Special Guests:• Carol den Otter-Todd and Pam Harlin

Meemic Insurance• Gary Naeyaert, Executive Director

Great Lakes Education Project

CHARTER SCHOOLS OFFICE14TH ANNUAL SPRING BRIEFING MAY 18, 2016

• Please mute your cell phones and other electronic devices

• If you must take a call, please do so outside

As a Courtesy….

Agenda

Morning Session:• The Charter Schools Office – A Year of Retrospection• Meemic Insurance Scholarships (Carol den Otter and Pam Harlin)• NWEA Update• Assessment Window Schedule• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Requirements

– M-Step• Guest Speaker:

– Gary Naeyaert, Executive Director, Great Lakes Education Project• BEST Leadership Program

– Recognition of 2015-2016 Participants– Summer 2016 Program

Agenda

Afternoon Session:• Epicenter/Compliance Updates• Summer/Fall Professional Development Opportunities• Invigorating Excellence Continuum• Rubric Redesign

– 2016-2017 Visitations

• Contract Revisions– Terms and Conditions– Policies– Educational Goals

• Woodbridge Promise Program• CSO Scholarship Program

CSO Staff

In RemembranceJohn Hackett

CSO Staff

CSO Office Staff

• Ronald RizzoDirector of Charter Schools

• Mindy BrittonCompliance Auditor/Board Liaison

• Charissa TalsmaAcademic Assessment Specialist

• Ron SchneiderSchool Support Specialist

CSO Staff

CSO Office Staff

• Sue LewisSecretary to the Director

• Susan BachinskiSecretary/Accounts

CSO StaffField Representatives• Laura Emshanov

– Michigan Connections Academy– New Bedford Academy– Phase 1 Invigorating Excellence Liaison

• Don Haist– Benton Harbor Charter School Academy– Blended Learning Academies Credit Recovery High School– Joy Preparatory Academy– Marshall Academy– Muskegon Montessori Academy for Environmental Change

CSO StaffField Representatives• Phyllis Robinson

– Detroit Delta Preparatory Academy for Social Justice– Frederick Douglass International Academy– Hope of Detroit Academy– Voyageur Academy– Woodbridge Promise Coordinator

• Lee Robinson– Blended Learning Academies Credit Recovery High School– Michigan Connections Academy– Northridge Academy

(coverage for John Hackett)

CSO StaffField Representatives• Jim Scholten

– Bridge Academy– Clara B. Ford Academy– Hope Academy of West Michigan– Northridge Academy– Visitation Chair

• Art Willick– Battle Creek Montessori Academy– Conner Creek Academy East– Creative Technologies Academy– Huron Academy– Lighthouse Academy

CSO Staff

Contracted Assistance

• Angela Irwin– AirWin Educational Services

A Retrospective

2015-2016A Year of Retrospection

A Retrospective

2014-2015 Summer RetreatTeam Review of Jim Collins’ Good to Great

A Retrospective

2014-2015

• CSO placed on State’s Authorizer “Risk of Suspension List”

• Revision of Mission/Vision and Core Values• Stakeholder Survey• CSO removed from “Risk of Suspension List”

A Retrospective

2015-2016

• Ten Academy Visitations• Transition to NWEA MAP• Outside Review of CSO: Dr. Darlene Chambers• Three-Year Strategic Plan Developed• Review of Internal Processes by CSO Staff• Preparation for AdvancEd Accreditation

A Retrospective

2015-2016

• The CSO will be applying to AdvancEd for authorizer accreditation in Fall 2016– Anticipated review: Winter 2017

Meemic Insurance Grants

Presentation of Meemic Insurance Grants

• Carol den Otter-Todd• Pam Harlin

Meemic Insurance Grants

Meemic Insurance Grants

Meemic Insurance Grants

Northwest Evaluation Accreditation (NWEA)

Year 2 Process• Year 1 ends on June 30• May begin working on CRF file as soon as you want.

Recommend uploading preliminary roster file prior to the first day of school; then it becomes editing rather than a full creation

• NO IMPLEMENTATION SPECIALIST – you are your own– Destination PD has a lot of helpful how-to’s (roster file info,

proctoring, report explanations, etc.)– Tech Questions: NWEA Tech Support– General Questions: Charissa Talsma or Ron Schneider

Northwest Evaluation Accreditation (NWEA)

Year 2 Process

• Reading, Math and Language Usage Grades 2-10; Primary Grades Math and Reading K-1 will all be offered at no cost– Science is available for purchase– Grades 9 and 10 are still required to take both fall and

spring NWEA MAP at this time.

NWEA

NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP)Preliminary Assessment Window

* 2016-2017 Spring window slightly condensed to allow for all testing to be completed after spring break, but an eight-week window is still provided.

* Window is set with the assumption that a majority of academies will be starting after Labor Day. If your academy has applied for a pre-Labor Day start, please let the CSO know.

Season Dates

Fall September 12 – October 7

Winter January 9 – February 3

Spring April 17 – June 9 *

NWEA

Year 1 is done – now what?

• Teachers:– Using your Grade Reports, review your goal (strand)

scores• Are there any that are significantly lower or higher? Why might

that be?– Review the grade above and below – are the same goals

(strands) weak or strong?– MAP/MSTEP Comparison – can you find any connections?

• RIT Score and/or percentile ranking to Preliminary Above Benchmark

NWEA

Year 1 is done – now what?

• School/Teacher Leaders:– What interventions appear to have had great success?

What worked? What didn’t? How can we replicate the success of some grade levels in other grade levels?

– Look to foster teacher-to-teacher collaboration• BE INTENTIONAL: pick something and go for it.

But don’t sacrifice the forest for the tree.

NWEA

Year 2: Expectations and “Look Fors”• Returning Students will have Data

– Fall testing sessions will start based on their Spring score – Adjusted for summer learning loss using NWEA’s research

base– Scores will drop – good place to look for teaching depth

and retention• Are weak areas showing improvement?• Are achievement gaps closing?

NWEA

Year 2: Expectations and “Look Fors”• Testing will go more smoothly!• You know what you’re doing! And your returning

students will know what they’re doing! • Is your Fall Average Score higher than last Fall?

– Run a fall-to-fall growth calculation – this will show you information about the students that were there for a true cycle

• May have to filter for students that were enrolled, left, and re-enrolled

• Have a plan to incorporate the data into your school improvement plans for the year.

NWEA

Year 2: What’s new• New Reports: Next Generation Reports (will need to login)

– One stop shop for your individual student data needs

NWEA

Year 2: What’s new• RIT to Concepts Chart

– Document referencing vocabulary related to concepts at each RIT band

– References difficulty level that MAP measures, regardless of any particular state standards

– Use in conjunction with vocabulary lists associated with your own locally adopted curriculum

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

OverviewThe latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, signed into law December 10, is, in many ways, a U-turn from its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the states have significant leeway in a wide range of areas, with the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) seeing its hands-on role in accountability scaled back considerably.

Many details – procedures for states (can and will states exceed or modify the Act), how will states and the USDOE interpret the Act, waiver procedures, ramifications or consequences if a section is not followed, etc., still need to be negotiated and clarified.

THINK ABOUTS – Federally MANDATED testing, teacher evaluation, teacher certification/HQ, state reporting, grant implications, etc. What changes will we see??!! What will be Michigan decisions and what will be USDOE mandates?

ESSAWhat ESSA Says – Plans and Goals• States will have to submit accountability plans to the Education Department.

These new ESSA plans will start in the 2017-18 school year.• States can pick their own goals, both a big, long-term goal, and smaller,

interim goals. These goals must address: proficiency on tests, English-language proficiency, and graduation rates. Goals have to set an expectation that all groups that are furthest behind close gaps in achievement and graduation rates.

• K-8 Schools – States need to incorporate at least four indicators into their accountability systems. The menu includes three academic indicators: proficiency on state tests, English-language proficiency, plus some other academic factor that can be broken out by subgroup, which could be growth on state tests. States are required to add at least one additional indicator of a very different kind. Possibilities include: student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, school climate/safety, or whatever else the state things makes sense. NOTE: STATES NEED TO COMPUTE PARTICIPATION (95%) ON TESTS, BUT IT IS NOT A SEPARATE INDICATOR.

ESSAWhat ESSA Says – Priority Schools• High schools – will be judged by basically the same set of indicators,

except that graduation rates will have to be part of the mix. The rates could take the place of a second academic indicator.

• It is up to the states to decide how much the individual indicators will count, although the academic factors (tests, graduation rates, etc.) will have to count “much” more as a group than the indicators that get at students’ opportunity to learn and post-secondary readiness.

• States have to identify and intervene in the bottom 5 percent of performers. These schools have to be identified at least once every three years. States have to identify and intervene in high schools where the graduation rate is 67% or less.

• States with districts have to identify schools where subgroups of students are struggling. (Ttb, SRO, MiExcel, MDE, CEPI, etc. questions)

ESSAWhat ESSA Says – School Improvement• Bottom 5% and high schools with high dropout rates:

Districts come up with an evidence-based plan and states monitor the plan. If not enough progress after no more than four (4) years, the state must step in with its own plan – state take over the school, or fire the principal, or turn the school into a charter, or allow public school of choice (priority to lowest kids)

• Schools with struggling subgroups:Schools come up with the plan (districts monitor and can step in) to help the particular group of students who are falling behind. Importantly, there’s also a provision calling for states and districts to come up with a “comprehensive improvement plan” in schools where subgroups are chronically underperforming, despite local interventions.

• School Improvement Grant program is consolidated into the bigger Title I pot. States can set aside up to 7% of all their Title I funds for school improvement, up from 4% in the current law. (NO MORE SIG $)

ESSAWhat ESSA Says – Testing and Standards• Must test grades 3-8 and once in high school in reading and math, and

break into subgroup data• High Schools, with state approval, can use SAT or ACT• STATES DECIDE OPT-OUT LAWS, WHAT HAPPENS IF NOT 95%

TESTED• ELLs – accountability and $ moves from Title III to Title I; they must take the

tests during the first year; the scores count for growth the second year; the scores count for proficiency the third year

• Only 1% of students can take alternative tests• States required to adopt “challenging” academic standards – CAN be

CCSS• US Secretary of Education is prohibited from forcing or encouraging a

set of standards

ESSA

What ESSA Says – Transitions, Teachers and Grants• NCLB waivers, like Michigan, are null and void on August 1, 2016, but states must

continue to support priority and focus schools until new ESSA Plan kicks in• Most grants are followed until the end of the school year• New Block Grant consolidates dozens of programs – AP, PE, Tech, etc.• Preschool Grant in ESSA but co-administered with Health and Human Services• Teacher evaluations do not need to include student outcome data• “Highly Qualified” is officially a thing of the past• More $ in Title II (T. training), for performance pay, literacy, STEM, and weighted

student funding pilots for low income districts. Maintenance of effort will remain in place (states must use own $ to tap federal $)

• Title I funds are NOT portable (fed $ following student)- that was discussed

M-STEPCurrent Information:• ELA and Math – 3-8 and 11/12; Science – 4, 7, 11/12;

Social Studies 5, 8, 11/12• Computer Adaptive when possible• Questions based on Claims/Targets connected to CCSS• Secure Site Student Data File information – Subject Scale Scores (SS),

Perf Level (1-4), Student Growth Percentile (SGP), % Prof (3s and 4s) and Claims SS, Perf Level (0 or 1), # questions, # and % correct

• Useful Date – Compare SUBJ SS, SGP, % Prof with other entities (Michigan, area districts, etc., and remember outliers), individual and group % correct on each Claim, look for trends (substantial data that repeats) and group data (certain class/teacher, subject, etc.)

• Remember – data is of no use until you put a name and issues to the numbers, discuss and plan, and MAKE THE NEEDED MODIFICATIONS!

M-STEP

Preliminary Reports – 48 hours after computer completion

M-STEP

M-STEPM-STEP and College Board Questions:• How often do your students work on activities that look like state

assessment questions? - scenarios, prompts, multiple steps, reasoning, defending, etc.

• How often do your students answer released assessment questions? – Bell work, introduction to a new skill, class questions, added to assignment, etc.

• Do your teachers know what Claims, Anchor Standards, Math Practice Skills, etc. your students struggle with?

• Do you track student mastery of skills that pay dividends on the assessments?

• How do your students view assessments? – useful if accurate, comparison with peers, weak and strong areas, career readiness, etc. Kids need to know the positives of assessments - the public lets them know the negatives!!!

M-STEP

The Future of State Testing• Current M-Step produced by a company who signed a three-year contract

(2015-2017) with the State of Michigan. Contract flexibility?• ESSA says 3-8 and once in high school for ELA and math, but only need to

determine bottom 5% once every three years – will that play a part?• Legislators feel they control testing because they control the $$• NWEA + Michigan Idea – NWEA says the MAP is not designed to be a state

assessment, but they have met with legislators and have personnel to work on state assessments. About a third of Michigan students take MAP now!

• Fall and Spring required idea – measure growth, retention, results during school year, etc.

• College Board – 9, 10 and 11 – seems to make sense, especially when added to career ready ACT WorkKeys. Replace with what??

Guest Speaker

Mr. Gary NaeyaertExecutive DirectorGreat Lakes Education Project

BEST Program

Better Educational leadership for School improvement through Timely one-on-one coaching and professional development• An online leadership coaching and school improvement network created

and led by Dr. Casey Reason• The BEST Program is an outgrowth of the CSO Leadership Institute

program• The CSO has teamed up with Dr. Reason to offer a six-week summer

program (June 27 – August 5). The CSO will pay for the course registration for up to eight (8) participants. The course is available for three (3) graduate credits

BEST Program

2015-2016 BEST Leadership Cohort Recognition

Dr. Beverly Baroni Clara B. Ford AcademyMeagan Brown Detroit Delta Preparatory AcademyAlberta Galarza Hope of Detroit AcademyJena Lenz Huron AcademyJamie San Miguel Lighthouse AcademyTeriena Schwartz Hope Academy of West MichiganMark Talbot Huron Academy

LUNCH

The Afternoon Session will begin at 1:00 pm

Epicenter/Compliance Updates

• Key Submissions– School Center– Board Center

• Notes• Transparency Features• Email Notification of Epicenter

Submissions

Professional Learning

• All dates are currently tentative, pending coordination with NWEA and locations

• Sessions planned: – Focusing on Growth: October or November 2016

• One East side and one West side date– Informing Instruction: September/October

• West Side (additional date due to snowy March)

Professional Learning

A New Partnership:• The Charter Schools Office has teamed with the Grand

Valley Charter Schools office to allow teachers and administrators of Ferris authorized academies to attend GVSU professional development offerings free of charge!

• Schedule will be released in late June—stay tuned for more information

Professional Learning

• CSO provided professional development is still being designed

• Information gathered from today’s survey will be used to create sessions

• Investigating contracted, regional, on-site, and collaborative training opportunities

Rubric Redesign

Visitation Rubric Redesign

After extensive review and discussion, we have come to the conclusion that our current visitation rubric no longer adds value to our oversight model and is not helpful to our academies.

Our team is working on a revised version of the rubric that closely follows the AdvancED review model.

Rubric Redesign

New CSO Visitation Rubric Outline

Standard 1: Mission/Vision/Core Values“The Academy communicates and maintains a set of core values that establish high expectations for teaching and learning.”

Standard 2: Governance and Leadership“The Academy Board and school leadership team establish standards and procedures to promote and ensure student learning and effective school practices.”

Rubric Redesign

New CSO Visitation Rubric Outline

Standard 3: Teacher Engagement and Student Learning“The Academy’s curriculum, instructional practices, and assessment strategies are aligned to promote and ensure teacher effectiveness and student learning.”

Standard 4: Resources and Support Systems“The Academy utilizes its available resources to maximize and ensure success for all students.”

Rubric Redesign

New CSO Visitation Rubric Outline

Standard 5: Using Data for Continuous Improvement“The Academy has processes in place to utilize performance data to inform and guide continuous improvement in student learning.”

Standard 6: Authorizer Requirements“The Academy meets or exceeds all contractual requirements and expectations of the Authorizer.”

Rubric Redesign

Review Outcomes:Passing = Level 3 or 4 rating on each Standard

• Meets Authorizer Standards(Academy passed all Standards)

• Meets Authorizer Standards with Conditions(Academy did not pass 1 to 2 Standards)

• Does not meet Authorizer Standards(Academy did not pass 3 or more Standards)

2016-2017 Visitation Schedule

Clara B. Ford Academy ReauthorizationBenton Harbor Charter School Academy Mid-ContractBlended Learning Academies Mid-ContractCreative Technologies Academy Mid-ContractDetroit Delta Preparatory Academy for Social Justice Mid-ContractHope of Detroit Academy Mid-Contract

Invigorating Excellence

2016-2017 Invigorating Excellence Placement• New model developed over the course of the 2015-2016 school year

– Move from a 4-tier system to a 3-tier system• General• Phase I• Phase II

• New rubric created to incorporate move to NWEA MAP and M-STEP– Available via this link: Invigorating Excellence Rubric

• With M-STEP scores released in a timely fashion, academies should be notified no later than August 15 of placement in Invigorating Excellence program

Contract Revisions

• Updated all CSO Policies• Revision of Terms and Conditions• Bylaws• Several other Contractual tabs

The CSO will be requesting Contract Amendments of Academy Boards in Fall 2016

Woodbridge Promise Program

June 20 – August 4, 2016

Woodbridge Promise Program

• Open to students entering Junior or Senior year• Offers seven (7) free college credits• Students have opportunity to take courses for an

additional seven (7) credits during academic year

• Students who participate for two years earn up to 28 credits towards college –FREE OF CHARGE

CSO Scholarship Program

The CSO offers scholarships to graduates of FSU authorized academies. Since 2006, over $400,000 in scholarships have been awarded to FSU students.

In 2016-2107, students are eligible for up to $2,000 per semester.

Thank You!

Thank you for coming today!

We wish you all the best for a strong and safe finish to the 2015-2016 academic year