MSIP+5

MSIP 5

__**Missouri School Improvement Program**__ (per [|www.dese.mo.gov]) - Stephanie The Missouri School Improvement Program has the responsibility of reviewing and accrediting the 522 school districts in Missouri. Missouri's standards for its schools have been reviewed and revised over time to reflect changing conditions, as well as changing demands of citizens and school patrons. The process of accrediting school districts is mandated by state law and by State Board of Education regulation. I. **Three types of MSIP reviews conducted during the 4th cycle** (The Fourth Cycle of the Missouri School Improvement Program will remain in place until MSIP5 goes online; effective two years from the date of adoption of the rule by the State Board of Education..) A. Reports for all districts are developed. These reports (except for the mini reviews) are reviewed by the Department School Improvement Committee for clarity and consistency. 1. Recommendations regarding accreditation status are presented to the State Board of Education for its approval. 2. Each district must maintain and implement a comprehensive School Improvement Plan which addresses any concerns identified in the MSIP report. II. **MSIP 5 policy goals** III. **Major Changes in MSIP 5** A. Advisory Committee Meetings 1. Meeting #1 - January 25, 2012 The participants worked in small groups to analyze the 4th Cycle MSIP Resource Standards and the implications the standards have on improving student learning. The committee also provided feedback on the educational resources necessary for students to be college & career ready. 2. Meeting #2 - February 28, 2012 The committee provided feedback on the educational processes necessary for students to be college and career ready. Participants began an analysis of the 4th Cycle MSIP Process Standards and the implication of the standards on improving student learning and student achievement. 3. Meeting #3 - March 12, 2012 Committee members met in their area of expertise then reported their recommendations and research. DESE staff provided updates on the Common Core, Curriculum and Assessment research and processes as well as the teacher and leader standards and evaluation. Participants finished an analysis of the 4th Cycle MSIP Process Standards and the implication of the standards on improving student learning and student achievement. 4. Meeting #4 - April 12, 2012 The committee participated in a webinar to review a draft of the resource and process standards. Participants viewed 11 proposed draft resource standards and 24 draft process standards. B. Stakeholders will be involved in the development of the scoring guide, including establishing state standards, based on a process developed with the assistance of the Steering Committee. C. Language in the rule was changed or clarified to address concerns with:  the annual review of data  the use of multiple years of data for all decisions  the form of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan  allowing credit for students placed in employment directly related to career technical training  adding approved dual credit  removing gender as an accountable sub-group D. The “reportable only measures” were removed from the Annual Performance Report. E. The classification appeal window was changed from 30 to 60 calendar days. F. Reduced the number of required assessments. G. Fine Arts and Physical Education grade-level assessments are not included in the assessment plan. Revision of the Process and Resource standards will address the critical importance of these content areas. IV. **MSIP 5 Crosswalk** A. The Office of Quality Schools is leading the effort to update Missouri School Improvement Program Process and Resource Standards for the delivery of quality instructional processes and educational resources. [|__http://http://dese.mo.gov/qs/documents/msip5-crosswalk.pdf__]
 * Mini reviews that check statutory compliance fare for districts with full MSIP waivers.
 * Districts that are fully accredited but not fully waived receive reviews that are focused on the performance areas that are not showing adequate improvement.
 * Full reviews are reserved for districts with Annual Performance Reports (APR) indicating Provisional or Unaccredited status.
 * Articulate the state's expectations for districts in driving actions for improving student achievement with the ultimate goal of all students graduating ready for success in college and careers;
 * Distinguish performance of schools and districts in valid, accurate and meaningful ways so that districts in need of improvement can receive appropriate support and interventions to meet expectations and high-performing districts can be recognized as models of excellence;
 * Empower all stakeholders through regular communication and transparent reporting of clear data on performance and results, so that they can take action appropriate to their roles; and
 * Promote continuous improvement and innovation within each district on a statewide basis.
 * Approximately 70 committee members representing teachers, administrators, parents, school board members and others have been selected to serve on the Resource and Process Standards Advisory Committee. Resource and process standards will be reviewed, revised and brought to the Board for consideration in a new rule by August 2012.


 * Basic Info, History, Opinions, Comments, and Concerns Regarding MSIP 5 (Jen)**
 * Resources:**
 * http://www.masa.org/**
 * http://www.masaonline.org/vnews/display.v/ART/4da5f63**
 * http://www.msip5.com**
 * http://maesp.com**

1950 Missouri set standards for classifying and accrediting schools. 1990 MSIP initiated with the goal of promoting school improvement within each district and on a statewide basis. Evaluations run in "cycles". So far, MSIP 1-4 have occurred 1st through 3rd cycles have stimulated significant progress and change Based on 3 standards: Performance: multiple measures of student performance ACT, Post Secondary Prep, Dropout, Attendance,testing Process: Curricular- an on-site team of trained observers come in to assess Resource: basic requirements that all districts must meet. Minimums and desirables.

MSIP 5 eliminates the Process and Resource Standards and strictly focuses on the Performance Standards. It sets accreditation and performance standards for schools. MSIP 5 replaces what is allowed with NCLB district level accredidations system and has building level accountability-also required under NCLB.It will identify schools and districts underperforming with new labels. (no more "in improvement") MSIP 5 passed in December of 2011. By statute, this will go into effect in 2013 unless waiver is approved. Then MSIP 5 will go into effect immediately. Missouri applied (42 page application) for a waiver to opt out of NCLB mandates. Missouri is still waiting on an answer.

In the spring of 2011 DESE tried to shut down MSIP 5 but the secretary of state refused to comply with request. Chris Nicastro declined to meet with educational organizations and pushed the document through the State Board of Education.

What's good about NCLB and why waiver rejection would be ok. NCLB will most likely be reauthorized during implementation of waiver if the plan would be approved. The time and money spent at state and local levels to develop and implement a new plan would be a detriment to the state in regards to meeting the new requirements of NCLB.
 * Good flexibility with NCLB. If waiver is approved, there would be no flexibility and strings would be attached
 * Districts are already dealing with the ramifications of NCLB in regards to their level of performance and PR and status in their district.
 * Because of this, thoughts were given to stick with the current plan rather than go with a new plan.

Concerns from educators and administrators 1. There was no opportunity given by State BOE and DESE to provide input or feedback from community, educators, etc. 2. Scoring guides and standards are NOT established yet. 3. Accountability based on performance standards 4. No opportunity to earn technological or career certificates because of classroom requirements. 5. The impact is unknown of all students having to take chemistry and physics and EOC's regardless if the courses were taken. 6. College readiness tests are not comparable. 7. Where will the funding for additional tests come from? 8. Will EOC for Communication Arts and Math be high stakes for graduation and aren't the current EOC's good enough? Why double the testing? 9. Questions regarding the crediting for student enrolled. 10. Why are school required to report sat us and improvement? (Post graduate tracking)

From the MSTA podcast over MSIP 5 Concerns raised: This process happened way too fast and with little to no input from educators. Little information has been given to educators and persons have been vague in the fine print. There are no cost estimates on implementing MSIP 5 There are no comprehensive details and consequences given. This has been a "trust me" type of relaying of information.

Major concern centers around, "Is the movement toward accountability making things better for kids?" State guidelines without supplemental resources. Teacher evaluations tied to student achievement/data = testing Vague and unspecified plan if implemented ASAP and where's the money to pay for this?

Questions and Answers regarding MSIP5 (Dawn) Aug. 17, 2011 DESE [] Accountability Standards 1. Why are the resource and process standards being removed? The proposed MSIP 5 rule initially addressed only performance standards because the State Board currently uses only performance standards for accreditation purposes. During the August 2011 State Board meeting, the Board charged the Department with bringing the Board a rule to update process and resource standards by August 2012. The process of developing these standards will start with the recommendations previously developed by the committee convened in 2008‐2009, and will include current research and best practices and will involve stakeholders. The revised proposed rule includes reference that MSIP 5 – Process Standards and Indicators will include evidence of adequate instruction in physical education and fine arts to be included in the standards used to determine accreditation. 2. The proposed standards mention “annual reviews.” Does this mean onsite visits? No. This refers to an annual review of performance data which is currently done on a routine basis. As now, on‐site reviews will be reserved for those districts requiring additional attention due to performance. Annual reviews will not necessarily mean annual classification (i.e., labeling a district as accredited, provisionally accredited, or unaccredited) but will allow for earlier intervention in struggling schools. The five‐year review cycle that was put in place in 1990 is not providing the flexibility to best serve Missouri public schools. Decisions will be made using multiple years of data. 3. What is the purpose of including measures reflecting student success after high school? These measures―called “pipeline” measures― will not be used on the district annual performance report. The Department will continue to publish these measures so that the information can be used locally to motivate all students to pursue some sort of postsecondary training or education after high school. Pipeline measures can change the conversation from simply getting a high school diploma to pursuing higher goals beyond a high school education. 4. The standards and indicators speak to a “state standard.” Who will be involved in the setting of the standards? During the August 2011 State Board meeting, the Board charged the Department to work with stakeholders and technical experts to develop state standards and a scoring guide for calculating proficiency on the revised MSIP 5 standards. While practitioners have not previously been involved in the development of the scoring guide, we believe this is an important step in the process. 5. In what way do nonMAP measured areas impact accreditation? Since the beginning of the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) in 1990, accreditation has been based on multiple measures, including test scores, attendance, graduation rates, and others. This is one of the strengths of our system and one which makes our state model distinct nationally. 6. If you implement higher standards, is it reasonable to expect that fewer than 360 of 522 districts will be designated as “performing with distinction” as in the present cycle? As with previous versions of MSIP, the criteria for earning recognition for distinction in performance in MSIP 5 will change. We cannot determine the number of districts receiving this recognition ahead of time – for the proposed standards or the current ones. 7. How will schools be reviewed until MSIP 5 goes online? The Fourth Cycle of the Missouri School Improvement Program will remain in place. 8. When will the MSIP 5 take effect? The MSIP 5 rule will be effective two years from the date of adoption of the rule by the State Board of Education. 9. How will the adequacy of MSIP 5 standards be determined? The effectiveness of the standards will be reviewed annually in terms of student performance data, current research‐based practices, legislation and stakeholder feedback. The ultimate goal is to drive improvement. Once the MSIP 5 standards are formally approved, a change to the standards will involve a formal rule change by the State Board of Education. Assessments 10. What does the Missouri Assessment Program assess? The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) assesses students’ progress toward mastery of the Show‐Me Standards, which are the educational standards in Missouri. 11. For the content areas and grade levels that are not tested through the MAP, will districts be required to administer an “off the shelf” assessment? No. How districts assess outside of the Missouri Assessment Program is a local decision. 12. In regards to the Standard referring to district provision of adequate postsecondary preparation for all students, may we use scores from any of the four assessments listed (ACT, SAT, COMPASS or ASVAB)? Yes, the intent is to broaden the measures used to meet the standard through assessments that best meet the needs of individual students. The newly proposed MSIP 5 language provides even more than the four ways for school districts to meet this college‐ and careerready standard. Approved assessments and the calculations will be included in the scoring guide. 13. Why is there a need for an increase in standards at this time? The challenge to excel is ongoing. The Show‐Me Standards have been updated and internationally benchmarked to ensure that all students will be competitive in our global environment. We know we can do better, and the future of our children and our state depends on it. College and Career Readiness 14. Can you please give a definition of what careerready means? The National Governors Association (NGA) defines College and Career Readiness as “an individual who is ready to succeed in entry‐level, credit‐bearing, academic college courses and in workforce training programs. College refers to two‐ and four‐year postsecondary schools. Workforce training programs pertain to careers that offer competitive, livable salaries above the poverty line; offer opportunities for career advancement; and are in a growing or sustainable industry.” The Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) further specifies that a career‐ready student possesses core academic skills and the ability to apply them to concrete situations in order to function in the workplace and in routine daily activities; employability skills (such as critical thinking and responsibility) that are essential in any career area; and technical, job‐specific skills related to a specific career pathway. 15. MSIP 5 seems to place an emphasis on college readiness. What about career readiness? Missouri schools have flexibility in how they provide and teach competencies; this will continue to be emphasized in MSIP 5. When we look at career and technical education and the requirements for students going into careers, many of the competencies in geometry and in Algebra II are required for many of those entry‐level careers. For example, ‘proportions’ is one of the competencies in Algebra II, and solving problems with those takes place in any construction trade. Electricity is another example; the student needs to know the relationship between the gage of the wire, the length of the run of the wire, and the power needed at the end. Trigonometric relationships are used to determine lengths and angle measures in any drafting or architectural drawing. There are concepts of successive approximation used in estimating supplies for a variety of areas – wiring, amount of wood needed, and so on. So in these practical, real life applications, the basic mathematics involved in solving those problems is beyond Algebra I. 16. The documents published with the MSIP 5 standards include a draft of sample assessments. What is the status of these assessments? This draft document is provided in an effort to be transparent about the intent of the standards and what this could look like as public schools work to increase academic rigor and the number of students graduating college and career ready. In Fourth Cycle MSIP, we currently administer 14 assessments for grade levels 3‐8 across three subjects: communication arts, mathematics, and science. At the high school level, there are currently eight (four required) End‐of‐Course (EOC) final exams in communication arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Altogether, Missouri currently has a total of 22 (18 required) MAP assessments across 10 grades and four content areas. The draft document includes a transition in the communication arts and math grade‐level assessments to the new assessments being designed by the states through the SMARTER Balanced Consortium. These are not “additions” but transitions to a new assessment. The draft plan provided with the MSIP 5 documents reflects the State Board of Education’s interest in moving to increased content assessments in each of the four content areas: communication arts (2), mathematics (2), social studies (2) and science (3). The SMARTER Balanced Consortium also will be developing comprehensive end‐of‐high school exams in communication arts and mathematics. It is important to note that many of these assessments will not be available for several years. They will need to be developed, field tested, and vetted through our Technical Advisory Committee of experts before they can be implemented. Stakeholders will be invited to participate in developing the scoring guide and other supporting tools, once the standards are approved. 17. Will the new assessments result in significant curriculum changes at the high school level? As Missouri transitions to the revised Show‐Me Standards, the grade level expectations will need to be re‐aligned. To facilitate this transition, the Department is planning to work with educators in developing a “model” curriculum for districts to use or adapt as the local district determines appropriate. Local districts will determine how to present material and how to ensure that students master the required competencies. 18. Will MSIP 5 establish a statemandated curriculum? No. 19. Would students be required to take specific mathematics and science courses? Although our current state graduation requirements include three math credits, and three science credits, there is no guidance for the content of those courses beyond Algebra I and Biology. What we are finding is that many students take Algebra I, but the other two credits they take in mathematics may not even be as challenging as Algebra I. When we discuss improving student performance in our state, we need to emphasize that the content of high school courses should be defined so that all students have a challenging course of study in both science and mathematics. Both the new standards for communication arts and mathematics and the standards for most content areas in career and technical education require levels of mathematics and science that are higher than basic courses. The specific courses have not actually been designated as requirements at this time. What will be required is demonstrated mastery of the competencies outlined in the standards. The new standards for science are not yet available. 20. Will the endofhigh school assessments become graduation requirements? The State Board has not tied graduation in Missouri to proficiency on an exam. MSIP focuses on district accountability. College Remediation 21. What is the purpose of publishing college remediation rates? Remediation rates are increasing in our state. This item will not be included on the annual performance report and does not impact a district’s accreditation. Rather, the information is used to encourage efforts to develop strategies to ensure that students graduate college and career ready. This will involve the collaboration of many parties, including future work in determining a consistent way to define and report remediation rates. Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) 22. Do you have data showing a correlation between CSIP implementation and district performance? One of the central purposes of a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) is to assist districts in monitoring how their practices impact student performance. Deep implementation of a specified plan has proven to show a positive correlation with improved student performance. 23. Will the Boardapproved CSIP process now be dictated by MSIP 5 and guidance provided by the Department? This is not a change. This is the same language that is included in previous MSIP rules, except the language in the proposal no longer requires high‐performing districts to “submit” the plan to the Department. Early Childhood Assessment System 24. In districts providing early childhood programs, please clarify: Is it voluntary testing for all grades PreK through grade 3? Could districts choose to assess some levels and not another? Would districts double test third grade (Missouri early childhood assessment + MAP)? Will the Missouri early childhood assessment become a required assessment in the future (i.e. 20122014)? Early childhood programs are voluntary, and the assessments will; therefore, also be voluntary. 25. What plan is in the works for developing the early learning assessment for PK3? And, when will it be piloted or launched? The Department will work with stakeholders to develop a “model” kindergarten readiness assessment that districts can adopt or adapt as determined locally. The plan is to pilot an assessment next year.

__**How to stay abreast of changes with MSIP5 and beyond**__: Heading to the top 10 by 2020! media type="youtube" key="TG0te2g9HWk" height="315" width="420"

media type="youtube" key="bce_SXxEfEw" height="292" width="424"
 * __Overview of MSIP5 from the MSBA (Missouri School Board Assocition)__**

[] (Kelly) Pursuant to state law the State Board of Education classifies (accredits) public school districts. Under the standards of the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP), a school district may be given one of three ratings: accredited, provisionally accredited, or unaccredited. A provisionally accredited district is still considered to be accredited. State law defines the consequences for a school district that becomes unaccredited. The date that the loss of accreditation becomes effective is set by the State Board of Education. If no effective date is set by the State Board, the action becomes effective on the date of the board action. May students transfer from an unaccredited district to another district? According to state law, students in an unaccredited school district are eligible to transfer to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county. On July 16, 2011, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in //Turner, et al. v. School District of Clayton //that an unaccredited school district must pay tuition for students transferring to an accredited school district, and that the receiving district must accept those students wishing to transfer. The Missouri Supreme Court remanded this case to the St. Louis County Circuit Court for hearing on issues not previously addressed in the first hearing in that case. Due to a change in the parties to this case, it was renamed //Breitenfeld, et al. v. School District of Clayton. //On May 1, 2012, Judge Vincent ruled that § 167.131.1, as interpreted by the Missouri Supreme Court’s in //Turner, et. al. v. School District of Clayton, et al., //created an unfunded mandate violating the Hancock Amendment (Mo. Con. Art X § 23), and that the fiscal impact of the ruling in //Turner //rendered compliance impossible, therefore legally void. Although the ruling in //Breitenfeld //could be appealed, as the ruling stands, students from an unaccredited school district would not be authorized to transfer to an accredited district pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.131. Students who graduate from an unaccredited school district still receive diplomas. Higher education institutions typically consider multiple sources of information (transcript, ACT/SAT score, portfolio, recommendations, etc.) when determining whether to admit a student. The Department has not identified any instance where a student who graduated from an unaccredited school district has been disqualified from consideration for admission. However, higher education institutions set their own policies and criteria for admissions. Families should contact the admissions office at the institution under consideration to determine that program’s policy. An unaccredited district classification does not reflect the qualifications or accomplishments of any individual student. Students who graduate from an unaccredited school district should be eligible for any scholarship for which they would otherwise qualify. As with school admission, families should contact the financial aid office of any program under consideration.
 * What Happens When A School District Becomes Unaccredited?**
 * Does unaccredited status affect students’ diplomas?**
 * What about admission to college?**
 * What about eligibility for scholarships?**

[]