictoria Bernhardt13. Standard-Bearer District-Wide Model/Center for Leadership in School Reform (CLSR)

DOE Memorandum, Mary Mickelson, 7/21/01

Slide # 11

Partners on the Journey/Archdiocese of Indianapolis

72 Indiana Catholics Schools use the model Model has been in existence for 4 years Model addresses: Partners Reference

Curriculum—Description/Location Section 1.48-1.49 Assessments—Titles/Descriptions Section 1.49 Parent Participation Section 1.56 Technology as a Learning Tool Section 1.50 Safe/Discipline Learning Environment Section 1.55 Professional Development—needs assessment Section 1.53 Attendance Rate Section 1.55 Graduation Rate (high schools only) Section 1.51 Areas of Immediate Improvement Section 1.51 Benchmarks for Progress Section 1.52 Professional Development—coordinated program Section 1.53

The sponsor (OCE): Provides assistance with the process/plan Reviews the written plan to assure required components are included Monitors annual review and revision

Slide # 12

Mandatory Annual Assessment

ISTEP English and mathematics at Grads 3, 6, 8, and 10

English and mathematics tests at Grades 4, 5, 7, and 9

ISTEP science tests and social studies tests, when implemented, at Grades 5, 7, and 9

Science and social studies tests at Grades 4, 6, and 8

Slide # 13

State Provided Tests

Mandatory annual assessment tests in off-ISTEP grades

Early assessments in grades K-12, includes reading may be expanded to writing and mathematics

Core 40 end of course test

Slide # 14

Secondary Indicators

May be used:(1) if annual test data do not provide an accurate

picture of school improvement and performance;(2) to assure that school meets the needs of all

students;(3) for public reporting; and(4) to determine assistance provided

to school.

Slide # 17

School Improvement Planning Process Common Elements

1. Three (3) years instead of the previous five years.

2. Annual visits and/or contact from OCE 3. Full day site visit with an exit report to all staff

4. The site visits are for: (a) providing technical review(b) assisting in designing/improving the school improvement

plan(c) collecting data about the degree of implementation (d) verifying results.

5. At least for 2001-2002, all schools will submit either their continued or new improvement plan for approval to:

OCE by March 1, 2002DOE by June 30, 2002

6. Design and implementation of the performance review

Slide # 18

The Process of Standards Linking 11 Components of standards linking:

Vision Current State Curriculum and Assessment Plan School Decision Resources Professional Development Plan Supervision and Evaluation Student Profile Comprehensive Assessment System Reporting

Action Plan

Source: The Center for Curriculum Renewal, 1999

Slide # 19

Measures of Improvement and Performance

(Exemplary) > 90%

(Commendable) > 80-89.9%

(Adequate) > 70-79.9%

(Marginal) > 60-69.9%

(Unsatisfactory) < 60%

(Exemplary) >7

(Commendable) <7

(Adequate) <5

(Marginal) <3

(Unsatisfactory) No

Improvement

Performance (percent passing both English/language arts and mathematics)

Improvement (standard score in English and mathematics or percent passing English and mathematics) (Not applicable to schools with exemplary performance)

Slide # 20

Archdiocese of Indianapolis 2000-01ISTEP+ Percent of Mastery

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Subject Sub Test

Perce

nt

Mastery 79% 77% 78% 76% 81% 78% 90% 83% 87% 88% 83% 87%

3rd Lang Arts

3rd Math

3rd Total

6th Lang Arts

6th Math

6th Total

8th Lang Arts

8th Math

8th Total

10th Eng Mastery

10th Math

10th Total

Slide # 21

3rd Grade Essential SkillsISTEP+ Essential Skill (corresponds to IPI)

IPI at Standard (rank low to high)

Mean IPI for this school

Difference (Include +

or -)Percent Mastery

Archdiocese of IndianapolisGrade 3 - English/Language Art

3.1 Construct Meaning (MC) 75 83.5 8.5 80%3.2 Elaborate on Meaning (MC) 76 82.1 6.1 79%3.3a Writing Development (Writng) 55 58.7 3.7 80%3.3b Language-in-Use (Writing) 91 92.9 1.9 79%3.4 Punct/Capitalize (MC) 78 84.4 6.4 77%3.5 Usage (MC) 84 88.9 4.9 79%3.6 Categorize (MC) 81 86.8 5.8 79%3.7 Make Predictions (MC) 91 92.4 1.4 78%3.8 Literal Meaning (MC) 84 89.5 5.5 80%3.9 Signs/Symbols (MC) 96 96.1 0.1 82%3rd Lang Arts Mastery 79%

Grade 3 - Mathematics

3.1-3 Probsolv/Comm/Reas (MC, OE) 62 75.5 13.5 78%3.4 Whole Number Sense (MC, OE) 87 90 3 76%3.5 Place Value (MC, OE) 78 85.3 7.3 79%3.6 Fractions/Decimals (MC) 65 76.5 11.5 76%3.7 Wh # Comp/Estimation (MC) 81 87.6 6.6 80%3.8 Geometry (MC) 87 90 3 76%3.9 Spatial Sense (MC) 87 89.5 2.5 75%3.10 Measurement (MC, OE) 67 77.9 10.9 79%3.11 Probability/Stats (MC, OE) 83 87.9 4.9 78%3rd Math Mastery 77%3rd Total Average 78%2,276 Student Count

Slide # 22

3rd Grade – English/Language ArtsStandard 6: Written English Language Conventions

Punctuation Use commas in dates (August 15, 2001),

locations (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and addresses (431 Coral Way, Miami, FL), and for items in a series (football, basketball, soccer, and tennis).

Capitalization Capitalize correctly geographical names, holidays,

historical periods, and special events (We always celebrate the Fourth of July by gathering at Mounds State Park in Anderson, Indiana.)

Indiana’s Academic Standards, Adopted Summer 2000

Slide # 23

Indiana 3rd Grade – Mathematics Proficiency 10: Develop Spatial Sense

Students will:

Divide a shape into smaller shapes (R) Recognize and make shapes that can be

created from a set of three simple shapes. (I) Identify a variety of congruent figures. (R) Draw figures congruent to a given figure. (R) Construct and label three-dimensional objects.

(I)

Indiana’s Academic Proficiencies

Slide # 24

Indiana 3rd Grade – Mathematics Standard 4: Geometry

Students describe and compare the attributes of plane and solid geometric shapes and use their understanding to show relationships and solve problems.

Identify quadrilaterals* as four-sided shapes. Example: Which of these are quadrilaterals: square, triangle, rectangle?

Identify right angles in shapes and objects and decide whether other angles are greater or less than a right angle.

Example: Identify right angles in your classroom. Open the classroom door until it makes a right angle with one wall and explain what you are doing.

Identify, describe, and classify: cube, sphere*, prism*, pyramid, cone, cylinder.

Example: Describe the faces of a pyramid and identify its characteristics. dentify common solid objects that are the parts needed to make a

more complex solid object. Example: Describe and draw a house made from a prism and a pyramid.

Draw a shape that is congruent* to another shape. Example: Draw a triangle that is congruent to a given triangle. You may use a

ruler and pencil or the drawing program on a computer. Indiana’s Academic Standards, Adopted Summer

2000

Slide # 25

School Improvement Plan 2002-2005 Goal Planning

(3 to 5 goals with one (1) ISTEP+ improvement goal)

Goal 1: Where do we want to be by the end of the year?

A Measureable Goal: Take the goal above and make it measurable.

Effective strategies to reach this goal: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Professional Development needed to reach the goal.

How will we assess continued progress to reaching the state goal? How will we measure success?

Slide # 26

School Improvement Report Archdiocese of Indianapolis

School: Name Goal: Type your goal here (Areas of Immediate Improvement) Support Data (from the Improvement Plan) 1. Assessment 1 (Plan Page #) 2. Assessment 2 (Plan Page #) 3. Assessment 3 (Plan Page #)

Standardized Assessments (Benchmarks for Progress) 1. Assessment 1 (list up to 3) 2. Assessment 2 (list up to 3) 3. Assessment 3 (list up to 3)

Local Assessments (Benchmarks for Progress) 1. Assessment 1 (List up to 3, Include at least 2. One performance assessment) 3.

Intervention(s): Type your intervention(s) here.

Research/Best Practice(s) for Intervention(s): 1. List sources of research or best practices that

support this intervention(s) here.

Activities to Implement the Intervention(s) Person(s) Accountable

Timeline Begin End

Resources Staff Development

1. Listing of activities here. 1. Person(s) responsible for these activities here.

1. Dec. 01 1. Jan. 02 1. List resources necessary for this activity here. (Include curriculum to be used)

2. Include parent involvement

3. List technology as a learning tool

1. Listing of the in-service activities necessary to accomplish results listed in plan.

Slide # 27

Data Driven School Improvement Planning Four Major Steps

Slide # 28

Consensogram Rubric

Category 1 2 3 4 5Rules to Implement PL 221-1999AccountabilityIndiana Academic StandardsAccreditationCategoriesPL 221-1999 TimelineContinuous School Improvement ProcessRoles and ResponsibilitiesConsensus-BuildingData CollectionCatholic Identity