slide1 n.
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 (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

Download Now 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

(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