Louisiana Differentiated Intervention Plan Proposal
I. Executive Summary. The executive summary is an opportunity for states to address and highlight big picture issues regarding its differentiated accountability model and its NCLB accountability system as a whole. The executive summary is limited to five pages. (The balance of the proposal is limited to 30 pages.)
Key Issues / State Response /· State your intent to propose and adopt a differentiated accountability model and when the model will be implemented if approved (this year, phase in, etc.). / Louisiana proposes to pilot a differentiated accountability model. We hope to implement the new system prior to academic year 2008-09. Schools newly identified for school improvement or required to implement additional and more intense sanctions for academic year 2008-09 will be eligible for inclusion. Other issues related to transition and details of eligibility are included in later sections.
· Address how a state has met USED's eligibility criteria, including:
§ Assurance that a state's standards and assessments system has been fully approved and administered in 2007-2008.
§ Assurance that a state has no significant monitoring findings.
§ Assurance that a state has an approved HQT plan.
§ Assurance and proof that a state has provided timely and transparent AYP information to parents over the period of the last two years.
*Note: references to “assurances” in this template should not require significant narrative explanation or justification. A simple statement with appropriate citation or cross-reference (e.g., to USED approval letter) should suffice. / · Louisiana expects approval of its assessment system upon peer review of alternate assessment this fall. http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/la.html
· Louisiana had no significant NCLB monitoring findings in the USED report of Sept. 29, 2006.
· Louisiana’s HQT plan has been approved. http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html
· Louisiana regularly releases a list of those schools required to offer choice and/or SES I early August http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/comm/pressrelease.aspx?PR=908. Fall 2006 did not fit this pattern due to the implementation of a more comprehensive assessment program. Scores were released late with USED approval. http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
· As appropriate, address whether your state / model meets the following USED priority criteria:
§ A state has at least 20% of its Title 1 schools identified as in need of improvement, and it has been a challenge to provide meaningful, intensive reform to all its identified Title I schools.
§ For a state with less than 20% of its Title I schools identified as in need of improvement, explain why a state needs a differentiated accountability model.
§ A state proposes to take significant and comprehensive interventions for its lowest-performing schools earlier in the time line, i.e. before schools reach the restructuring phase.
§ A state proposes an innovative model of differentiation and system of interventions. / · Louisiana identifies nearly 8% of its Title 1 schools as needing improvement as a result of 2006-07 decisions. This number will increase to over 15% because of the entry of many schools from LEAs severely impacted by Hurricane Katrina, our increased “n” due to additional grade levels tested reduces the number of schools that are helped by a confidence interval, and the implementation of the graduation rate as our high school AAI with a “cut score” that is slightly above our state average. Two state statutes that require SEA intervention under specific circumstances mean approximately 70 schools will be in the state-run Recovery School District and will challenge state capacity more so than traditional LEA operated schools. We could easily have 20% at the next release.
· A large percentage of schools entering improvement status do not exit. Districts need interventions that address specific problems, and preferably that seem reasonable to the education community. Louisiana needs better success with solving school problems prior to restructuring and/or state takeover.
· Louisiana shall aggressively review school improvement plans to establish that schools are addressing the root causes of AYP failure, that they are resolving problems, not attending to symptoms. Louisiana proposes more thorough needs assessments and more detailed data analyses. These changes are to improve student achievement and to do so prior to restructuring and state takeover.
· Although the interventions schools may implement are certainly possible in the current system, Louisiana will require a more careful selection of the interventions to address the specific causes of failure.
· Address the educational policy reasons for proposing the use of a differentiated accountability model.
§ Explain briefly the focus of the model and why it makes sound educational sense in the state context.
§ How does the model raise expectations and foster the state's educational goals to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps?
§ Will the model facilitate the use of assessments to diagnose and treat the instructional needs of individual students and to develop state and local policy?
§ Will the model be understood by parents and the public?
§ How does the model build on and complement other state policies?
§ As applicable, describe a state's historic and continuing interest in and any experience with differentiated accountability. / · The model will require analyses of student data that includes feeder patterns, specific disabilities as opposed to SWD in general, highly qualified teachers in key grades and subjects, specific languages for LEP students, and grade level deficiencies. School improvement/school-wide plans must address the root causes of the problems.
· It raises expectations by holding LEAs/schools responsible for identifying underlying causes, addressing those causes, and monitoring implementation of the interventions.
· The LDE currently provides several tools for data analysis and planning. Slight modifications in these tools and how they are used will provide the additional expertise to use the differentiated model.
· This model will include a change in the order of sanctions, and an expansion of acceptable “corrective actions.” The stakeholders in Louisiana are versed in our accountability system, and we provide training when there are changes.
· The model will “re-order” the sanctions to more closely resemble those in our original system, and align with a recent policy application to takeover failing schools that show little capacity for change or to require LEAs to enter an MOU with the state to complete specific tasks. These changes require a greater investment of LEA and SEA resources from initial identification to takeover eligibility. It also includes greater emphasis on implementing school plans –a requirement of our pre-NCLB system that remains in our school performance score (SPS) component.
· Louisiana’s recent approach to 10 schools eligible for state takeover was to thoroughly evaluate all available data and to review all district efforts at reform in the specific schools, including implementation of planned improvement efforts and an external review of educational practices at the schools. The LDE decisions on how to deal with these schools were direct responses to the data. Contingent on 2007 accountability results, five schools are to be placed in direct state control, 4 are required to engage outside providers to handle their academic programs, and 1 will have an additional year to complete the implementation of reforms that should make a substantial difference in school performance. Considering our likelihood of increased numbers of failing schools, we must find innovative solutions. This model will allow individualized school plans that will seem much more reasonable to the LEAs, schools, and public while increasing the possibility of dramatic and sustained improvement in student performance.
· Explain in summary form (e.g., bulleted list) that the 10 core principles needed for differentiated accountability models are met, or when they will be met. The 10 core principles are:
§ AYP determinations are made for all public schools;
§ AYP determinations are transparent and easy to understand;
§ Title 1 schools continue to be identified for improvement as outlined in a state's accountability plan;
§ Differentiation method is technically and educationally sound, based on robust data analysis, and uniform across the state;
§ State's transition to proposed differentiated accountability model considers the current status of schools and previous intervention implementation efforts;
§ Differentiation process and resulting interventions are data- driven, understandable, and transparent;
§ Title 1 schools are subject to interventions, and interventions will increase with intensity over time;
§ Interventions must be educationally sound;
§ The model is designed to result in an increased number of students participating in public school choice and supplemental educational services (even if eligibility is limited); and
§ A category of differentiation for, at least, a subset of the lowest-performing schools. / · AYP decisions are always made for all Louisiana public schools (with sufficient data) and will continue.
· AYP decisions are straightforward. Schools that are performing below minimal standards and/or not making sufficient improvement to reach long term goals fail AYP.
· All schools that fail to meet the specific criteria for success will continue to be placed in school improvement (the name will change) and move to more serious interventions using the same rules as in 2003 – 07. The focus of the interventions themselves may change, and to some degree, the sequence of implementation.
· Differentiation will be based on detailed analyses of the subgroup or groups that fail AYP and are identified for improvement, the pattern of failure and low performance (all discernible with tools currently provided by the LDE), the underlying causes of the failure, and proven solutions to the specific problems. State support in the form of training, technical assistance, and analysis and planning tools will be available for this more diagnostic approach.
· The transition in the accountability system will require schools already providing specific services to specific students to continue. Schools currently in improvement that made AYP in 2006-07 will continue to maintain their current level of interventions. Schools newly identified as in need of improvement or moving to more intense interventions (SI2 to CA1, for example) will enter the new system upon notification in August, 2008. For this first year, at least, LEAs may opt to operate under current policy.
· A comprehensive needs assessment with a much greater degree of data analysis will identify specific school problems. LEAs and schools will be required to implement specific and proven interventions to address those problems. The interventions “menu” will include required elements along with options that address defined problems.
· All schools will face interventions with only slight differences (due to funding) between Title 1 and non-Title 1, differences that already exist in our approved system.
· Louisiana will insist that schools select interventions that will address the specific needs of the targeted subgroups. This will be monitored by requiring the submission of school level plans to the LDE, a process in place in Louisiana since 1999, and linking these requirements to the eligibility for school improvement funds. Title 1 monitoring will include checks for implementation of the school plans.
· Louisiana expects school and district cooperation to increase since a more targeted approach seems more reasonable as does providing additional academic help before offering choice. We also expect the interventions to be more successful which should increase participation. The true evaluation on participation will be how many kids are still participating at the end of the year.
· Our differentiation proposal is based on the number of students in the failing subgroup or subgroups and/or the number of consecutive years a school has failed the SPS component. This creates categories at each level of failure, along with the 6-levels of interventions from NCLB (with some modification). Additionally, those schools failing our SPS component face earlier and more rigorous sanctions. Schools facing sanctions for subgroup failure frequently are already implementing interventions for SPS failure.
· Provide other key background and assurances, including:
§ Provide an assurance that, if approved, your state will cooperate in a USED evaluation of the differentiated accountability model, including providing data to show how student achievement has differed prior to and after the implementation of the differentiated accountability pilot. / Louisiana’s data system allows year to year tracking of student level data since the implementation of our standards-based assessments in grades 3-8 and 10 in 2006. Grades 4, 8, and 10 are available since 1999. The LDE can provide this information with student demographics attached and such data aggregated to any level would be available to USED.
II. The Proposed Differentiated Accountability Model. In preparing the proposal, a state should begin by describing its proposed differentiated accountability model and how the model will advance a state's goals related to improving student performance and closing achievement gaps.
Key Issues / State Response /· Describe the nature of the differentiated accountability model and how it will work, including how it is related to your current approved AYP workbook and aligned with / improve your state accountability system.
§ What is the focus of the proposed model?
§ How will it work?
§ How much will it change?
§ How does it fit within broader state reforms regarding accountability and improvement?
§ How will the model help improve student achievement? / · See Appendix A
· This model focuses on precise data analysis to establish the root causes for AYP failure, and state supervision of school planning to assure interventions are selected to address the specific problems. As schools remain in sanctions, oversight increases to include external needs assessments, and monitoring the implementation of the school plans. It also revises the sequence of interventions.
· Louisiana has long provided data analysis tools that can be easily converted to afford the types of analyses required of this model. Districts will assist schools with data analysis to discover the underlying causes of poor student performance. Schools/LEAs will propose problem specific interventions that must be approved by the LDE before implementation. More intense sanctions require increased state and LEA support.
· A review of the model will note that SES and choice have reversed order in both AYP components (SPS and subgroup). Some interventions are moved earlier in the improvement process. The more strenuous levels of interventions will become more similar among the two components. It is consistent with our continued approach to accountability
· The impact of such changes is described well by an analogy to special education. Students are very carefully screened and evaluated to determine specific disabilities, and individualized plans are developed by several parties to address the students’ specific needs. There are frequent reports on the progress of the individualized plans, and sometimes adjustments in the plans to address unexpected progress or lack of progress. Students are reevaluated according to a long term schedule. Consider a school to be a student. AYP failure is the initial referral. Detailed data analysis is the determination of the exceptionality. The school improvement/school-wide plan is the IEP, and implementation reports are analogous to progress reports. The reevaluation is annual student assessment, and for schools, the aggregation of data to subgroup/school levels. A new IEP is the accountability label/decision based on the annual evaluation.
III. Core Principles. A state needs to address in its proposal the core principles outlined in the USED guidance. As appropriate, cross reference back to the description of the proposed model above and reinforce how a state's model is in compliance with each principle.