Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Fourth Cycle Becky Kemna, Coordinator

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Fourth Cycle Becky Kemna, Coordinator - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Fourth Cycle Becky Kemna, Coordinator School Improvement and Accreditation [email protected] (573) 751-4426 MSIP.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Fourth Cycle Becky Kemna, Coordinator' - joella

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript


School Improvement Program (MSIP)

Fourth Cycle

Becky Kemna, Coordinator

School Improvement and Accreditation

[email protected]

(573) 751-4426


The Missouri School Improvement Program…Missouri’s system of accountability

  • review and classify the 524 school districts in Missouri within a five-year review cycle (since 1990)
  • mandated by state law
  • goal to promote school improvement within each district on a statewide basis
  • districts failing to earn accreditation face lapse or state takeover
  • July 1 begins first year of the 4th MSIP Cycle
standards and indicators
Standards and Indicators
  • Outline the vision and expectations for quality schools.
  • Organized into three sections:
    • Performance Standards (Student achievement)
    • Resource Standards (Pupil teacher ratios, course offerings, teacher qualifications)
    • Process Standards (compliance, instructional design and practices, school climate, differentiated instruction)
third cycle
Third Cycle
  • Annual Performance Report generated annually to evaluate performance standards
  • Resource Report generated annually
  • Process evaluated on-site by review team
  • Number of points earned in Performance, Resource, and Process determine accreditation
what we ve learned
What we’ve learned…
  • APR does not accurately reflect improvement needs of all 524 districts
  • APR scores are too volatile, leading to inconsistent accreditation decisions
  • Reviews need to focus less on compliance and more on quality in order to facilitate true improvement in student performance
  • Reviews should focus on improvement needs in districts as determined by available data at the school, subject, and grade level
  • District level accreditation does not always reflect individual building status –leads to conflicts in accountability systems
  • Resource and Process do not impact accreditation
where we re going
Where we’re going …

Performance…“For an accountability system to be fair it has to be complicated.”

  • Determines accreditation
  • Status and Progress measures lead to
    • More stability in APR calls
    • More appropriate “recognition”
    • Credit when achievement is adequate
  • APR
    • Provides more detailed, disaggregated data and evaluative, narrative feedback
    • Identifies areas in need of improvement
    • Used as a true “school improvement planning tool”
    • Determines waiver eligibility (Limited Waiver or Full Waiver)


County/District Code: «DISTCODE» District Name: «DISTNAME»

**No progress points may be earned for grade level test data in Year 1 of the Fourth MSIP Cycle.


Performance Status and Progress Measures – SAMPLE YEAR 1, 2006



NYA=Not Yet Available

Grade level status and progress details will be determined after Grade Level test results are available.

  • Single-system of accountability reduces conflicts in accountability systems
  • Resources allocated to provide assistance to schools that need it most
  • School improvement efforts will be better coordinated to provide ongoing support
  • Customized reviews will minimize paperwork/documentation necessary for on-site review
  • Performance
    • Is more stable
    • Identifies areas in need of improvement
    • Allows districts to establish goals for improvement
    • More accurately reflects overall performance of district
questions comments

School Improvement and Accreditation

(573) 751-4426