**The Ohio Model of Differentiated Accountability**

***Proposal to United States Department of Education***

May 2, 2008 to <applications@ed.gov>

> **Submitted by the Ohio Department of Education**
>
> **Contact: Stephen Barr, Associate Superintendent**
>
> **Center for School Improvement**
>
> **614.466.5834**
>
> [**stephen.barr@ode.state.oh.us**](mailto:stephen.barr@ode.state.oh.us)

**The Ohio Model of Differentiated Accountability**

***Proposal to United States Department of Education***

**CONTENTS**

**Executive Summary** i

**SECTION I: *Accountability***

Core Principle 1 1

Core Principle 2 1

Core Principle 3 3

**SECTION II: *Differentiation Model***

Core Principle 4 3

Core Principle 5 19

Core Principle 6 19

**SECTION III: *Interventions***

Core Principle 7 20

Core Principle 8 23

Core Principle 9 24

**SECTION IV: *Restructuring (or Alternate Label)***

Core Principle 10 24

**SECTION V: *Differentiation Data Analysis*** 25

**SECTION VI: *Annual Evaluation Plan*** 25

**Figures & Tables**

Figure 1: Calculation of District and School Designations 2

Figure 2: District & Building Status Based on Percentage of Conditions
Not Met 6

Figure 3: Analyzing Rate of Improvement Along Trajectory 7

Figure 4: Ohio System of Support Training Design 12

Figure 5: Number of Districts & Schools by Support Level 13

Figure 6: Relationship of Districts & Schools to Level of Support Needed
16

Table 1: Interventions by Improvement Support Status 14

Table 2: Community Schools by Support Status 17

Table 3: Level of Support by District Improvement Status 17

Table 4: Level of Support by School Improvement Status 18

Table 5: Districts in District Improvement 18

Table 6: Districts in District Improvement & Districts with Schools in
School Improvement 19

Table 7: Teacher Equity Analysis Process 20

**The Ohio Model of Differentiated Accountability**

***Proposal to United States Department of Education***

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

The accountability under No Child Left Behind has been the key driver of
focused educational change. However, after six years of No Child Left
Behind implementation, Ohio has concluded that rules for identification
of schools in school improvement do not accurately describe the degree
of complexity necessary for targeting intervention to schools and
districts that have been identified.

For this reason, Ohio has chosen to participate in the US Department of
Education Differentiated Accountability pilot initiative in an effort to
help districts better manage improvement in their schools and make
systematic changes to improve instruction and student achievement. The
***Ohio Model of Differentiated Accountability*** will also help the
state accelerate support and better target resources, technical
assistance and interventions to the schools and districts that need the
most assistance. The key areas of Ohio's proposed model are (1)
accountability; (2) differentiation; and (3) interventions.

1.  **[Accountability]{.underline}**

The Ohio Model of Differentiated Accountability will help build capacity
for school reform and take the most significant actions for the
lowest-performing schools, including addressing the issue of teacher
effectiveness and use of data to determine the method of differentiation
and categories of intervention. Resources and interventions will be
targeted to those schools most in need of intensive intervention and
significant intervention.

Ohio will continue to require schools and districts to meet NCLB
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for all groups of students,
including economically disadvantaged, minority, limited English
proficient and students with disabilities. The proposed model will allow
Ohio to vary the intensity and type of interventions to match the
academic reasons that lead to the district/schools' identification.

2.  **[Differentiation]{.underline}**

> Ohio proposes to treat districts and buildings as part of a system
> instead of fragmented entities within the system. This means that a
> district and its buildings in improvement status would move through
> the improvement process as a unit.
>
> Further, Ohio proposes to change the way districts and schools that
> miss AYP are categorized. Currently, districts and schools move into
> improvement status after missing AYP for two years. Each year that
> they continue to miss AYP, districts and schools face increasing
> consequences, which range from offering transfer options and tutoring
> for students to restructuring of the school or district governance.
> Under current law, the consequences for these districts or schools are
> the same whether they missed AYP for one group of students in one
> subject area or missed the benchmark for multiple groups of students
> in both subject areas.
>
> Instead of focusing on the number of years that a school or district
> misses AYP, the Ohio proposed model categorizes schools and districts
> based upon the aggregate percentage of student groups that do not meet
> AYP in reading and mathematics:

-   **Low support --** Districts and schools would be labeled *low
    support* if less than 20 percent of their AYP indicators were not
    met.

-   **Medium support --** Districts and schools would be labeled *medium
    support* if 20-29 percent of their AYP indicators were not met.

-   **High support --** Districts and schools would be labeled *high
    support* if 30 percent or more of their AYP indicators were not met.

3.  **[Interventions]{.underline}**

> Ohio proposes to provide schools and districts that miss AYP with new
> options for interventions, in addition to those required by the law.
> Below are the current and proposed interventions for each of the three
> categories:

-   **Low Support**

> [Required]{.underline}: Must provide public school choice to students
> in all identified buildings; must provide Supplemental Educational
> Services (SES) to students in all buildings identified and failing to
> make AYP for 3 or more years; state must notify parents that the
> district is identified; must use state's Decision Framework to create
> district and building needs assessments; must develop district and
> building focused improvement plans using state's planning guidance;
> must direct 10 percent of Title I funds to professional development;
> must meet annual measurable objectives for each affected student
> group.
>
> [Additional options that districts and buildings may
> choose]{.underline}: May develop and implement a District Leadership
> Team (DLT) and Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) that conduct business
> using the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) framework; may
> provide SES to students in identified buildings beginning the first
> year of identification with priority of services first to low income
> students, then to non-low income but non-proficient students in
> identified student groups, then to all other non-proficient students,
> then to other students who may be proficient.

-   **Medium Support**

> [Required]{.underline}: Same as low support, but also must develop and
> implement a District Leadership Team (DLT) and Building Leadership
> Teams (BLTs) that conduct business using the Ohio Leadership Advisory
> Council (OLAC) framework.
>
> [Additional options from which districts and buildings would select
> one or more]{.underline}: On-site review by a state-sanctioned
> diagnostic team with implementation of at least two critical items
> (critical items are those associated with the reasons the
> district/buildings were identified for improvement; may provide SES to
> students in identified buildings beginning the first year of
> identification with priority of services first to low income students,
> then to non-low income but non-proficient students in identified
> student groups, then to all other non-proficient students, then to
> other students who may be proficient; replace the building staff
> relevant to the issues; institute and fully implement a new curriculum
> including professional development for teachers; significantly
> decrease management authority at the building level; appoint an
> outside expert to advise the building on its progress; extend the
> school year or school day for the building; restructure the internal
> organizational structure of the building.

-   **High Support**

> [Required]{.underline}: Same as low and medium support, but also must
> participate in an on-site review and follow-up by the State Diagnostic
> Team as selected by the state.
>
> [Additional options from which districts and buildings would select
> one or more]{.underline}: On-site review by a state-sanctioned
> diagnostic team with aggressive implementation of critical items
> (critical items are those associated with the reasons the
> schools/district were identified for improvement); may provide SES
> services to students in identified buildings beginning the first year
> of identification with priority of services first to low income
> students, then to non-low income but non-proficient students in
> identified student groups, then to all other non-proficient students,
> then to other students who may be proficient; district/buildings
> implement their improvement plans under the oversight of the State
> Support Team; reopen the school as a public charter school; replace
> all or most of the building staff (which may include the principal);
> enter into a contract with an entity to operate the public school.
>
> [Additional options from which the state would select one or
> more:]{.underline} Additional options open to the state for high
> support districts failing to provide consistent oversight of the
> school improvement efforts and/or failing to demonstrate significant
> district improvement: Defer programmatic funds or reduce
> administrative funds; institute and implement a new curriculum based
> on state and local content and achievement standards and provide High
> Quality Professional Development; replace district personnel related
> to the failure to make AYP; remove particular buildings from the
> jurisdiction of the district and establish alternative governance and
> supervision arrangements; appoint a receiver or trustee to administer
> the affairs of the district in place of the superintendent and the
> local school board; initiate an Academic Distress Commission if the
> district missed AYP for 4 consecutive years and is labeled in Academic
> Emergency using state accountability measures.
>
> Districts and buildings remaining in the same category and not making
> significant progress would be required to add an additional
> consequence once every three years. Significant progress is defined as
> an average increase in scores over the latest three years of
> assessments for each identified student group that, if maintained,
> indicates all students in identified groups will be proficient by
> 2013-14.

Differentiated accountability means creating a more nuanced system of
distinguishing between districts and schools in need of dramatic
intervention, and those that are closer to meeting goals. This
flexibility will help Ohio do what is necessary to enable all students
to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014 in a more effective
and efficient manner.

The Ohio Model of Differentiated Department of Education

*Proposal to United States Department of Education*

**SECTION I: *Accountability***

**Core Principle 1:** *AYP determinations are made for all public
schools in the state, as required by NCLB and as described in the
state's accountability plan.  The state's accountability system
continues to hold schools accountable and ensure that all students are
proficient by 2013-14. *

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) assures that its proposed model,
if approved, would not change its current U.S. Department of Education
approved process for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) and
identifying schools in need of improvement. Every public school and
local education agency (LEA) is required to make AYP and each is
included in the State Accountability System. The State has a timeline
for ensuring that all students will meet or exceed the State's
proficient level of academic achievement in reading/language arts and
mathematics, not later than 2013-2014.

**Core Principle 2:** *The State provides the public with clear and
understandable explanations of how AYP is calculated for its schools and
districts, and how it ensures that all students are included in its
accountability system.*

***Ohio AYP Calculations Include ALL Students.*** ODE has developed a
comprehensive set of business rules to ensure that every student is
included in the accountability system. These business rules are codified
in the document *Where Students Statewide Assessment Scores Count*,
which can be accessed at the following site:

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=29850

Further, Ohio has adopted a single statewide accountability system that
applies to all public school buildings and districts. Determinations of
school district and school building designations are made on the basis
of multiple measures -- the proportion of Ohio report card indicators
met, a performance index score, adequate yearly progress (AYP) as
defined by federal statute, and a measure based on individual student
achievement gains over time. Ohio incorporates the growth calculation
once grades three through eight reading and mathematics assessments have
been implemented for at least two years. **Figure 1** provides an
overview of the way in which the calculations are combined to determine
each school building's and each school district's designation.

All public school buildings and districts are accountable for the
performance of student subgroups -- including major racial/ethnic
subgroups, students with disabilities, limited English proficient
students, and economically disadvantaged students -- through the AYP
determination, provided the subgroup meets the minimum group size
requirement. Both Title I and non-Title I school buildings and districts
are part of the single statewide accountability system.

For accountability purposes, school buildings that have no tested grades
are linked with the school buildings into which their students feed. For
example, where a kindergarten through grade two school building feeds
into a grades three through six school building, the AYP determination
for the grades three through six school building also applies to the
feeder school building.

***AYP Information is Transparent and Easily Accessible to the
Public***. Section 3302.03(D)(1) of Ohio code requires that the Ohio
Department of Education "issue annual report cards for each school
district, each building within each district, and for the state as a
whole." The state report card is accessible via
<http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcard/>. In addition to disaggregations
that are required by Ohio code, Ohio's report card includes NCLB report
card requirements including: disaggregations by disability status,
English proficiency, and migrant status, economic disadvantage,
percentage of students not tested, graduation and attendance rates
disaggregated by subgroup, and teacher qualifications, which includes a
comparison of qualifications for schools in the top and bottom quartiles
by poverty.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +------------------------------------------------------------------+  |
| | **Figure 1: Calculation of District and School Designations**    |  |
| |                                                                  |  |
| | ![](media/image1.pct){width="5.9944444444444445in"               |  |
| | height="3.597916666666667in"}                                    |  |
| +------------------------------------------------------------------+  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Additionally, Ohio provides a link (provided below) on the Department's
website to the Consolidated Application Accountability workbook (version
2-15-07) submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. This document
contains the business rules that govern Ohio's accountability system.
Additionally, districts submit data for each individual, which includes
demographic information, through the Educational Management Information
System.

<http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=136&ContentID=2635&Content=48281>

 

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Education granted Ohio conditional
approval to use growth methodology as a fourth method of making AYP
determinations. The condition is that Ohio needs to adopt a uniform
minimum group size. The adoption requires legislative approval and the
legislature recently passed a concurrent resolution to make that change.

The State Accountability System produces AYP decisions for all public
schools, including public schools with variant grade configurations
(e.g., K-12), public schools that serve special populations (e.g.,
alternative public schools, juvenile institutions, state public schools
for the blind) and public charter schools. It also holds accountable
public schools with no grades assessed (e.g., K-2).

For determining participation rate as part of the AYP calculation, Ohio
employs a minimum size of 40 for all subgroups (except students with
disabilities). The federal requirement for participation is 95 percent
for small groups of students. The 95 percent participation requirement
means that all students must be tested when the subgroup numbers less
than 20; no more than one (1) student can miss the test when the
subgroup size is between 20 and 39; and no more than two (2) students
can miss the test when the subgroup size is 40. A minimum subgroup size
of 40 provides schools with a cushion against failing the participation
requirement for reasons that are beyond their control. For AYP
calculations, the minimum subgroup size for all groups is expected to be
30 beginning with the 2007-08 school year. A concurrent resolution was
recently passed by the State Legislature.

**Core Principle 3:** *Title I schools in the state continue to be
identified for improvement as required by NCLB and as outlined in the
state's accountability plan.*

Ohio assures that it identifies for improvement all schools and school
districts receiving Title I funds and those not receiving Title I funds
after missing AYP for 2 years, as required by NCLB and Ohio State
Statute (Section 3302.04 of Ohio Revised Code (ORC)) and as outlined in
the state's accountability plan. All NCLB current consequences except
Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
apply equally to Title I and non-Title I districts and schools. This
proposal will maintain that equality of consequences.

***Annual Reporting***. Ohio annually provides for a State report and
State and Local report cards in conformance with NCLB. Schools
identified for improvement are annually monitored to ensure they send,
prior to the beginning of the school year, the required notices to
parents related to the AYP determinations. Additionally, Title I schools
are monitored and expected to inform parents of their options under PSC
and SES. Schools not meeting the requirements are provided technical
advice, generally required to resubmit the notification to parents if
the original is found technically deficient, and required to develop and
implement a plan to ensure the problem does not surface in subsequent
years.

**SECTION II: *Differentiation Model***

**Core Principle 4:** *The method of differentiation of identified
schools is technically and educationally sound, based upon robust data
analysis, and uniform across the state. The differentiation of schools
is based primarily on proficiency in reading and mathematics*.

Accountability under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been a key driver
of focused educational change. Key beneficiaries of this law are groups
of students identified as economically disadvantaged, minority, limited
English proficient, and students with disabilities. NCLB creates:

-   A set of rules for identification;

-   A set of rules for labeling districts and buildings within
    districts; and

-   A set of interventions for labels the districts and buildings might
    receive.

Unfortunately, the labels do not describe the degree of failure to
perform or a degree of complexity in solving the conditions that caused
the districts and buildings to be identified.

An example illustrating this point is embedded in the District
Improvement (DI) labels. In 2007, Ohio identified 47 districts for
Corrective Action (CA) for missing Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
District Corrective Action requires direct involvement by the state and
includes rigid interventions. Data indicate that the reasons for missing
AYP vary markedly among the districts. For instance, some districts are
identified for inadequate assistance to a relatively small group of
students in reading or mathematics---admittedly, over several years.
Other districts are identified because they are not adequately helping
large numbers and multiple groups of students in both curricular areas.
Yet the interventions for these districts and the attention from the
State are essentially the same.

The same labeling system affects buildings in School Improvement (SI)
status. Some buildings fail to support a relatively small group of
students and other buildings place at risk the education of many
students. There are districts identified for improvement with no
buildings in school improvement status. In other cases, buildings are
identified in improvement status when the district is not. The result is
a complex system that is difficult to understand and difficult to
support in a meaningful and consistent manner.

Ohio's proposal will affect all districts and schools identified for
improvement. Current NCLB requirements use the element of time to
prescribe consequences. Current consequences, in general, can be
described as follows:

-   The consequence(s) increases in scope and rigor each year the school
    and/or district fails to maintain Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

-   Consequences often require replacing personnel (teachers,
    principals) or governance structures (superintendents, local
    boards)---these are practices that have limited research
    demonstrating they are effective practices. The teachers and
    principals are often moved to other buildings, which later are
    identified for improvement, and contribute to staffing instability.

-   Aside from safe harbor, and more recently growth models, statutory
    consequences make little adjustment for the frequent increases in
    proficiency required to ensure 100% proficiency by the 2013-14
    school year.

-   While sensitive to time, the statutory consequences tend not to be
    sensitive to the number of reasons that caused the district and/or
    school to be identified. Consequences are the same for a building
    that missed AYP in one student group in one subject area as for all
    content areas and all student groups.

-   The typical consequence is not very conducive to developing and
    maintaining a statewide support system that builds the capacity of
    existing teachers and administrators---who often remain in the
    district.

***Basic Assumptions of the Support Structure Under NCLB.*** The public
school district is responsible for the oversight and success of school
improvement efforts. The state steps in when it determines the district
failed to exercise its responsibilities under the law. This assumption
will not be altered at all. The legal requirements for the state to
provide for and offer technical assistance and support in the form of
support teams and other means to Title I funded districts and schools
identified for improvement will remain but the proposed interventions
and structure will enable the State to implement and maintain a more
targeted and focused set of interventions that the state can build and
maintain capacity around.

Complexity and fragmentation reduce the effectiveness of a systematic
approach. Ohio's approach is to treat districts and their attached
schools as parts of a whole, rather than as individual entities that
have little relationship or effect on each other. For instance, teachers
or administrators moved from a low-performing building to a higher
performing building will likely affect the outcomes of students in their
newly assigned building. In the context of systems, treating districts
and buildings as an inter-related unit needing improvement is essential.
Ohio's goal is to improve the outcomes of the district system---the
district and buildings---by instituting consistent improvement processes
across the district.

Districts are identified for improvement because of the performance of
the students in individual buildings. School performance is affected by
many things---some are internal such as the learning climate and focus
on instruction, others are external such as mobility, the rigor and
alignment of district curriculum, district policy, teacher and
administrative mobility, etc. There are some cases where individual
buildings succeed in spite of the district. There are no cases of
moderate to large districts where all the buildings succeeded in spite
of the district.

By unifying the treatments, the state can consistently focus more of its
limited capacity on units of districts and their associated buildings
with the most severe problems. Our data show a significant relationship
between districts with the most severe problems and the number and
percent of buildings with the most severe problems.

***Rationale for Differentiation.*** In creating this proposal, we
attempted to provide a strong rationale for a different kind of
accountability model that has the capacity to:

-   Streamline and simplify the labeling;

-   Make it easier for districts and the state to manage improvement by:

    -   Creating a consistent improvement process for all schools and
        districts, and;

    -   Moving districts and buildings through the improvement process
        as a unit;

-   Recognize individual district needs by viewing a wide range of
    district data to determine needs and customize solutions to meet
    those needs;

-   Recognize individual building needs by using building data to
    determine need and customize the solutions to those needs; and

-   Ensure the capacity for a strong support system of tools and
    personnel to help districts and schools improve.

***Assumption Inherent in Ohio's Proposed Model.*** The proposed model
is based on the **assumption** that:

1.  There is no change to the AYP determination process. Districts and
    buildings are identified as making or not making AYP using the
    current approved process.

2.  The method for districts and buildings to exit improvement status
    will remain unchanged.

3.  As the accountability process ages, increases to the state standard,
    as measured by percent proficient, will cause more districts and
    schools to be identified. This is mitigated somewhat by the Safe
    Harbor provision.

4.  Newly identified districts and buildings have fewer educational
    problems and educate at higher levels than the districts and schools
    identified early in the AYP process.

5.  The state and districts need some flexibility to ensure that limited
    resources are targeted at the lowest performing districts and
    schools.

6.  Time and consistency are important in that it takes three to five
    years for a consistently applied research-based strategy to show
    remarkable and sustainable results.

7.  There are three levels with labels as follows: low support, medium
    support and high support.

    -   ***Low support*** means the district (if in district
        improvement) and all the buildings in improvement status were
        identified in fewer than 20% of the AYP measures.

    -   ***Medium support*** means the district (if in district
        improvement) and all buildings in improvement status were
        identified in 20% to 29% of the AYP measures.

    -   ***High support*** means the district (if in district
        improvement) and all buildings in improvement status were
        identified in over 30% of the AYP measures.

8.  The labeling and treatment of districts in improvement status,
    districts not in improvement status but with buildings in
    improvement status, and buildings in improvement status within a
    district would all be the same except:

    -   Buildings failing to make AYP for six consecutive years
        (currently called Restructuring) would be evaluated using a
        building matrix to determine level of significant progress.

-   No building failing to make AYP for six consecutive years could be
    treated in any status lower than *medium support*.

-   In determining significant progress in buildings identified for
    restructuring, we propose to look at the progress of students over
    the period of time.

-   Low- and medium-support buildings failing to make AYP for six
    consecutive years would fall into the category of *medium support*
    unless the district is *high support*. The more severe category
    takes precedence.

-   High-risk buildings failing to make AYP for six consecutive years
    would fall into the category of *high support*, even if the district
    is *low* or *medium support*.

    -   Districts with buildings in improvement status, but not
        identified for district improvement would not be labeled but
        would be required to implement the basic treatments at the
        district level as if they had been identified.

> The rationale for this treatment is that:

-   The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) model of support relies heavily
    on District and Building Leadership Teams operating concurrently;

-   The structure of the automated Comprehensive Continuous Improvement
    Plan (CCIP) forces a connection of district goals and strategies to
    the building goals and strategies; and

-   The strength of a building improvement plan is strongly connected to
    the focus and strength of the district plan.

    -   Schools that are in year one of school improvement but located
        in *high support* districts will be elevated to *high support*
        status.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   The number of years in improvement status would not be a major
        factor except to establish points in time to measure progress
        and initiate additional interventions as needed. The exception
        is that buildings failing to make AYP for six consecutive years
        must be given a status of *medium* or *high support*.

The benefits of this proposed model are that it removes the issue of
identifying districts and buildings separately and treatment could be
uniform across the district. If the district is in district improvement
status solely for the district statistics (i.e., no buildings are in any
SI status) and the percentage of conditions causing the identification
is low, the district would be put at low support status regardless of
the amount of time. This results in a more stable set of conditions for
buildings. In addition, ODE could still place individual buildings in a
status based on a number of conditions rather than time. Using the
percentage of AYP conditions not met as the main criteria, and not time,
**Figure 2** below describes the three statuses for districts and
buildings that are included in Ohio's proposed model.

**Figure 2: District & Building Status Based on Percentage of Conditions
Not Met**

  ----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
  **Low Support**         **Medium Support**     **High Support**

  Less than 20% not met   20 to 29% not met      30% or more not met
  ----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

A major benefit is increased ease in making a determination of when:

-   A district or building should/should not be required to get help;

-   An Educational Service Center (ESC) could be the source of support;
    and

-   The State Support Team (SST) would work with a district and its
    buildings.

The state assures that a district/school having a subgroup repeatedly
missing performance targets over time is not allowed to remain in a
lock-step process. However, our data indicate that districts and/or
schools could be making significant progress toward meeting the 100%
proficiency target by 2013-14 but may not be able to catch up to the
increase in the proficiency requirement (percentage of students that
annually must demonstrate proficiency).

One way to measure this "significant" progress is to view the average
increase in scores over the latest three years and set a trajectory
toward 100% proficiency by the school year 2013-2014. **Figure 3**
represents this concept. Displayed are the average scaled scores for all
students beginning in 2004-05 (417.4) until 2006-07 (421.5); for all
students with disabilities in the state (389.7 in 2004-05 and 395.7 in
2006-07); and for students in one district identified when students with
disabilities (SWD) failed to make AYP (376.3 in 04-05 and 399.4 in
06-07). During this three-year period, the average scaled scores of all
students increased by 4.1, those of SWD across the state grew by 6.0,
but those of SWD in the district grew by 23.1 thus closing the gap by 19
points. This increase, while substantial, did not automatically
translate into sufficient numbers of SWD being proficient over that time
to allow the district to make AYP but it did indicate they were making
significant progress that would not likely be accelerated by moving
teachers, administrators, etc.

The state would like to use measures such as this to measure significant
progress. The measures would not affect AYP designations but would
indicate when additional interventions are warranted.

> **Figure 3: Analyzing Rate of Improvement Along Trajectory**
>
> ![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
> height="2.609027777777778in"}

***The Ohio Improvement Process.*** This proposal requires all districts
and schools identified under the accountability plan to implement the
Ohio Improvement Process using the tools developed by the State. Degrees
of support and level of required interventions are dictated by the
category of support---low, medium, high---required. **Table 1:
Interventions by Improvement Support Status**, beginning on page 14,
provides a list of proposed interventions.

***Educational Soundness.*** Ohio is committed to the implementation of
a unified state system of support directly focused on improving the
academic achievement of all students and student groups. The *Ohio
Improvement Process (**OIP**)* is Ohio's strategy for ensuring a
systematic and coherent approach for building the capacity of all
districts and schools in meaningful and real ways that allow districts
to improve instructional practice on a district-wide basis, and make and
sustain significant improvement in student performance against
grade-level benchmarks aligned with academic content standards for all
students across the district.

Inherent in the OIP is the belief that:

-   Improvement is everyone's responsibility -- at all levels of the
    district and in all districts, but especially those in corrective
    action or improvement status;

-   Leadership -- the purpose of which is the improvement of
    instructional practice and performance, regardless of role -- is a
    critical component of the OIP and must be addressed in more
    meaningful ways to ensure scalability and sustainability of
    improvement efforts on a district-wide basis;

-   State-developed products and tools, including professional
    development, need to be designed for universal accessibility and
    applicability to/for every district in the state; and

-   A unified state system of support requires the intentional use of a
    consistent set of tools and protocols by all state-supported
    regional providers, rather than allowing for multiple approaches
    across the state, based on preference.

***Redefining Leadership to Leverage Improvement.*** In March 2007, the
Ohio Department of Education (ODE), in partnership with the Buckeye
Association of School Administrators (BASA), convened a large
stakeholder group to identify the essential practices that must be
implemented by adults at all levels of the education system for
improvement in student performance to be made. This group -- the **Ohio
Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC)** -- recommended the creation of a
new leadership framework that can be used to distribute key leadership
functions, align and focus work across the system, and hold adults at
all levels accountable for improving instructional practice and student
performance (Elmore, 2006).

Rather than focusing on making improvement through a "school-by-school"
approach, Ohio's concept of scale up redefines how people operate by
creating a set of expectations that, when consistently applied statewide
by all districts and regional providers, will lead to better results for
all children. OLAC's recommendations are supported by recent
meta-analytical studies on the impact of district and school leadership
on student achievement, and provide strong support for the creation of
district and school-level/building leadership team structures to clarify
shared leadership roles/responsibilities at the district and school
level, and validate leadership team structures needed to implement
quality planning, implementation, and ongoing monitoring on a
system-wide basis.

OLAC identified the following six core areas for categorizing the MOST
ESSENTIAL leadership practices for superintendents and district and
school-level/building leadership teams in six core areas:

1.  Data and the decision-making process

2.  Focused goal setting process

3.  Instruction and the learning process

4.  Community engagement process

5.  Resource management process

6.  Board development and governance process (*at the BLT level* --
    Building Governance Process)

***Stages of the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP).*** The Ohio Improvement
Process (OIP) involves four-stages across which processes, structures,
tools, and people are connected -- all with the intent of helping
districts (1) use data to identify areas of greatest need; (2) develop a
plan to address those areas of need that is built around a limited
number of focused goals and strategies to significantly improve
instructional practice and student performance; (3) implement the plan
with integrity; and (4) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
improvement process in changing instructional practice and impacting
student performance.

In districts that have been effective in making steady improvement,
superintendents work with stakeholders to identify a few
"non-negotiable" goals, defined as goals that all staff members must act
upon, in at least two areas (i.e., student achievement and classroom
instruction), set specific achievement targets for schools and students,
and ensure the consistent use of research-based instructional strategies
in all classrooms to reach those targets (McREL, 2006).

> **Ohio Improvement Process**

This kind of improvement is not random. Rather, it is highly focused,
beginning with an honest assessment of student data and the
identification of academic weaknesses that must be addressed. ***Stage
1*** of the OIP begins with this kind of assessment using the **Decision
Framework (DF)** tool. The DF is a decision-making process designed to
assist districts in making informed decisions -- based on what their
data tell them \-- about where to spend their time, energy, and
resources to make significant and substantial improvements in student
performance. A state-developed data warehouse allows for relevant data
needed to complete the DF process to be readily available to districts
and buildings. Such data are organized in such a way as to allow DLTs
and BLTs to answer essential questions and make decisions about their
greatest need related to improving student performance.

To that end, the DF will help DLTs and BLTs:

-   Sort through and categorize data in meaningful ways;

-   Prioritize areas of need and make decisions based on an analysis of
    data;

-   Identify root causes of prioritized needs; and

-   Develop a more focused plan leading to improved student achievement.

The DF asks essential questions to assist DLTs in identifying and
analyzing critical components (e.g., curriculum alignment and
accessibility) for improving academic performance of all students,
including sub-group populations. The essential questions are organized
around the following four levels:

> **Level I: Student Proficiency**
>
> In Level I, DLTs review student proficiency data across three years by
> grade level, building level/grade span, and disaggregated student
> groups to identify **up to two** content areas of greatest concern.
> Further analyses using subscale performance data are completed by the
> DLT ***only*** for those content area(s) identified as areas of
> greatest concern. The remainder of the DF -- Levels II, III, and IV --
> provide essential questions for helping districts conduct a root cause
> analysis of those factors contributing to the district's current
> situation. Level II, which has a direct impact on student performance,
> is completed for ***each*** area of concern identified under Level I
> of the DF. Levels III and IV, which have a more global impact, are
> completed once.
>
> **Level II: Instructional Management *(Curriculum, Assessment, &
> Instructional Practice; Educator Quality; Professional Development)***
>
> In Level II, DLTs answer essential questions in relation to ***each***
> of the content area(s) of greatest concern identified under Level I.
> Essential questions under Level II focus on curriculum, assessment,
> instructional practices; educator qualifications, teacher and
> principal turnover; and the degree to which district professional
> development (PD) is aligned to problem areas, is designed to promote
> shared work across the district/buildings, and is effective in helping
> teachers acquire and apply needed knowledge and skills related to the
> improvement of instructional practice and student performance.
> Following the completion of the Level II analyses, DLTs make decisions
> about the most probable causes contributing to the major problem areas
> identified under Level I.
>
> **Level III: Expectations & Conditions *(Leadership; School Climate;
> Parent/Family, Student, Community Involvement)***
>
> In Level III, DLTs answer essential questions related to leadership;
> school climate (including student discipline occurrences, student
> attendance and mobility, students with multiple risk factors, and
> teacher and student perception); and parent/family, student, and
> community involvement and support to identify additional probable
> causes contributing the areas of greatest need identified in Level I.
>
> **Level IV: Resource Management**
>
> In Level IV, DLTs answer essential questions related to resource
> management -- defined as the intentional use of time, personnel, data,
> programmatic, and fiscal resources -- to identify additional causes
> contributing the area(s) of greatest need identified in Level I.

Through the completion of the DF, the DLT prioritizes areas of greatest
concern, as well as causes contributing to those areas of concern. The
decisions made by the DLT at Stage 1 of the OIP using the DF provide the
foundation for creation of a district plan with a limited number (two to
three) of focused goals and a limited number (three to five) of focused
strategies associated with each goal.

At the school level, Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) complete a similar
process at stage 1 of the OIP by using a building-level decision
framework to review data and identify a limited number of action steps
for improving performance to reach district goals. Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) describe the development of strong building leadership
teams (BLTs) and the distribution -- throughout the team -- of some of
the 21 practices that characterize the job of an effective principal as
key steps in enhancing student achievement. Such practices, identified
through McREL's meta-analysis of 35 years of research on school-level
leadership, suggests that leading a building requires a "complex array
of skills" not likely to be found in a single individual and support the
need for strong leadership team structures. In addition, it has been
found (Simmons, J., 2006) that "The better the leadership in school
leadership teams, the better the school."

# The Decision Framework assists DLTs and BLTs in selecting the right work (i.e., work that has a high probability of improving student achievement), based on data-based decision making and focused planning, as well as developing the collective know-how to do the right work across the system. 

Districts with the greatest degree of need (i.e., selected *high
support* districts) also receive an on-site review from the **State
Diagnostic Team** (SDT). The SDT conducts a *District/School*
*Improvement Diagnostic Review*, a process designed to help districts
and schools improve student performance by analyzing their current
practices against diagnostic indicators -- effective research-based
practices critical to improving academic achievement for all
students. Using the diagnostic indicators, review team members determine
the degree to which a school or district demonstrates effective
instructional practices.

The focus of this intensive review process is on identifying critical
needs (***Stage 1 of the OIP***) of the educational system. Unlike
traditional self-assessments, the district/school improvement diagnostic
review process relies upon a team of skilled reviewers from outside of
the district or school, who is trained on the diagnostic indicators and
standardized protocols for data collection and analysis. Regardless of
their role, all members of the SDT receive formal training on using the
diagnostic indicators, interviewing, observing classrooms, analyzing
data, and writing reports. Findings from the review (e.g., data from
classroom observation, interviews, and review of documents, diagnostic
profiles completed following the review) become additional sources used
by districts as they complete the decision framework process and
identify critical needs to be addressed.

At ***Stage 2*** of the OIP, DLTs affirm the priority areas identified
through use of the DF in developing a district improvement plan that has
a limited number (i.e., two or three) focused goals and strategies. In
Ohio, the Consolidated Comprehensive Improvement Plan (CCIP) is the
automated state tool for creating district and building improvement
plans. All districts in Ohio are required to submit a CCIP, which
includes the district goals, strategies, and action steps for improving
student performance. The CCIP is a unified grants application that
requires district personnel to work together in the development of one
coherent plan that aligns and focuses the work across the district. All
school-level plans must adhere to the district plan and school-level
strategies and action steps must respond directly to district goals.
Schools receiving Title I School Improvement funds must also create
their improvement plans in the CCIP.

The CCIP provides the structure, format and means for almost all
district/building-level plans submitted to the Ohio Department of
Education (ODE), and is used by each district to create one coherent
improvement plan describing how it intends to:

-   Achieve the district vision and mission over the next five years;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Address requirements and consequences prescribed by state and
    federal statute \[corrective action, restructuring, Highly Qualified
    Teacher (HQT)\];

-   Take advantage of flexibility provisions of Title I Schoolwide to
    combine resources -- fiscal, personnel, and time; and

-   Draw on funding from multiple state, federal, and local sources to
    achieve district goals.

To assist DLTs in developing focused plans, ODE has developed a process
guide outlining critical steps in affirming priority areas identified at
Stage 1 of the OIP, turning these priority areas into focused goals and
strategies, and developing progress indicators for monitoring plan
implementation. SSTs and ESCs are being trained to assist
districts/schools in this stage of the process.

At ***Stage 3*** of the OIP, the focus is on implementation of the
focused plan across the district. Recent research on the effects of full
implementation (Leadership and Learning Center, 2007) and its impact on
student achievement note that *partial* implementation of evidence-based
strategies is not much better than *no* implementation. For example, in
one school when fewer than 50% of the teachers aligned curriculum,
assessment, and instruction to state-content standards in science, the
percent of students proficient in that content area on state assessment
was 25%. In stark contrast, when over 90% of the teachers in the same
school aligned curriculum, assessments, and instruction to the state
science standards, student proficiency increased to 85% (Reeves, 2006).
These findings -- based on a synthesis of multiple research sources on
teaching, leadership, and organizational effectiveness -- highlight the
critical importance of full implementation of the district plan based on
focused goals that remain stable over time (Reeves, 2008).

The need for implementation of the focused plan *across the district as
a system* adds support to the critical role that highly effective
district and building leadership teams play in continuously improving
system planning and implementation of focused improvement strategies,
structures, and processes at the district and school level. When school
board members, superintendents, central office staff, principals, and
teachers "stay the course" on the right work, as defined by focused
goals for instruction and achievement, student learning increases.

McREL (2006), in its study of factors that contribute to effective
district-level leadership, suggest a positive correlation between
leadership stability and increases in student performance, and a
negative correlation between building autonomy (i.e., site-based
management in the absence of district leadership) and increases in
student achievement. Both findings support the need for effective
leadership team structures to perform critical functions and sustain a
focus on higher levels of learning for all children across the district.

For example, at the district level, DLTs perform such functions as:

-   Setting performance targets aligned with district goals;

-   Monitoring performance against the targets;

-   Building a foundation for data-driven decision making on a
    system-wide basis;

-   Facilitating the development and use of collaborative structures;

-   Brokering or facilitating high quality PD consistent with district
    goals; and

-   Allocating system resources toward instructional improvement.

Similarly, at the school level, BLTs perform such functions as:

-   Fostering shared efficacy;

-   Building a school culture that expects effective data-driven
    decision making;

-   Establishing priorities for instruction and achievement aligned with
    district goals;

-   Providing opportunities for teachers to learn from each other;

-   Monitoring and providing effective feedback on student progress; and

-   Making recommendations for the management of resources, including
    time, and personnel to meet district goals.

At ***Stage 4*** of the OIP, the focus is on monitoring the
implementation of the improvement process at multiple levels (classroom,
BLT, DLT, regional, state) and its impact on student achievement. Key
indicators are customized for each level, while maintaining the focus on
essential practices in the areas mentioned above (e.g., data and the
decision-making process, focused goal setting process, instruction and
the learning process, etc.).

At the district level, continuous monitoring is necessary to gauge the
effectiveness of improvement efforts on student achievement and to
ensure a sustained focus on district goals for instruction and
achievement, and is the key function of the DLT. At the regional and
state level, monitoring the OIP is the primary function of regional
managers assigned to oversee the work of state support teams who work
with DLTs to review data, develop focused plans, and ensure fidelity of
plan implementation and its effect on instruction and achievement.

Ohio employs a tiered model to support the continuous development of
regional providers to ensure consistency and quality in the services
provided to districts needing a high level of support, as well as to
those needing a moderate or low level of support. **Figure 4**
illustrates Ohio's training design, and delineates roles of regional
providers at each level of the system. At the core, a state-level design
team comprised of a representative from each of Ohio's 16 state support
team (SST) regions assists the State in developing and deploying
training to other regional providers to increase consistency and focus
around the OIP. Four members of the state-level design team -- referred
to as "quad" leads (i.e., four SSTs per each quadrant) -- have the
additional responsibility of coordinating training and deployment of OIP
training on a quadrant basis and serve as an added layer of support for
other regional providers across the state.

The quad leads and regional facilitators also support the OIP process
with districts participating in Ohio's State Personnel Development Grant
(SPDG), a USDOE/Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded
project designed to support the development of a unified system of
education that meets the needs of all students, including those
identified as having disabilities under the Individual with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). In this way, the SPDG is providing a
vehicle for *moving past* the traditional notion of special education as
a separate system or subsystem that should respond to or interact with
general education *to* a focus on creating a single unified system that
can meaningfully build the capacity of every district to move all
children to much higher levels of performance.

**Figure 4: Ohio System of Support Training Design**

> ![](media/image3.pct){width="4.371527777777778in"
> height="3.102777777777778in"}

Regional facilitators support their fellow SST members in their home
region to ensure that high priority districts receive a consistent level
of quality support using the OIP. Finally, SST staff work with personnel
in Ohio's 59 educational service centers (ESCs) in understanding and
using the OIP and its associated tools to support districts *not* in
priority status but still interested in making improvement. ESC
providers who complete training in the OIP are recognized by the state
as part of the regional provider pool eligible to provide services
related to the OIP. In this way, the OIP is being used to scale up the
intentional use of a consistent set of tools and protocols by all
state-supported regional providers, rather than allowing for multiple
approaches across the state based on preference and, at the same time,
creating incentives for other regional personnel (ESCs) to use the same
focused process in working with districts to prevent them from entering
a higher risk/support status.

The reliance on data to determine appropriate actions is integral to the
success of this model. Additional support for Ohio's educationally sound
approach to system improvement is found in a study of restructuring in
Michigan (Scott, C., 2007). In this study, The Center on Education
Policy (CEP) found, in general, that multiple reform efforts tailored to
the needs of the schools were more likely to result in the schools'
making AYP and exiting restructuring.

***Selected References Supporting the Development of the Ohio
Improvement Process***

Elmore, R.F. (2006). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy,
Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Educational Press.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). *School Leadership
that Works: From Research to Results*. Denver, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).

J. Timothy Waters, Ed.D. & Robert J. Marzano, Ph.D., McREL, (2006).
School District Leadership that Works: *The Effect of Superintendent
Leadership on Student Achievement*. A Working Paper.

Reeves, D.S. (2008). The Leadership and Learning Center. Denver, Co.

Reeves, D.S. (2006). The Learning Leader: How to Focus School
Improvement for Better Results. ASCD, Alexandria, VA.

Scott, C. (2007). *What Now? Lessons from Michigan About Restructuring
Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB*. Washington, DC: Center for Education
Policy.

Simmons, J. (2006). Breaking Through: Transforming Urban Schools. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

***Data Analyses & Technical Soundness.*** The proposed model disregards
individual district and building ratings and instead categorizes the
district and buildings based on the aggregate percentage of met/not met
items from districts and buildings within districts failing to make AYP.
Therefore, if the district is in district improvement status and three
building are also identified for improvement, ODE would calculate the
percent of conditions for which the district and buildings failed to
make AYP and place them all in the same category status regardless of
the number of years any of the entities were identified for
improvement.  Using the same example, if the district were not in
improvement status, we would simply use the three buildings and not the
district for the calculation.  

A district not identified for improvement but with buildings in
improvement status would be considered as part of the risk category for
purposes of the interventions but would not be labeled---i.e. no
district improvement letter to parents. Figure 2 illustrates the three
categories based on a set percentage of conditions not met.

There currently are 91 districts in district improvement status. The
aggregate district/building scores were rank ordered yielding 270
distinct school districts (which include school districts that are
currently in improvement and school districts that have schools
identified for improvement) from the highest percent "Not Met" to the
lowest percent "Not Met" for evaluated disaggregated subgroups. Natural
cutoffs for the levels of support -- *high, medium, or low* -- occurred
at 30% and 20%.  **Figure 5** below lists the number of districts and
schools in each level.

> **Figure 5: Number of Districts & Schools by Support Level**

  ---------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------
  **Support Level**            **Districts**       **Schools**

  High ( [\>]{.underline} 30 ) 74                  565

  Medium ( 20 [\<]{.underline} 73                  158
  29 )                                             

  Low ( \< 20 )                123                 185
  ---------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------

 

The categorization process included the following rules: 1) the safe
harbor provision was evaluated as met, 2) the school group was included,
3) district determinations by subgroup supplemented the SI school
results, and 4) the determination counts by subgroup for both the
reading and mathematics components were aggregated.

**Table 1** below lists proposed interventions for each category.
Districts and buildings could always to choose additional interventions
from the list. Districts and buildings remaining in the same category
and not making "significant" progress would be required to add an
additional consequence once every three years. Districts and buildings
remaining in the same category but making "significant" progress would
not need to add additional interventions as their current progress (if
maintained) is likely to ensure all students are proficient by the
school year 2013-2014. Significant progress is an average increase in
scores over the latest three years of assessments for each identified
population of students that, if maintained, indicate that all students
are proficient by the year 2013-2014.

**Table 1: Interventions by Improvement Support Status**

+--------------------+------------------------+------------------------+
| **Low Support      | **Medium-Support       | **High-Support         |
| Interventions**    | Interventions**        | Interventions**        |
+====================+========================+========================+
| ***Required        | ***Required            | > ***Required          |
| Package:***        | Package:***            | > Package:***          |
|                    |                        |                        |
| -   Public school  | -   Public school      | -   Public school      |
|     choice         |     choice required    |     choice required    |
|     required for   |     for all identified |     for all identified |
|     all identified |     Title I funded     |     Title I funded     |
|     Title I funded |     buildings          |     buildings          |
|     buildings      |                        |                        |
|                    | -   Supplemental       | -   Supplemental       |
| -   Supplemental   |     Educational        |     Educational        |
|     Educational    |     Services (SES)     |     Services (SES)     |
|     Services (SES) |     required for all   |     required for all   |
|     required for   |     building           |     Title I funded     |
|     all Title I    |     identified and     |     buildings          |
|     funded         |     failing to make    |     identified and     |
|     buildings      |     AYP for 3 or more  |     failing to make    |
|     identified and |     years              |     AYP for 3 or more  |
|     failing to     |                        |     years              |
|     make AYP for 3 | -   State to notify    |                        |
|     or more years  |     parents that the   | -   State to notify    |
|                    |     district is        |     parents that the   |
| -   State to       |     identified as a    |     district is        |
|     notify parents |     medium support     |     identified as a    |
|     that the       |     district           |     high support       |
|     district is    |                        |     district           |
|     identified as  | -   Must use the       |                        |
|     a low support  |     state's Decision   | -   Must use the       |
|     district       |     Framework to       |     state's Decision   |
|                    |     create district    |     Framework to       |
| -   Must use the   |     and building needs |     create district    |
|     state's        |     assessments        |     and building needs |
|     Decision       |                        |     assessments        |
|     Framework to   | -   Must develop       |                        |
|     create         |     district and       | -   Must develop       |
|     district and   |     building focused   |     district and       |
|     building needs |     improvement plans  |     building focused   |
|     assessments    |     based on state's   |     improvement plans  |
|                    |     planning guidance  |     based on state's   |
| -   Must develop   |                        |     planning guidance  |
|     district and   | -   Must develop a     |                        |
|     building       |     District           | -   Must develop a     |
|     focused        |     Leadership Team    |     District           |
|     improvement    |     (DLT) and Building |     Leadership Team    |
|     plans using    |     Leadership Teams   |     (DLT) and Building |
|     state's        |     (BLT) which        |     Leadership Teams   |
|     planning       |     conduct business   |     (BLT) which        |
|     guidance       |     iaw the OLAC       |     conduct business   |
|                    |     framework          |     iaw the OLAC       |
| -   10 percent of  |                        |     framework          |
|     Title I funds  | -   10 percent of      |                        |
|     directed to    |     Title I funds      | -   On-site review and |
|     Professional   |     directed to        |     follow-up by the   |
|     Development    |     Professional       |     State Diagnostic   |
|     (PD)---at the  |     Development        |     Team as selected   |
|     building       |     (PD)---at the      |     by the State       |
|     and/or         |     building and/or    |                        |
|     district level |     district level as  | -   10 percent of      |
|     as appropriate |     appropriate        |     Title I funds      |
|                    |                        |     directed to        |
| -   Annual         | -   Annual measurable  |     Professional       |
|     measurable     |     objectives for     |     Development        |
|     objectives for |     each affected      |     (PD)---at the      |
|     each affected  |     disaggregated      |     building and/or    |
|     disaggregated  |     group              |     district level as  |
|     group          |                        |     appropriate        |
|                    | > **Additional items   |                        |
| **Additional       | > from which the       | -   Annual measurable  |
| optional items     | > district/school      |     objectives for     |
| which districts    | > would select one or  |     each affected      |
| and building may   | > more:**              |     disaggregated      |
| choose:**          |                        |     group              |
|                    | -   On-site review by  |                        |
| -   Develop and    |     a state approved   | > **Additional items   |
|     implement a    |     Diagnostic Team    | > from which one or    |
|     District       |     with               | > more would be        |
|     Leadership     |     implementation of  | > selected:**          |
|     Team (DLT) and |     at least two       |                        |
|     Building       |     critical items     | -   On-site review by  |
|     Leadership     |     (critical items    |     a state approved   |
|     Teams (BLTs)   |     are those          |     Diagnostic Team    |
|     which conduct  |     associated with    |     with aggressive    |
|     business in    |     the reasons the    |     implementation of  |
|     accordance     |     schools/district   |     critical items     |
|     with (iaw) the |     were identified    |     (critical items    |
|     OLAC framework |     for improvement)   |     are those          |
|                    |                        |     associated with    |
| -   May provide    | -   May provide SES    |     the reasons the    |
|     SES services   |     services to        |     schools/district   |
|     to students in |     students in        |     were identified    |
|     identified     |     identified         |     for improvement)   |
|     buildings      |     buildings          |                        |
|     beginning the  |     beginning the      | -   May provide SES    |
|     first year of  |     first year of      |     services to        |
|     identification |     identification     |     students in        |
|     with priority  |     with priority of   |     identified         |
|     of services    |     services first to  |     buildings          |
|     first to low   |     low income         |     beginning the      |
|     income         |     students, then to  |     first year of      |
|     students, then |     non-low income but |     identification     |
|     to non-low     |     non-proficient     |     with priority of   |
|     income but     |     students in        |     services first to  |
|     non-proficient |     identified student |     low income         |
|     students in    |     groups, then to    |     students, then to  |
|     identified     |     all other          |     non-low income but |
|     student        |     non-proficient     |     non-proficient     |
|     groups, then   |     students, and      |     students in        |
|     to all other   |     finally to other   |     identified student |
|     non-proficient |     students who may   |     groups, then to    |
|     students, and  |     be proficient.     |     all other          |
|     finally to     |                        |     non-proficient     |
|     other students | -   Replace the        |     students, and      |
|     who may be     |     building staff     |     finally to other   |
|     proficient.    |     relevant to the    |     students who may   |
|                    |     issues             |     be proficient.     |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    | -   Institute and      | -   District/buildings |
|                    |     fully implement a  |     implement their    |
|                    |     new curriculum     |     improvement plans  |
|                    |     including PD for   |     under the          |
|                    |     teachers           |     oversight of the   |
|                    |                        |     State Support Team |
|                    | -   Significantly      |                        |
|                    |     decrease           | -   On-site review by  |
|                    |     management         |     a state approved   |
|                    |     authority at the   |     Diagnostic Team    |
|                    |     building level     |     with aggressive    |
|                    |                        |     implementation of  |
|                    | -   Appoint an outside |     critical items     |
|                    |     expert to advise   |     (critical items    |
|                    |     the building on    |     are those          |
|                    |     its progress       |     associated with    |
|                    |                        |     the reasons the    |
|                    | -   Extend the school  |     schools/district   |
|                    |     year or school day |     were identified    |
|                    |     for the building   |     for improvement)   |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    | -   Restructure the    | -   Reopen the school  |
|                    |     internal           |     as a public        |
|                    |     organizational     |     charter school     |
|                    |     structure of the   |                        |
|                    |     building           | -   Replace all or     |
|                    |                        |     most of the        |
|                    |                        |     building staff     |
|                    |                        |     (which may include |
|                    |                        |     the principal)     |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Enter into a       |
|                    |                        |     contract with an   |
|                    |                        |     entity to operate  |
|                    |                        |     the public school  |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | > **Options for        |
|                    |                        | > districts failing to |
|                    |                        | > provide consistent   |
|                    |                        | > oversight of the     |
|                    |                        | > school improvement   |
|                    |                        | > efforts and/or       |
|                    |                        | > failing to           |
|                    |                        | > demonstrate          |
|                    |                        | > significant district |
|                    |                        | > improvement:**       |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Defer programmatic |
|                    |                        |     funds or reduce    |
|                    |                        |     administrative     |
|                    |                        |     funds              |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Institute and      |
|                    |                        |     implement a new    |
|                    |                        |     curriculum based   |
|                    |                        |     on state and local |
|                    |                        |     content and        |
|                    |                        |     achievement        |
|                    |                        |     standards and      |
|                    |                        |     provide High       |
|                    |                        |     Quality            |
|                    |                        |     Professional       |
|                    |                        |     Development (HQPD) |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Replace district   |
|                    |                        |     personnel related  |
|                    |                        |     to the failure to  |
|                    |                        |     make AYP           |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Remove particular  |
|                    |                        |     buildings from the |
|                    |                        |     jurisdiction of    |
|                    |                        |     the district and   |
|                    |                        |     establish          |
|                    |                        |     alternative        |
|                    |                        |     governance and     |
|                    |                        |     supervision        |
|                    |                        |     arrangements       |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Appoint a receiver |
|                    |                        |     or trustee to      |
|                    |                        |     administer the     |
|                    |                        |     affairs of the     |
|                    |                        |     district in place  |
|                    |                        |     of the             |
|                    |                        |     superintendent and |
|                    |                        |     the local school   |
|                    |                        |     board              |
|                    |                        |                        |
|                    |                        | -   Initiate the       |
|                    |                        |     Academic Distress  |
|                    |                        |     Commission if the  |
|                    |                        |     district missed    |
|                    |                        |     AYP for 4          |
|                    |                        |     consecutive years  |
|                    |                        |     and is labeled as  |
|                    |                        |     in Academic        |
|                    |                        |     Emergency using    |
|                    |                        |     state              |
|                    |                        |     accountability     |
|                    |                        |     measures.          |
+--------------------+------------------------+------------------------+

**Figure 6** shows the relationship of districts and buildings in terms
of support needed. The first column identifies, using 2006-07 data, the
re-designation of districts and their buildings into high, medium and
low support. Of the schools associated with "high support districts,"
362 (67% of those identified) would be categorized as high support, 64
(12%) as medium support and 111 (21%) as low support if each building
were identified as its own unit using the percent of conditions missed
model. Under Ohio's proposed model, all 537 buildings will be
categorized as high support. Similarly, only 13 (7%) buildings that
would be characterized as high support are located in districts that in
the aggregate are categorized as low support. Any of the high support
buildings not making AYP for 6 or more years would immediately be
identified as at least medium support under the model.

The term "CS" is not a risk category but is an aggregate view of
community schools. Community schools will be further disaggregated by
sponsor, and Ohio will label the aggregate of community schools
associated with each sponsor as low, medium, or high support in the same
fashion as schools associated with a district. In this table, 109
community schools are identified as high support, nine (9) as medium
support, and 25 as low support.

**Figure 6: Relationship of Districts & Schools to Level of Support
Needed**

  ----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------
  **District        **School                               
  Support**         Support**                              

                    **Low**      **Medium**   **High**     **Grand
                                                           Total**

  **High**          111          64           362          537

  **Medium**        34           70           50           154

  **Low**           106          63           13           182

  **CS**            25           9            109          143

  **Grand Total**   276          206          534          1016
  ----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------

 

**Table 2** lists the community school (charter school) sponsors and the
status of each of the schools and then the overall status of the
aggregate community schools associated with the sponsor. Based on the
conditions missed by the aggregate of community schools associated with
the sponsor, each group is categorized as low-, medium- or
high-support---the category is stated in the first column.

The category in the first column would be imposed on each of the
community schools failing to make AYP and associated with the sponsoring
agent.

**Table 3** shows the variability of risk in each of the current
*district* improvement strata, which are based primarily on time and not
conditions. The term "delay" represents districts that made AYP using
the 2006-07 data and thus would be shown as not missing any of the
conditions. Of the districts in district improvement 1 status, 14 (48%)
would be identified as low support, 8 (28%) would be categorized as
medium support, and 7 (24%) would be identified as high support.
Alternately, 10 of the districts in DI 3 (Corrective Action) would be
recognized as low support but treated as medium support.

**Table 4** shows the variability of risk in each of the current
*school* improvement strata, which are based primarily on time and not
conditions. The term "delay" represents buildings that made AYP using
the 2006-07 data and thus would be shown as not missing any of the
conditions. Of the buildings in school improvement 1 status, 175 (32%)
would be identified as low support, 131 (24%) would be categorized as
medium support, and 234 (43%) would be identified as high support.
Alternately, 4 (24%) of the buildings in SI-6 would be categorized as
low support but treated no less than medium support under the proposal

**Table 2: Community Schools by Support Status**

+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| **Ov  | **Community Schools**            | *    |    |       |    |
| erall |                                  | *Sup |    |       |    |
| Supp  | **Sponsor Name**                 | port |    |       |    |
| ort** |                                  | Stat |    |       |    |
|       |                                  | us** |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
|       |                                  | **G  | *  | **Med | ** |
|       |                                  | rand | *L | ium** | Hi |
|       |                                  | Tot  | ow |       | gh |
|       |                                  | al** | ** |       | ** |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Akron City School District**   | 1    |    |       | 1  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Ashe Culture Center,           | 6    | 1  | 1     | 4  |
|       | Incorporated**                   |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Buckeye Hope Foundation**      | 9    | 1  | 1     | 7  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Canton City School District**  | 1    |    |       | 1  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Cincinnati City School         | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Cuyahoga Falls City School     | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Delaware-Union Educational     | 1    |    |       | 1  |
|       | Service Center**                 |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Educational Resource           | 12   | 2  |       | 10 |
|       | Consultants of Ohio, Inc.**      |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Fairborn City School           | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Hamilton Local School          | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Kids Count of Dayton, Inc**    | 2    |    |       | 2  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Lancaster City School          | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Lucas County Educational       | 36   | 7  | 2     | 27 |
|       | Service Center**                 |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| M     | **Mahoning County Educational    | 2    | 1  |       | 1  |
|       | Service Center**                 |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| L     | **Mansfield City School          | 1    | 1  |       |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Marion City School District**  | 1    |    |       | 1  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| M     | **New Philadelphia City School   | 1    |    | 1     |    |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Ohio Council of Community      | 35   | 3  | 3     | 29 |
|       | Schools**                        |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Reynoldsburg City School       | 2    |    |       | 2  |
|       | District**                       |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| M     | **Richland Academy**             | 2    | 1  |       | 1  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **St. Aloysius Orphanage**       | 17   | 3  |       | 14 |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Thomas B Fordham Foundation**  | 5    |    |       | 5  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Toledo City School District**  | 3    |    | 1     | 2  |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| H     | **Tri-Rivers Joint Vocational    | 1    |    |       | 1  |
|       | Center**                         |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+
| **CS  | ** **                            | 143  | 25 | 9     | 1  |
| To    |                                  |      |    |       | 09 |
| tal** |                                  |      |    |       |    |
+-------+----------------------------------+------+----+-------+----+

**Table 3: Level of Support by District Improvement Status**

  ------------ ---------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------
  **Status**   **Current \#**   **Low          **Medium          **High
                                support**      support**         support**

  **DI-1**     29 (7 delay) =   14 = 48%       8 = 28%           7 = 24%
               32%                                               

  **DI-2**     15 (3 delay) =   5 = 33%        6 = 40%           4 = 27%
               16%                                               

  **DI-3**     26 (4 delay) =   10 = 38%       6 = 23%           10 = 38%
               29%                                               

  **DI-4**     21 (0 delay) =   2 = 10%        3 = 14%           16 = 76%
               23%                                               

  **Totals**   91 (14 delay)    31 = 34%       23 = 25%          37 = 41%
  ------------ ---------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------

**Table 4: Level of Support by School Improvement Status**

  ------------ --------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------
  **Status**   **Current \#**  **Low          **Medium          **High
                               support**      support**         support**

  **SI-1**     540 (115 delay) 175 = 32%      131 = 24%         234 = 43%

  **SI-2**     223 (48 delay)  64 = 29%       37 = 17%          122 = 55%

  **SI-3**     123 (18 delay)  24 = 20%       21 = 17%          78 = 63%

  **SI-4**     90 (5 delay)    7 = 8%         12 = 13%          71 = 79%

  **SI-5**     12 (4 delay)    2 = 17%        3 = 25%           7 = 58%

  **SI-6**     17 (5 delay)    4 = 24%        1 = 6%            12 = 71%

  **SI-7**     8 (0 delay)                    1 = 13%           7 = 88%

  **SI-8**     3 (0 delay)                                      3 = 100%

  **Totals**   1016            276            206               534
  ------------ --------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------

Tables 3 and 4 above demonstrate that most interventions will be started
earlier in the process under this proposal. However, we are concerned
that growth of the number of high support districts and schools in the
future might exceed the capacity of some of our regional State Support
Teams (SSTs). Ohio's regional support system is divided into 16 regions.
Each of those regions is provided resources to organize SSTs whose
purpose is to help struggling schools and districts. Our data show the
numbers of high support districts are not evenly spread across these
regions. For instance, some of the more populated regions will have 15
to 28 high support districts (representing 4% to 14% of the districts in
their region) while other regions will have 3 to 9 high support
districts (representing 1% to 4% of the districts in their regions).

Our data show some regions will have additional capacity for the
foreseeable future. Other regions will have their capacity stretched
from the very beginning of this process. The state does request some
flexibility for future years to retain districts in medium support
rather than moving them to high support if the capacity of the region is
over extended. ESCs will be asked to provide additional support to any
district that the state determines exceeds the capacity of the regional
SSTs to deliver high quality support.

Using prior-year data, **Tables 5 and 6** below illustrate the number
and percent of schools in urban versus rural localities per the NCES
assigned metro-centric codes.  The distribution across the levels of
support is generally scattered with several exceptions. For instance,
74% of the large and mid-size city school districts will require a high
level of support. Similarly, 58% of the urban fringe, for both large and
mid-size city school districts combined, will require a low level of
support.

**Table 5: Districts in District Improvement**

  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Level of                                                  
  Support by                                                  
  Metro-centric                                               
  Locale**                                                    

  **Locale**      **Current     **Low**       **Medium**      **High**
                  \#**                                        

  **City**        18 = 20%      2 = 11%       2 = 11%         14 = 78%

  **Urban         47 = 52%      22 = 47%      12 = 26%        13 = 28%
  Fringe**                                                    

  **Large Town**  3 = 3%                      1 = 33%         2 = 67%

  **Small Town**  8 = 9%        3 = 38%       1 = 13%         4 = 50%

  **Rural**       15 = 16%      4 = 27%       7 = 47%         4 = 27%

  **Total**       91            31            23              37
  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -------------

**Table 6: Districts in District Improvement & Districts with Schools in
School Improvement**

  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Level of                                                  
  Support by                                                  
  Metro-centric                                               
  Locale**                                                    

  **Locale**      **Current     **Low**       **Medium**      **High**
                  \#**                                        

  **City**        19 = 7%       3 = 16%       2 = 11%         14 = 74%

  **Urban         113 = 42%     65 = 58%      25 = 22%        23 = 20%
  Fringe**                                                    

  **Large Town**  4 = 1%        1 = 25%       1 = 25%         2 = 50%

  **Small Town**  41 = 15%      18 = 44%      12 = 29%        11 = 27%

  **Rural**       93 = 34%      36 = 39%      33 = 35%        24 = 26%

  **Total**       270           123           73              74
  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -------------

***NOTE:*** Ohio will not add additional academic indicators but will
use indicators other than percent proficient to measure significant
district and/or building progress.

**Core Principle 5:** *When transitioning to the differentiated
accountability model, the state considers the current status of schools,
including interventions previously implemented in schools and services
provided to students. *

Ohio believes that the transition can be a relatively smooth one. The
*building blocks* of the Ohio Improvement Process that each district and
school are expected to initiate are the:

-   Establishment of District Leadership Teams and Building Leadership
    Teams;

-   Use of the Decision Framework, as described under core principle 4,
    to prioritize areas of need and identify root causes of prioritized
    needs;

-   Development of focused district and building improvement plans in
    the CCIP using the model described in the Focused Plan Guidance; and

-   Implementation of the focused improvement plans with high levels of
    integrity.

***Transition Time Line.*** The process for getting the first three
pieces of the building blocks initiated will require about one
school-year. Districts and schools, though relabeled, would be expected
to continue their current plans for improvement, corrective action and
restructuring for the 2008-09 school year. Districts and schools will
then implement the focused plans during the 2009-10 school year.

***PSC & SES.*** No students will lose their rights to participate in
PSC or SES as a result of this proposal. Districts have options to
expand SES to other students but priority must continue to be given to
currently eligible students.

**Core Principle 6***: The process for differentiation and the resulting
interventions for schools in different categories or phases of
differentiation are data-driven, understandable, and transparent to the
public. *

All differentiation determinations and the need for requiring additional
interventions are totally objective (i.e., driven by data). Districts
and schools may always voluntarily choose to initiate additional
interventions as a result of their local review of data. The initial
building blocks of the Ohio Improvement Process \-- establishment of
District Leadership Teams and Building Leadership Teams, conducting the
Decision Framework process, and developing/implementing a focused plan
are all data focused.

**The proposed interventions are described in Table 1 under Core
Principle 4.**

**SECTION III: *Interventions***

**Core Principle 7:** *All identified schools receiving Title I funds
are subject to interventions, and they progress through an intervention
timeline with interventions increasing in intensity over time.  The
state describes its comprehensive system of interventions, including, if
applicable, how its proposal aligns with its state accountability
system*

**The proposed interventions are described in Table 1 under Core
Principle 4**.

***Educator Effectiveness.*** The Office of Educator Equity (OEE) has
developed a teacher equity infrastructure in collaboration with the
Center for School Improvement through the Comprehensive Continuous
Improvement Plan (CCIP). All school districts, including the high
support districts, complete the process described in **Table 7** below.

To ensure a more equitable distribution of highly qualified and
experienced teachers for all students in every classroom, it is
essential to collect accurate teacher distribution data. These data
findings should determine how districts distribute highly qualified and
experienced teachers equitably throughout their schools.

**Table 7: Teacher Equity Analysis Process**

+------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+
| **District Data  | **Aligned     | **Ongoing Progress Measures**    |
| Findings**       | Strategies**  |                                  |
+------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+
| > Conduct an     | > Implement   | > Continuously measure the       |
| > analysis to    | > strategies  | > progress of district           |
| > ensure that    | > that align  | > strategies. Are the strategies |
| > core subject   | > with what   | > working? What measures are     |
| > area courses   | > the data    | > used to ensure this? What      |
| > in schools are | > reveal as   | > evidence documents that these  |
| > taught by      | > teacher     | > strategies have moved toward   |
| > highly         | > inequities. | > ensuring equitable teacher     |
| > qualified      |               | > distribution?                  |
| > teachers       |               | >                                |
| > (using the     |               | > Complete this process annually |
| > Teacher        |               | > to ensure that all students    |
| > Distribution   |               | > are taught by highly qualified |
| > File developed |               | > teachers.                      |
| > for every      |               |                                  |
| > district).     |               |                                  |
+------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+

All school districts conduct a Teacher Distribution Data Analysis (TDDA)
by core subject area courses to identify where and to what extent any
teacher distribution inequities exist on a school-by-school basis. To
conduct the TDDA, ODE developed a Teacher Distribution File (TDF) for
all school districts that provides the following data for each school in
the district:

-   Percentage of the core subject courses in schools taught by teachers
    who are NOT highly qualified (note: Ohio has identified "high
    percentages" as schools where more than 10 percent of the core
    subject courses are taught by teachers who are NOT highly
    qualified.).

-   Percentage of poor and minority students who are taught by
    inexperienced vs. experienced teachers in the core subject areas.

-   Percentage of poor and minority students who are taught by highly
    qualified vs. NOT highly qualified teachers.

-   Percentage of inexperienced (less than three years) vs. experienced
    (more than three years) teachers in high-poverty schools vs.
    low-poverty schools.

-   Percentage of highly qualified vs. not highly qualified teachers in
    high-poverty schools vs. low-poverty schools.

After conducting the analysis, districts develop aligned strategies that
address specific findings from the data to resolve teacher inequities.
Districts are encouraged to annually measure progress and to publicly
report district progress.

OEE will provide technical assistance to high support districts whose
teacher equity plans do not meet a level three on the rubric used to
evaluate these plans. The office will also collaborate with those
districts to establish HQT/Teacher Equity teams to work with OEE in
developing and implementing effective and measurable teacher equity
strategies.

Ohio is trying to create a statewide system of rewarding teachers and
school leaders for high levels of performance and solid achievement with
competitive compensation and career opportunities. The Ohio Teacher
Incentive Fund (OTIF) will provide opportunities for teacher
development, differentiated leadership roles and incentive pay. OTIF is
building on existing models, including the Teacher Advancement Program
(TAP) -- Cincinnati and Columbus, Promoting Educator Advancement in
Cleveland (PEAC) -- Cleveland, and Teacher Review and Alternative
Compensation System (TRACS) -- Toledo. Under OTIF, state standards are
being established for teacher and principal evaluation systems to ensure
evaluations are fair, credible and evidenced-based, include multiple
measures of performance in both knowledge and skills, and are linked to
student academic progress, align with Ohio's teacher and principal
standards, and suggest professional development to enhance future
performance in areas that are not meeting expectations. These standards
will serve as benchmarks for design, development, and implementation of
evaluation and compensation systems in districts across the state. The
state will provide technical assistance and collaborate with high
support districts interested in designing evaluation and compensation
systems aligned with these standards. Four high support districts are
participating in OTIF.

Beginning in FY 09, the state budget will fund two new programs to
provide incentives for foreign language, science, and mathematics
teachers to teach in hard-to-staff schools. The signing bonus program is
funded at \$4.0 million and the loan forgiveness program is funded at
\$2.5 million. To qualify for either program, an individual must be
licensed, assigned to teach in foreign language, science, or
mathematics, and agree to teach in a hard-to-staff traditional public
school for a minimum of five years. An individual who has met all
requirements will receive either a \$20,000 signing bonus or \$20,000 in
loan forgiveness.

We anticipate participation in the incentives programs by high support
districts because many schools in those districts will likely be
designated as hard-to-staff schools. The rules for participation are
still being developed in cooperation with the Governor's Office. At this
time we can not report how many high support schools will be involved.

Of the 13 districts participating in Ohio's state funded Principal
Evaluation Pilot, seven (7) are high support districts. Research
confirms that schools succeed when its principal serves as an
instructional leader with an unrelenting focus on student learning. The
Ohio Principal Evaluation System is designed for use by all schools in
the state. The system highlights both the behaviors that principals
perform and the effectiveness of those behaviors in terms of school
outcomes. This system is built on the framework of collaboration and
negotiation between the evaluator and the principal regarding the
appropriateness of leadership styles, the establishment of ground rules
as a framework for collaboration, and a co-ownership of data realized
from the 360 degree staff perception survey. The evaluation system is
comprised of three broad components or dimensions, each of which is
weighted equally:

1.  A goal setting process in which standards-based goals are crafted,
    targets of performance are established, and sources of evidence are
    identified

2.  A 360 degree survey process in which assessments of effectiveness
    based on the *Ohio Standards for Principals* are drawn from
    educators who work with and for the principal

3.  Measures of organizational effectiveness, both in terms of student
    learning outcomes and measures of client satisfaction.

***Professional Development/Teacher Training.*** Ohio is committed to
providing high quality professional development to educators over the
entire continuum of their careers. The foundation for Ohio's system of
professional development is the state's new professional development
standards. These new standards, adopted by the State Board of Education
in 2005, are aligned with findings from national research and consistent
with the definition of high-quality professional development contained
in *NCLB*. Ohio's PD standards are not minimal expectations. Schools
that successfully implement these standards should expect to see higher
quality teaching and increased student achievement. These standards will
help inform the types of professional development that Ohio teachers
include as part of their career growth.

High support districts will have opportunities to participate in high
quality professional development offerings such as:

-   New Principals -- Ohio's Entry-Year Principal Mentoring/Induction
    Program (*70% of high risk districts participate in this program*)

-   New Teachers -- Ohio's Entry-Year Teacher Mentoring/Induction
    Program (*60.8% of the high risk districts participate in this
    program*)

-   Veteran Teachers -- Ohio's Master Teacher Program & National Board
    Certification

-   Veteran Principals -- Ohio's Principal Evaluation Pilot (currently
    in 13 districts)

Ohio's new standards for teachers, principals, and professional
development provide a solid framework for a coherent, aligned system to
improve teacher quality.

The state earmarks Poverty-Based Assistance funds for professional
development to school districts having a poverty-rating above 1.0.
Currently, 103 (48% of the 103 are High Support Districts) Ohio
districts qualify. The funds are delivered as part of the districts'
foundation payments; districts are required by law (House Bill 66) to
complete and submit a description of their professional development
programs in one or more of the following areas: data-based decision
making, standards-based curriculum models, research-based high quality
professional development and professional learning communities.

Districts must provide a narrative description of the PD offered. The
descriptions are given to a reviewer, who vets them against the Ohio
Standards for Professional Development. Narratives, which provide
standards-based PD at the adequate or exemplary level on all six
standards, are authorized for that fiscal year. Approved districts and
vendors are listed on the ODE web page. Programs and districts which
received approval in FY 2007 are not necessarily approved without some
revision. The review team's attention to detail is just one step in
securing the best possible professional development for Ohio's
educators.

Future plans include requiring exit data from districts in an effort to
concentrate on the effect that high quality professional development has
on student achievement. Eventually, evaluating Ohio professional
development will involve the reporting of the *impact* on teacher
effectiveness and student achievement over time.

In addition, Ohio has enhanced its Standards-Based Individual
Professional Develop Plan (IPDP). Teachers who are developing their
plans starting school year 2008 -- 2009, must use the IPDP Rubric
aligned with Ohio's Professional Development Standards.

Teachers will:

-   Examine their practice by examining student data, completing an
    educator standards' self-evaluation, considering school and district
    goals, and providing a goal rationale when creating these plans;

-   Determine Priorities and Goals by prioritizing needs, relating them
    to licensure, current assignment, future plans, and
    district/building goals, and writing specific, measurable,
    attainable, results-based, and time-bound (SMART) goals;

-   Complete the IPDP according to the Local Professional Development
    Committee (LPDC) policy; and

-   Obtain pre-approval from LPDC.

**Core Principle 8:** *Interventions must be educationally sound.  The
state provides a rationale, including evidence of effectiveness, for
each intervention proposed.  The state explains how it will leverage
state and local resources along with federal resources (e.g., Title I
school improvement funds, Title II funds) to promote meaningful reform
in schools, provide options for parents and students, and improve
teacher effectiveness.*

The Ohio Improvement Process tools and training will be available to all
Ohio districts and schools. It is not a process for just a few. This
large scale systems approach to improvement will help ensure the
resources of the agency are focused on the implementation of Ohio
Improvement Process. The CCIP already provides districts the means of
leveraging resources from almost 50 state and federal programs including
most of NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEIA). Many of these resources can and should be focused on
improving student results.

***Alignment & Intentional Use of Resources to Support Improvement.***
The CCIP facilitates transferability as allowed under section 6123 of
NCLB. Additionally, embedded in the CCIP is a mechanism for
realistically pooling local, state and federal funds (including IDEIA
funds) as authorized under the school-wide provisions of Title I, Part
A. We encourage districts to consider pooling funds (including IDEIA
funds) in eligible buildings to remove the silos created by separately
funded programs and provide a true mechanism for developing and
implementing school-wide reform. There are over 1,000 school-wide
buildings in Ohio.

***Strengthening State & District Capacity to Improve.*** Heretofore,
the Statewide System of Support rested with the regionally located State
Support Teams (SSTs). The SSTs are supported primarily by state funds
with additional federal support for some staffing and training. The SSTs
are located in each of 16 regions and employed by 16 of the 59
Educational Support Centers (ESCs) in the State.

The increase of districts and schools identified for improvement forces
SSTs to continually add districts and schools thus diluting the amount
of time they can spend with any one district. This diluted workload and
the revolving door of district and school statuses decreases the quality
of support. In developing this proposal, the ODE is responding in two
ways. One way is creating trained State Diagnostic Teams to conduct
reviews in high support districts and the building in those districts.
Corrective Action districts are targeted because the State has a clear
responsibility for the oversight of the district corrective action
process. Our review of data; however, strongly suggests that all
Corrective Action districts are not needing this type of thorough
review. A focus on the "high support" districts and schools will be more
strategic and beneficial.

A second improvement is to expand capacity to help districts to as many
of the 59 Educational Service Centers as will volunteer to engage in the
work. We have offered to train ESC personnel on the Ohio Improvement
Process tools and steps and to provide them with very precise data on
the districts and buildings in their area. The full implementation of
the data warehouse and Decision Framework will allow this type of data
mining and dissemination. Additionally, we offered to train their staff
to conduct the Diagnostic Review. We hope to offer one-time grants, from
Title I School Improvement funds, to districts to defray the Diagnostic
Review costs as an incentive for the districts to request the service
and for the ESC's to offer another valued service.

The state will add additional intermittent (part-time) staff for the
sole purpose of conducting Diagnostic Reviews. Aside from intermittent
staff, the SEA will not be permitted to add additional staff. Increased
capacity will come from ESC staff across the state trained in and
willing to provide support to the Ohio Improvement Process. Improved
longitudinal data and results from district/building decision framework
processes will greatly improve the state's efforts to more precisely
understand the areas needing the most attention regionally and
statewide.

**Core Principle 9:** *The differentiated accountability model is
designed to result in an increased number of students participating, in
the aggregate, in PSC and SES at the state level, even if the number of
students eligible for these options decreases.  If a state proposes to
change the eligibility requirements for SES, these services are offered,
at a minimum, to low-income non-proficient students in all Title I
schools identified for improvement (no later than the timeline required
by NCLB.*

The proposal provides an option for districts in each category to
initiate SES in the first year of identification and to expand the
numbers of students who could potentially benefit. The optional
expansions are consistent with the purposes of Title I and include:

-   May provide SES services to students in identified buildings
    beginning the first year of identification with priority of services
    first to low income students

-   Secondary priority is given to non-low income but non-proficient
    students in identified student groups

-   Tertiary priority is given to all other non-proficient students,

-   Finally, services may be offered to other students who may be
    proficient.

There is little Ohio can do to meaningfully increase the participation
rate of PSC since school choice was part of a state process prior to
NCLB. Prior to NCLB, Ohio had open enrollment between districts, over
200 charter schools (called community schools in Ohio), and a publicly
paid voucher program in Cleveland. Since NCLB, the number of community
schools has increased to around 323 and the voucher option has been
expanded to provide EdChoice scholarships to up to 14,000 students to
attend a participating private school of their choice. Students
attending or assigned to attend public schools designated as Academic
Watch or Academic Emergency -- the lowest categories on the state's
school rating system -- for two of the last three school-years are
eligible to apply. The Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring program is
still available for residents of Cleveland. With all of the state choice
options, the PSC option is not especially enticing to parents and
students.

Ohio currently has over 400 SES providers on the provider list. The
proposed options under SES should improve participation statewide. If
the proposal is approved, the State will develop guidance on the
benefits of procedures to be used in implementing the SES options. Our
data indicate that the SES participation rate is approximately 57% of
the number of students who could be served by the schools required to
offer this service. We will be setting targets for districts with
schools that should be providing SES services to increase their
participation rates. We also believe that the ability to expand SES
services to targeted populations will be an enticing option.

**All interventions are listed in Table 1 under Core Principle 4.**

**SECTION IV: *Restructuring (or Alternate Label)***

**Core Principle 10:** *There must be a category of differentiation for
at least a subset of the lowest performing schools that have not met
annual achievement targets for five years (currently the restructuring
category).  This category of schools must be subject to the most
significant and comprehensive interventions. *

***Comprehensive Interventions Directed Toward Districts/Schools with
the Greatest Need***. The proposed process for categorizing districts
and schools ensures that the majority of schools negatively affecting
the most students wind up in the high support category. The proposal
also ensures that any school in restructuring must be categorized at a
minimum as medium support or high support. Our data clearly show the
districts and buildings presenting the highest risk to the most number
or percentage of students are more likely to be labeled and treated to
the most stringent interventions earlier under this proposal than those
same districts or schools under the current system. All of the
alternative interventions described in the proposal have solid research
behind them and we have worked with several of the researchers to ensure
integrity with their findings. The state is quickly building technology
tools and people capacity to support districts and schools through a
rigorous improvement process. The process develops consistency of focus,
consistency of process and consistency of behaviors as a result of
careful alignment of all tools, training, and support in the Ohio
Improvement Process.

Over that past several years, the state has been moving toward the real
integration of general education and special education support systems.
As described under core principle 4, that integration was completed in
the State Support Teams staffing, training, processing, and scope of
work for the 2007-08 school year and will continue in all future years
(see Figure 4: Ohio System of Support Training Design on page 12). The
consistency of process and focus are eliminating redundancies and mixed
messages, and multiple sources of funding through grant opportunities
are being leveraged to increase the coherence and consistency of Ohio's
improvement process.

Table 3 (Level of Support by District Improvement Status) indicates that
we will be accelerating many schools and districts into the category
receiving the most intensive interventions. The schools currently in
restructuring that are of low to medium support will not be moved to the
high support category if they are located in a low to medium support
district.

Ohio's proposal does not make it easy for a school to move out of the
most significant and comprehensive interventions other than making AYP
because the category of the building is connected to all other buildings
and often the district category. Therefore, the whole system of
schooling in the district must make significant improvement to be moved
to a less comprehensive set of interventions. Time is not a major
determinant in the Ohio proposal. Data (see Table 4) strongly indicate
that the proposed system will move a significant number of the state's
lowest performing schools to the most comprehensive set of interventions
earlier than they would otherwise be moved under the current statute.
The change in category would occur immediately.

***Limits.*** Ohio proposes two limits. First, a small percentage of
schools currently in restructuring will be placed in the category of
medium support. The schools are either of low to medium support or are
located in districts of low to medium support. Second, the state
proposes to not force additional interventions on buildings in any
category that are demonstrating "significant" progress that, if
maintained, would lead to 100% proficiency by the year 2013-2014.

The state is training SST members and ESC staff across the state to
provide assistance with the primary interventions. The data warehouse
will provide much of the essential data needed for the Decision
Framework tool to districts and buildings in a web-based environment.

**SECTION V: *Differentiated Data Analysis***

Relevant data analyses are provided in Section II (Core Principle 4).

**SECTION VI: *Annual Evaluation Plan***

Stage 4 of the OIP, as described in Section II (Core Principle 4)
requires monitoring all aspects of the improvement process, including
degree of implementation as well as the impact of improvement efforts on
student achievement.

Implementation of a consistent process and associated tools (i.e., the
OIP) allows the state to aggregate data on a county, regional, quadrant,
and statewide basis. In doing so, the state is able to identify:

-   The percentage of all improvement plans that are aligned to the
    results of the needs assessment (i.e., decision framework process);
    and

-   Patterns across school districts as to their identified needs and/or
    aligned improvement plans that prompt the state to take action. For
    example, one-third of all needs assessments and improvement plans
    focus on professional development related to the integration of
    students with disabilities into the regular classroom). This type of
    analysis would inform ODE and the regional state support teams
    (SSTs) as to where additional supports should be targeted,
    especially if a pattern is found that correlates with the category
    of risk.

Monitoring the quality of program implementation, which naturally occurs
at stage 4 of the OIP, therefore addresses such issues as the degree to
which:

-   The building's or district's focused improvement plan is informed by
    the results of its needs assessment (e.g., decision framework and/or
    diagnostic review process);

-   The percentages of districts/buildings that are fully implementing
    their plan;

-   The degree to which districts/buildings are implementing their
    focused improvement plans;

-   The focused improvement plan incorporates measurable objectives for
    each affected disaggregated group of students; and

-   Title I dollars directed to professional development are aligned
    with the results of the needs assessment and specified in the
    focused improvement plan at the district and building levels.

Additionally, the state will monitor the degree to which the district
and/or school implements the required consequences for its category of
risk. For example, have districts/schools in the medium- or high-support
categories established and implemented a District Leadership Team and
Building Leadership Teams in accordance with the essential practices
outlined in the OLAC leadership development framework? If they have:

-   What percent of districts/buildings are in full compliance?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What are the reasons/ implementation barriers for the small percent
    of districts/buildings not in full compliance? 

The Ohio SPDG, also referenced under Core Principle 4, uses an
evaluation model for examining the management of systemic change.
Improved system function, scaling up of practices, and improved student
outcomes are components of this evaluation model.

#### As part of the SPDG evaluation, data and information will be collected at the state, regional, and district level in relationship to levels of evaluation recommended by Thomas Guskey (Guskey, T.R., 2000, *Evaluating Professional Development*. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Publishing, Inc.):

-   Participants' reactions

-   Participants' learning

-   Organizational support and change

-   Participants' use of knowledge and skills

-   Student learning outcomes

Data gleaned from the SPDG, which is in its first year of implementation
will be used to inform Ohio's annual evaluation of the proposed model,
including changes in district and school practice that result from OIP
implementation and its impact on the identification of student groups
and school districts, as compared with the current accountability
system.

Finally, the state will evaluate the degree to which regional providers
(see Figure 4: Ohio System of Support Training Design on page 12) are
providing a consistent level of high-quality support to assigned
districts and schools, particularly those in the high-support category.