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 http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/index.html. 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.

Summary 2006

  • 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
Questions/Comments 2006

School Improvement and Accreditation


(573) 751-4426