Raising the Bar

Virginias Accountability System

Supports teaching and learning by setting
rigorous academic standards, known as the Standards of Learning (SOL), and through annual assessments of student achievement Includes state and federal accountability measures

Virginias Accountability System

State
Schools receive accreditation status Schools must meet state targets approved by Board of Education in four core subject areas:
English Mathematics Science History

Federal
Schools, divisions, and states receive Federal Accountability status All three must meet state targets approved by U.S. Department of Education in:
Reading Mathematics

High schools must meet graduation objectives

High schools must meet Federal Graduation Index

Virginias Accountability System

State
Accreditation status based on overall student achievement in core subjects, and for high schools, graduation rates

Federal
Federal Accountability status based on overall student achievement and achievement by proficiency gap groups and by individual subgroups

Virginias Accountability System

State
Accreditation status:
Fully accredited; Accredited with warning; Conditionally accredited; Provisionally accredited; or Accreditation denied.

Federal
Accountability status:
Reward Schools; Met AMOs; Title I Priority Schools; Title I Focus Schools; Improvement Plan

State Accreditation

Where do we stand?

W&L State Accreditation

English
Benchmark

Math
Benchmark

History
Benchmark

Science
Benchmark

Graduation

75%
3yr Avg 86%

70%
3yr Avg 67%

70%
3yr Avg 82%

70%
3yr Avg 84%

Benchmark

85

76%

61%

83%

78%

85

Accredited with Warning in Math

MMS State Accreditation

English
Benchmark

Math
Benchmark

History
Benchmark

Science
Benchmark

75%
3yr Avg 78% 65%

70%
3yr Avg 70% 66%

70%
3yr Avg 74% 70%

70%
3yr Avg 85% 73%

Fully Accredited

Cople State Accreditation

English
Benchmark

Math
Benchmark

History
Benchmark

Science
Benchmark

75%
3yr Avg 78% 67%

70%
3yr Avg 67% 57%

70%
3yr Avg 84% 84%

70%
3yr Avg 82% 70%

Accredited with Warning in Math

WD State Accreditation
English
Benchmark

Math
Benchmark

History
Benchmark

Science
Benchmark

75%
3yr Avg 76% 64%

70%
3yr Avg 74% 64%

70%
3yr Avg 81% 78%

70%
3yr Avg 83% 76%

Fully Accredited

Division

Not Applicable Accredited with Warning in Math Fully Accredited Accredited with Warning in Math Fully Accredited

Washington & Lee

Montross Middle

Cople Elementary

Washington District Elementary

Required Intervention
Division

N/A

Washington & Lee

Academic Review & Improvement Plan None Academic Review & Improvement Plan None

Montross Middle

Cople Elementary

Washington District Elementary

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for Federal Accountability

Where do we stand?

W&L Reading FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 82%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 49% 3yr Avg 80%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 53% 3yr Avg 89%

Target 66% 3yr Avg 87%

80%

76%

69%

TS

Did Not Meet All Federal AMOs

W&L Reading FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient Target 44% TS

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 84%

Asian

White

Target 30% 3yr Avg 48%

Target 80% TS

Target 74% 3yr Avg 94%

TS

TS

76%

TS

88%

Did Not Meet All Federal AMOs

W&L Math FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 60%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 51% 3yr Avg 59%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 56% 3yr Avg 67%

Target 64% 3yr Avg 64%

58%

50%

51%

TS

W&L Math FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 46% TS

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 61%

Asian

White

Target 41% 3yr Avg 30%

Target 82% TS

Target 69% 3yr Avg 70%

17%

TS

50%

TS

66%

W&L FGI 4 Year Rate FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined)

Gap Group 2 (Black)

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic)

Target 80%
Previous 70% Current 85%

Target 80%
Previous 59% Current 79%

Target 80%
Previous 60% Current 85%

Target 80%
Previous 100%

TS

W&L FGI 4 Year Rate FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 80%
Previous 88% TS

Econ. Disadv.

Asian

White

Target 80%
Previous 20%

Target 80%
Previous 64%

Target 80%
TS

Target 80%
Previous 76%

TS%

80%

TS

85%

Washington & Lee High School Proficiency Gap Performance

Gap Group Reading Target Reading Performance Reading Performance Gap Points Math Target Math Performance Math Performance Gap Points

Gap Group I

52 49 53

76 69 100

NI* NI* NI*

52 51 56

50 51 52

NI* NI* NI*

Gap Group 2

Gap Group 3 Sum of Proficiency Gap Points

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Average Proficiency Gap Points

Total Average Proficiency Gap Points

Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Average Proficiency Gap Points

NI* = Not included because the gap group did not fail the subject area target

MMS Reading FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 77%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 49% 3yr Avg 76%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 53% 3yr Avg 82%

Target 66% 3yr Avg 79%

64%

60%

59%

68%

MMS Reading FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 44% TS

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 78%

Asian

White

Target 30% 3yr Avg 54%

Target 80% TS

Target 74% 3yr Avg 83%

TS

TS

62%

TS

68%

MMS Math FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52%

Maintain At Least 49%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 51%

Maintain At Least 53%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 56%

Maintain At Least 68%

Target 64% 3yr Avg 69%

3yr Avg 64%

59%

3yr Avg 65%

56%

3yr Avg 81% 76%

63%

MMS Math FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 46% TS

Econ. Disadv. Target 52%

Maintain At Least 50%

Asian

White

Target 41% 3yr Avg 45%

Target 82% TS

Target 69% 3yr Avg 72%

3yr Avg 65% TS

60%

TS

TS

70%

Montross Middle School Proficiency Gap Performance

Gap Group Reading Target Reading Performance Reading Performance Gap Points Math Target Math Performance Math Performance Gap Points

Gap Group I

52 49 53

60 59 68

NI* NI* NI*

52 51 56

59 56 76

NI* NI* NI*

Gap Group 2

Gap Group 3 Sum of Proficiency Gap Points

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Average Proficiency Gap Points

Total Average Proficiency Gap Points

Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Average Proficiency Gap Points

NI* = Not included because the gap group did not fail the subject area target

Cople Reading FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 73%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 49% 3yr Avg 73%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 53% 3yr Avg 80%

Target 66% 3yr Avg 78%

68%

64%

64%

TS

Did Not Meet All Federal AMOs - MHE

Cople Reading FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 44% 3yr Avg 76%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 73%

Asian

White

Target 30% 3yr Avg 38%

Target 80% TS

Target 74% 3yr Avg 89%

TS

TS

65%

TS

81%

Cople Math FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 60%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 51%

Maintain At Least 49%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 56% 3yr Avg 67%

Target 64% 3yr Avg 65%

3yr Avg 61%

48% (MP)

52%

47%

TS

Cople Math FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 46%
Maintain At Least 63%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52%

Maintain At Least 49%

Asian

White Target 69%

Maintain At Least 68%

Target 41% 3yr Avg 32%

Target 82% TS

3yr Avg 74%

TS

3yr Avg 61%

48%

3yr Avg 77% TS

65% (MP)

33%

Cople Elementary School Proficiency Gap Performance

Gap Group Reading Target Reading Performance Reading Performance Gap Points Math Target Math Performance Math Performance Gap Points

Gap Group I

52

64

NI*

52

47

NI*

Gap Group 2

49

64

NI*

51

48

NI*

Gap Group 3 Sum of Proficiency Gap Points Average Proficiency Gap Points Total Average Proficiency Gap Points

53

69

NI*

56

50

NI*

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group

Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Average Proficiency Gap Points

NI* = Not included because the gap group did not fail the subject area target

WD Reading FAMOs
All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 69%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 49% 3yr Avg 64%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 53% 3yr Avg 80%

Target 66% 3yr Avg 76%

62%

52%

41%

TS

WD Reading FAMOs
Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 44% 3yr Avg 82%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 70%

Asian

White

Target 30% 3yr Avg 38%

Target 80% TS

Target 74% 3yr Avg 81%

TS

TS

54%

TS

69%

WD Math FAMOs
All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52%

Maintain At Least 62%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 51%

Maintain At Least 54%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 56%

Maintain At Least 83%

Target 64%
Maintain At Least 65%

3yr Avg 73%

61% (MP)

3yr Avg 68%

54% (MP)

3yr Avg 61%

43% (MP)

3yr Avg 86% TS

WD Math FAMOs
Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 46%
Maintain At Least 81%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52%

Maintain At Least 62%

Asian

White Target 69%

Maintain At Least 68%

Target 41% 3yr Avg 40%

Target 82% TS

3yr Avg 88%

3yr Avg 69%

55% (MP)

3yr Avg 76% TS

68%

TS

TS

Washington District Elementary School Proficiency Gap Performance

Gap Group Reading Target Reading Performance Reading Performance Gap Points Math Target Math Performance Math Performance Gap Points

Gap Group I

52

52

NI*

52

54

NI*

Gap Group 2

49

41

NI*

51

43

NI*

Gap Group 3 Sum of Proficiency Gap Points Average Proficiency Gap Points Total Average Proficiency Gap Points

53

70

NI*

56

67

NI*

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Point Differences for Each Gap Group

Divide Sum By Number of Gap Groups That Missed The Target

Add Average Proficiency Gap Points

NI* = Not included because the gap group did not fail the subject area target

Division Reading FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52% 3yr Avg 74%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 49% 3yr Avg 74%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 53% 3yr Avg 82%

Target 66% 3yr Avg 79%

66%

60%

59%

71%

Division Reading FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 44% 3yr Avg 78%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52% 3yr Avg 75%

Asian

White

Target 30% 3yr Avg 44%

Target 80% TS

Target 74% 3yr Avg 84%

24%

69%

61%

TS

72%

Did Not Meet All Federal AMOS

Division Math FAMOs

All Students

Gap Group 1 (Combined) Target 52%

Maintain At Least 49%

Gap Group 2 (Black) Target 51%

Maintain At Least 49%

Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) Target 56%

Maintain At Least 63%

Target 64% 3yr Avg 68%

3yr Avg 63% 52%

3yr Avg 62%

3yr Avg 75% 63%

59%

51%

Division Math FAMOs

Students with Disabilities

Limited English Proficient

Target 46%
Maintain At Least 57%

Econ. Disadv. Target 52%

Maintain At Least 50%

Asian

White

Target 41% 37%

Target 82% TS

Target 69% 3yr Avg 73%

3yr Avg 72% 28% 65%

3yr Avg 63% 53% TS

67%

Division

Did Not Meet All FAMOs Did Not Meet All FAMOs Met All FAMOs Did Not Meet All FAMOs MHE Did Not Meet All FAMOs - MHE

Washington & Lee (Not Title I)

Montross Middle (Not Title I)

Cople Elementary (Title I Schoolwide)

Washington District Elementary (Title I Schoolwide)

Summary of FAMOs Not Met

English Division Washington & Lee (Not Title I) Montross Middle (Not Title I) Missed 0/18 Missed 0/18 Missed 0/18 Missed 0/18 Missed 0/18 Math Missed 1/18 (SWD) Missed 1/18 (SWD) Missed 0/18 Graduation Missed 0/8 Missed 0/8 N/A

Cople Elementary (Title I Schoolwide) Washington District Elementary (Title I Schoolwide)

Missed 2/18 (MP) (GG2, white) Missed 4/18 (MP) (All, GG1, GG2, disadv.)

N/A

N/A

Required Intervention
Division

None

Washington & Lee (Not Title I)

Montross Middle (Not Title I)

Improvement Plan Required None None None

Cople Elementary (Title I Schoolwide)

Washington District Elementary (Title I Schoolwide)

The percentage of schools meeting state accreditation standards dropped sharply as a consequence of the introduction of rigorous new reading, writing and science Standards of Learning (SOL) tests during 2012-13, as well as a second year of results from more challenging mathematics assessments.
- VDOE New Release, September 20, 2013

The number of schools accredited with warning nearly quadrupled to 395, and six schools have been denied state accreditation because of chronically low achievement.
- VDOE News Release, September 20, 2013

Over the last five years, the accreditation bar has been raised through the introduction of more rigorous curriculum standards and challenging new assessments that test students problem-solving and criticalthinking skills as well as their content knowledge.
- Superintendent of Public Instruction, Patricia I. Wright

In addition, the benchmark pass rates required for full accreditation have increased, and high schools must meet goals for improving graduation rates.
- Superintendent of Public Instruction, Patricia Wright

The focus of the SOL program has shifted to the ambitious but vital goal of college and career readiness for all students. Temporary declines in SOL scores and accreditation ratings are signs that the commonwealth is expecting more, not that students are learning less.
- Board of Education President, David M. Foster

Where Do We Go From Here?

Division Strategic Plan & Division Improvement Plan

School Improvement Plans

Performance Data SOL (Accreditation and FAMO)

PALS Data

Discipline Data

 Preview data Cover strengths Highlight areas of concern

Root causes Matching strategies Assign responsibility

Pre-work

Ask

Guiding the process is more important than coming with answers

Monitor
Pre-set dates Determine roles Set data goals

Offer Resources
Use VDOE Neighboring divisions Strengths within division

What Steps are We Taking in Math?

Four new secondary math teachers (signing bonus to attract HQ); Maintained elementary math specialist position after grant funding ended; Expanded role of elementary math specialist to support both elementary schools;

Modified schedule for one MM math teacher to coach seventh grade math;

What Steps are We Taking?

Continued work with math consultant; Data review to identify areas of need;

Revised math pacing guides and benchmark tests at all levels to reflect increased rigor and TEIs;
Instructional Technology Specialists assisting teachers with creating TEIs used on formative assessments;

What Steps are We Taking?

Encouraging extensive use of all available VDOE resources, i.e., Curriculum Framework, Enhanced Scope & Sequence, Test Blueprints, Practice Items, Instructional Videos, Vocabulary Word Wall Cards, etc.; Participating in VDOE sponsored (and other) math professional development opportunities;

What Steps are We Taking?

Early identification of students in need of Tier II and III interventions; Early implementation of Tier II and III interventions (examples: small group instruction, after school tutoring, etc.);

Modified high school math courses;

Extended Session math classes; Tracking Interventions in TracBook;

What Steps are We Taking?

School Improvement Teams & School Improvement Plans at all schools; Academic Review for W&L and CES.

Also focusing on Reading, Writing, Science and History/Social Science especially Reading & Writing.

 Maximize available human and VDOE resources. Ensure tight alignment among the planned, taught and tested math curriculum.
Identify students in need of intervention early. Provide the intervention, and monitor to ensure it is working.

This Time Next Year