Focus District / Focus Schools / LAP Schools
Breakdown of our Schools :
For 2015-16, Beacon City School District is a focus district, Beacon High School is a focus school, Sargent and Rombout are LAP schools, South Ave., Glenham, and JV Forrestal are in good standing.
For 2016-17, BCSD is in good standing, there are no focus schools, and the list of LAP schools is to-be-announced but includes at least Rombout and Sargent.
For 2017-18, status depends on this springs exams.
What determines status is different from one year to the next as the state changes the rulebook.
Status in 2015-16 was based on rules where focus districts were identified based on 2010-11 exams and graduation rates, and could work their way off the list with two consecutive years of good performance.
Status in 2016-17 is based on a clean-slate rewrite of the focus list based on 2014-15 exam scores and graduation rates.
Status in 2017-18 is based on rules where focus districts can work their way off the new list based on two consecutive years of good performance, or can be added to the list based on one of their schools having three consecutive years of LAP status.
For 2015-16, Beacon City School District is a focus district, Beacon High School is a focus school, Sargent and Rombout are LAP schools, South Ave., Glenham, and JV Forrestal are in good standing.
For 2016-17, BCSD is in good standing, there are no focus schools, and the list of LAP schools is to-be-announced but includes at least Rombout and Sargent.
For 2017-18, status depends on this springs exams.
What determines status is different from one year to the next as the state changes the rulebook.
Status in 2015-16 was based on rules where focus districts were identified based on 2010-11 exams and graduation rates, and could work their way off the list with two consecutive years of good performance.
Status in 2016-17 is based on a clean-slate rewrite of the focus list based on 2014-15 exam scores and graduation rates.
Status in 2017-18 is based on rules where focus districts can work their way off the new list based on two consecutive years of good performance, or can be added to the list based on one of their schools having three consecutive years of LAP status.
Criteria for Identification of Focus Districts & Schools for 2016-17
For Beacon, the key that will save us from being a focus district next year is the graduation rate test (number 3 in the 2016-2017 document above):
3. If the subgroup’s 2010 4-year or 2009 5-year cohort Graduation Rate is above the state average, then for the elementary-middle and secondary levels the subgroup’s PI is removed from those for which thedistrict can be identified as a Focus District.
Example:
· District C’s 2010 4-year Graduation Rate for Black students is 69, for Asian students is 72 and for White students is 67. The state average is 67, 85, and 89, respectively. The Black subgroup’s Graduation Rate is above the state average and therefore at the elementary-middle and secondary levels the subgroup’s PI will be removed for the subgroups for which the district can be identified. District C can now be identified only for the White and Asian subgroups, if the PI’s for these subgroups are below the cut points for preliminary identification.
For our district, the 2010 cohort four-year August graduation rate for students with disabilities (SWD) was 55%, higher than the state average 53%; and the district's 2010 cohort four-year August graduation rate for economically disadvantaged (ED) students was 72%, higher than the state average 71%. So the district will not be identified as a focus district based on performance of those groups. Since those two groups are the only ones for which we have been identified before, we will avoid re-identification as a focus district.
Be aware this is a temporary reprieve; Beacon will almost certainly be back on the focus list for 2017-18. That is partly because state rules increasing the penalties for exam opt-outs are coming into effect. The newly introduced rule makes schools which are in LAP status for three consecutive years move to focus status, and moves the district to focus status as well. That is NYCRR 100.18(g)(9) --https://govt.westlaw.com/.../Ife3f6dd2fcb711e1a2f20000845.... That rule first takes effect for status in the 2017-18 school year, based on this spring's exams (as well as the two previous years). For Beacon, both Sargent and Rombout had LAP status for 2015-16 and will again for 2016-17. So if they would be identified as LAP status again for 2017-18 based on this spring's exams, instead they will become focus schools. One trigger for LAP status is low exam participation rate. If the opt-out movement continues, by the third consecutive year of high opt-out rates every district in the state will be identified as a "focus district" and the label will become meaningless. Beacon will be hit with focus status one year earlier than the biggest bulk of other districts, because Sargent and Rombout had LAP status due to poor performance in 2012-13 before the opt-out rate was so high.
3. If the subgroup’s 2010 4-year or 2009 5-year cohort Graduation Rate is above the state average, then for the elementary-middle and secondary levels the subgroup’s PI is removed from those for which thedistrict can be identified as a Focus District.
Example:
· District C’s 2010 4-year Graduation Rate for Black students is 69, for Asian students is 72 and for White students is 67. The state average is 67, 85, and 89, respectively. The Black subgroup’s Graduation Rate is above the state average and therefore at the elementary-middle and secondary levels the subgroup’s PI will be removed for the subgroups for which the district can be identified. District C can now be identified only for the White and Asian subgroups, if the PI’s for these subgroups are below the cut points for preliminary identification.
For our district, the 2010 cohort four-year August graduation rate for students with disabilities (SWD) was 55%, higher than the state average 53%; and the district's 2010 cohort four-year August graduation rate for economically disadvantaged (ED) students was 72%, higher than the state average 71%. So the district will not be identified as a focus district based on performance of those groups. Since those two groups are the only ones for which we have been identified before, we will avoid re-identification as a focus district.
Be aware this is a temporary reprieve; Beacon will almost certainly be back on the focus list for 2017-18. That is partly because state rules increasing the penalties for exam opt-outs are coming into effect. The newly introduced rule makes schools which are in LAP status for three consecutive years move to focus status, and moves the district to focus status as well. That is NYCRR 100.18(g)(9) --https://govt.westlaw.com/.../Ife3f6dd2fcb711e1a2f20000845.... That rule first takes effect for status in the 2017-18 school year, based on this spring's exams (as well as the two previous years). For Beacon, both Sargent and Rombout had LAP status for 2015-16 and will again for 2016-17. So if they would be identified as LAP status again for 2017-18 based on this spring's exams, instead they will become focus schools. One trigger for LAP status is low exam participation rate. If the opt-out movement continues, by the third consecutive year of high opt-out rates every district in the state will be identified as a "focus district" and the label will become meaningless. Beacon will be hit with focus status one year earlier than the biggest bulk of other districts, because Sargent and Rombout had LAP status due to poor performance in 2012-13 before the opt-out rate was so high.
-
FOCUS DISTRICTS
-
FOCUS SCHOOLS
-
LAP SCHOOLS
<
>
FOCUS DISTRICTS ARE IDENTIFIED:
If a district has a Priority School, the district will automatically be preliminary identified. Otherwise, the district will be identified if its performance on one of the ESEA subgroups placed that district among the lowest performing 5% of district within the state for that particular subgroup (either for math-ELA results or graduation rate), and the district did not demonstrate progress in the measurement of that particular subgroup on the measure for which it was potentially identified. For Special Acts School Districts, we had separate guidelines for identification and only identified them if they had a Priority School within the district.
What is the next step for a Focus District in identifying its Focus Schools?
The State has provided each of the Focus Districts with a list of potential Focus Schools. One list, List A, is based on the absolute numbers of non-proficient and non-graduating students in the district of the groups that the district was identified for. The second list, List B, is based on the percentage of non-proficient and non-graduating results for that specific group within the district. Both are rank-ordered accordingly, and the district must select whether to use List A, List B, or another combination or option (subject to approval of the Department).
What are the requirements for a District Comprehensive Improvement Plan (DCIP) and how do the new accountability standards affect its structure?
Each Focus District must develop a DCIP, essentially a component of its Comprehensive Education Plan (CEP). For 2012-13, the DCIP should be based upon the latest visit from Department staff – school quality review, curriculum audits, joint intervention team visits. Based upon these results, the district will develop the DCIP, according to the six tenants of research-based elements of successful school improvement programs. The DCIP must then be approved by the Board of Education no later than three months following the designation of the Focus District and is subject to approval by the Commissioner, to be implemented the beginning of the school year. It must, as well, specify the supports and interventions to be used from the list of allowable expenditures and activities approved by the Department, and be developed in consultation with parents and school staff, pursuant to section 100.11 of the Commissioner’s Regulations to be made widely available (likely through the district’s website and updated annually). Using a new diagnostic tool (DTSDE) http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/diagnostic-tool-institute/home.html begun in the 2012-13 school year to help districts develop these DCIP, and subsequent years will be formed by the DCIP with this tool.
What is the difference between DCIP and CEP? Is the former the Focus District plan and the latter the Focus School plan? Why wouldn’t these be essentially the same plan?
The DCIP is a district-wide plan, and provides SED a way in which the district is organizing its designation of schools, meeting the set-aside requirements and focusing on its schools. The CEP is school-specific and explaining the way in which the school will be focusing on the improvement of subgroups it was identified for, or the All Students group (if a Priority District).
If a district has a Priority School, the district will automatically be preliminary identified. Otherwise, the district will be identified if its performance on one of the ESEA subgroups placed that district among the lowest performing 5% of district within the state for that particular subgroup (either for math-ELA results or graduation rate), and the district did not demonstrate progress in the measurement of that particular subgroup on the measure for which it was potentially identified. For Special Acts School Districts, we had separate guidelines for identification and only identified them if they had a Priority School within the district.
What is the next step for a Focus District in identifying its Focus Schools?
The State has provided each of the Focus Districts with a list of potential Focus Schools. One list, List A, is based on the absolute numbers of non-proficient and non-graduating students in the district of the groups that the district was identified for. The second list, List B, is based on the percentage of non-proficient and non-graduating results for that specific group within the district. Both are rank-ordered accordingly, and the district must select whether to use List A, List B, or another combination or option (subject to approval of the Department).
What are the requirements for a District Comprehensive Improvement Plan (DCIP) and how do the new accountability standards affect its structure?
Each Focus District must develop a DCIP, essentially a component of its Comprehensive Education Plan (CEP). For 2012-13, the DCIP should be based upon the latest visit from Department staff – school quality review, curriculum audits, joint intervention team visits. Based upon these results, the district will develop the DCIP, according to the six tenants of research-based elements of successful school improvement programs. The DCIP must then be approved by the Board of Education no later than three months following the designation of the Focus District and is subject to approval by the Commissioner, to be implemented the beginning of the school year. It must, as well, specify the supports and interventions to be used from the list of allowable expenditures and activities approved by the Department, and be developed in consultation with parents and school staff, pursuant to section 100.11 of the Commissioner’s Regulations to be made widely available (likely through the district’s website and updated annually). Using a new diagnostic tool (DTSDE) http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/diagnostic-tool-institute/home.html begun in the 2012-13 school year to help districts develop these DCIP, and subsequent years will be formed by the DCIP with this tool.
What is the difference between DCIP and CEP? Is the former the Focus District plan and the latter the Focus School plan? Why wouldn’t these be essentially the same plan?
The DCIP is a district-wide plan, and provides SED a way in which the district is organizing its designation of schools, meeting the set-aside requirements and focusing on its schools. The CEP is school-specific and explaining the way in which the school will be focusing on the improvement of subgroups it was identified for, or the All Students group (if a Priority District).
FOCUS SCHOOLS
Definition:
· A Title I school that has the largest within-school gaps between the highest-achieving subgroup or subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or subgroups or, at the high school level, has the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates (“within-school-gaps” focus school); or
· A Title I school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates (“low-achieving subgroup” focus school). An SEA must also identify as a focus school a Title I high school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years that is not identified as a priority school (“low-graduation-rate” focus school).
These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of students identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for one or more subgroups.
Definition Summary:
A “within-school-gaps” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have the largest gaps in achievement, or at the high school level, in graduation rates, between subgroups within the school; and
3. Have had a lack of progress over a number of years of the lowest achieving subgroup or subgroups in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments or, at the high school level, graduation rates.
A “low-achieving-subgroup” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have one or more subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates; and
3. Have had a lack of progress over a number of years of the lowest achieving subgroup or subgroups in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments or, at the high school level, graduation rates. Note that an SEA might consider “school-to-State gaps” to meet this definition.
A “low-graduation-rate” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
3. Not be identified as a priority school.
Note that all schools that meet this definition must be identified as focus schools.
Demonstrating Alignment with the Definition of Focus Schools:
In order to demonstrate that a list of focus schools generated based on the overall rating in an SEA’s accountability system (e.g., a list of focus schools that includes all schools graded “D”) meets the definition above, an SEA might:
1. Determine the number of schools it must identify as focus schools (i.e., a number equal to ten percent of the State’s Title I schools).
2. Identify the schools on the list generated by the overall rating in the accountability system (e.g., the schools graded “D”) that are Title I-participating high schools that have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years (and are not identified as priority schools) (“low-graduation rate” focus schools).
3. Identify any additional Title I-participating high schools that have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years and have not already been identified as priority schools (e.g., from among schools graded “B” or “C”) (“low-graduation-rate” focus schools) and add those schools to the list of focus schools.
4. Determine the remaining number of schools that the SEA needs to identify as focus schools by subtracting the number of schools identified in steps 2 and 3 from the number identified in step 1.
5. With respect to the State’s “within-school-gaps” schools:
o Generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on achievement gaps between subgroups in a school over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o If an SEA elects to do so, generate a list that rank-orders Title I high schools in the State based on graduation rate gaps between subgroups in a school over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o For each list, set a cut point that separates highest achievement or graduation rate gap schools from other schools.
6. With respect to the State’s “low-achieving-subgroup” schools:
o Generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of subgroups, which may be based on gaps between subgroups in a school and subgroups in the State, over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o If an SEA elects to do so, generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on subgroup graduation rates, which may be based on gaps between subgroups in a school and subgroups in the State, over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o For each list, set a cut point that separates lowest achievement or graduation rate schools from other schools.
7. Not counting any schools already identified through steps 2 and 3, demonstrate that the schools that the SEA has identified as “focus schools” based on being at a certain level in its accountability system are (A) above the cut points set for the lists generated in steps 5 and 6, and (B) total at least the number determined in step 4.
Definition:
· A Title I school that has the largest within-school gaps between the highest-achieving subgroup or subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or subgroups or, at the high school level, has the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates (“within-school-gaps” focus school); or
· A Title I school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates (“low-achieving subgroup” focus school). An SEA must also identify as a focus school a Title I high school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years that is not identified as a priority school (“low-graduation-rate” focus school).
These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of students identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for one or more subgroups.
Definition Summary:
A “within-school-gaps” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have the largest gaps in achievement, or at the high school level, in graduation rates, between subgroups within the school; and
3. Have had a lack of progress over a number of years of the lowest achieving subgroup or subgroups in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments or, at the high school level, graduation rates.
A “low-achieving-subgroup” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have one or more subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates; and
3. Have had a lack of progress over a number of years of the lowest achieving subgroup or subgroups in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments or, at the high school level, graduation rates. Note that an SEA might consider “school-to-State gaps” to meet this definition.
A “low-graduation-rate” focus school must:
1. Be a Title I school;
2. Have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
3. Not be identified as a priority school.
Note that all schools that meet this definition must be identified as focus schools.
Demonstrating Alignment with the Definition of Focus Schools:
In order to demonstrate that a list of focus schools generated based on the overall rating in an SEA’s accountability system (e.g., a list of focus schools that includes all schools graded “D”) meets the definition above, an SEA might:
1. Determine the number of schools it must identify as focus schools (i.e., a number equal to ten percent of the State’s Title I schools).
2. Identify the schools on the list generated by the overall rating in the accountability system (e.g., the schools graded “D”) that are Title I-participating high schools that have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years (and are not identified as priority schools) (“low-graduation rate” focus schools).
3. Identify any additional Title I-participating high schools that have had a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years and have not already been identified as priority schools (e.g., from among schools graded “B” or “C”) (“low-graduation-rate” focus schools) and add those schools to the list of focus schools.
4. Determine the remaining number of schools that the SEA needs to identify as focus schools by subtracting the number of schools identified in steps 2 and 3 from the number identified in step 1.
5. With respect to the State’s “within-school-gaps” schools:
o Generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on achievement gaps between subgroups in a school over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o If an SEA elects to do so, generate a list that rank-orders Title I high schools in the State based on graduation rate gaps between subgroups in a school over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o For each list, set a cut point that separates highest achievement or graduation rate gap schools from other schools.
6. With respect to the State’s “low-achieving-subgroup” schools:
o Generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of subgroups, which may be based on gaps between subgroups in a school and subgroups in the State, over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o If an SEA elects to do so, generate a list that rank-orders Title I schools in the State based on subgroup graduation rates, which may be based on gaps between subgroups in a school and subgroups in the State, over a number of years (using a formula the SEA develops for this calculation);
o For each list, set a cut point that separates lowest achievement or graduation rate schools from other schools.
7. Not counting any schools already identified through steps 2 and 3, demonstrate that the schools that the SEA has identified as “focus schools” based on being at a certain level in its accountability system are (A) above the cut points set for the lists generated in steps 5 and 6, and (B) total at least the number determined in step 4.
LAP Schools (Local Assistance Plan Schools)
• In addition to identifying Priority and Focus Districts and schools, New York must support continuous improvement in other Title I schools that are not making progress in improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps.
• Local Assistance Plan Schools must have a plan that is focused on closing identified gaps in student achievement. Commissioner’s Regulations require LAP schools to develop a plan that specifies the following:
▫ the process by which the plan was developed and how school leadership, staff, parents, and students, if appropriate, were given meaningful opportunities to participate in the development of the plan;
▫ the additional resources and professional development that will be provided to LAP schools to support implementation of the plan; and
▫ the actions to improve the performance of the subgroup(s) for which the school was identified and the timeline for implementation of the actions.
Requirements for Local Assistance Plan Schools in Focus Districts
• A Focus District with LAP schools will need to work with identified school(s) to complete the applicable sections of the Self-Review Document and Report Template, and incorporate the supports and interventions for the identified schools into its District Comprehensive Improvement Plan (DCIP). Within the DCIP template, the district will be required to clearly identify the supports and interventions that are to be implemented in the identified LAP schools. These supports and interventions do not count towards satisfying the improvement set-aside or parent engagement set-aside requirements.
• The submission of the DCIP will fulfill the regulatory requirements for Focus Districts with LAP schools.
more information
• In addition to identifying Priority and Focus Districts and schools, New York must support continuous improvement in other Title I schools that are not making progress in improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps.
• Local Assistance Plan Schools must have a plan that is focused on closing identified gaps in student achievement. Commissioner’s Regulations require LAP schools to develop a plan that specifies the following:
▫ the process by which the plan was developed and how school leadership, staff, parents, and students, if appropriate, were given meaningful opportunities to participate in the development of the plan;
▫ the additional resources and professional development that will be provided to LAP schools to support implementation of the plan; and
▫ the actions to improve the performance of the subgroup(s) for which the school was identified and the timeline for implementation of the actions.
Requirements for Local Assistance Plan Schools in Focus Districts
• A Focus District with LAP schools will need to work with identified school(s) to complete the applicable sections of the Self-Review Document and Report Template, and incorporate the supports and interventions for the identified schools into its District Comprehensive Improvement Plan (DCIP). Within the DCIP template, the district will be required to clearly identify the supports and interventions that are to be implemented in the identified LAP schools. These supports and interventions do not count towards satisfying the improvement set-aside or parent engagement set-aside requirements.
• The submission of the DCIP will fulfill the regulatory requirements for Focus Districts with LAP schools.
more information