2019-21 Draft 1 Goal 1 Questions Answered

Goal 1: Improve Outcomes for Students

Draft version 1

Strategy 1: Design and implement an aligned assessment system for MESD schools and programs that directly serve students.

Is the aligned assessment system intended to assess the students or of the programs and schools the students attend? How will it account for existing school-based assessments? Doesn’t ODE dictate assessments?

​The aligned system will include measures that assess both individual students and programs. As a student-focused agency, measuring individual growth is critical to ensuring all students achieve excellence. Additionally, having measures in place to gauge how well our programs are serving students overall is important to determining how best to provide programs that support students achieving excellence. Many of our programs already have some existing school-based assessments, such as ULS, STAR, MAPs, or LGL that provide insight into student growth and learning. Students also participate in statewide assessments like SBAC, ELPA21 and Extended Assessment.  In some cases, the assessments are dictated by our contracts (i.e. ODE requires LGL) or state requirements and in other cases, they are program selected internal measures to support student learning. Most of our current measures are limited in scope (ex. Lexile level of student or current math grade level). The focus of this goal is to create a more comprehensive system that looks at all aspects of how our programs are serving students. ​
​

How will assessment work for short-term students?

As part of the strategy, we intend to identify the best assessments to measure growth for our short-term stay students. With short-term students, we will identify key student-focused areas that are measurable, and then develop mechanisms to measure a baseline and student progress. Each program will utilize appropriate tools for short term growth measures that can inform instructional decisions and provide data about student learning and growth.
​

How is participation in assessment defined?

Student participation will be defined in two ways. The first is whether the student is provided with the opportunity to participate. The second is whether, when provided the opportunity to participate, the student completes at least half of the assessment.  For those students who are highly impacted, they will be provided the opportunity for alternative assessments based on their IEP status.
​

How will you address opt-outs to achieve 100% participation in school assessments? How does this apply to the hospital population?

Opt-outs from assessments, as defined by the Oregon Department of Education, should be a small percentage when compared to overall participation. Opt-outs must be a parent decision and may not be employee-based or recommended. This is true for all programs and populations, including those in hospital settings.
​

Is there PD for designers/implementation of assessment system? If so, who is providing that / what model?

As we develop the system, we will provide PD for designers / implementation in the manner most appropriate for what is developed. Presently, for the locally implemented assessments, we have been utilizing professional learning and development opportunities provided at the campuses and within departments. We anticipate that this will continue.

My program has limited instructional time. How can we help ensure that students are engaged and showing growth?

Student engagement is critical to student learning. There are a lot of engagement strategies that teachers and educational assistants can use to maximize engagement. MESD provides PD to support implementation of engagement strategies at the program and individual level. Student growth occurs when they are engaged in authentic and targeted standards-based instruction. Assessing student baseline levels is an essential step to identifying growth targets. Interim and summative assessments then help demonstrate growth past the baseline. By individualizing for each student based on their needs and/or IEP goals, we can ensure students are showing growth.  If a student has an IEP, the goals noted within the document must be addressed and taught.
​

These metrics are focused on traditional academics. Will they expand to cover a broader range of program offerings?

As we develop the aligned system, additional metrics may become apparent. We are open to looking at additional metrics that cover the full spectrum of our programming supports.
​

How are ELL students served by this goal?

If a student qualifies for ELL services, the student is assessed utilizing appropriate assessment tool. For any questions regarding ELL student assessment, please contact Melissa Davis at mdavis@mesd.k12.or.us  Currently MESD uses the state approved Woodcock-Munoz as a screener and the ELPA21 as a progress monitoring tool. Beginning next year, the state approved ELPA21 will be used as a screener, and then ADEPT  and ELPA21 will be used as a progress monitoring assessment. The Woodcock/Muñoz and the IPT is will continue to be utilized for more analysis as deemed necessary. All assessments administered for ELLs are used to inform standards-based instruction.
​

​

Strategy 2 - Coordinate the implementation of a consistent regional standard for the quality and delivery of professional learning for the educational community

Would you consider changing PD to professional learning?

We appreciate this feedback and agree that professional learning is a better description. We’ve made this change throughout the draft language.
​

What will the regional standard be?  Are we using Learning Forward standards or developing our own?

The Regional Standard will be decided based on conversations with District Curriculum Directors. ODE elevates the Learning Forward Standards as best practice in creating, delivering and assessing Professional Development / Learning. These Standards are in use already within our region, so it is a good guess that these will become the Standards.

Will professional learning target specific content areas?

Yes, professional learning will target specific content areas recommended by MESD’s component districts. Based on initial conversations, we anticipate the targeted areas will include Social-Emotional Skills, Trauma Sensitive Schools, Mental Health & Wellness, Collaborative Problem Solving, etc.
​

Will professional learning be aligned to instructional practices and adult mindsets?

Yes. This alignment will be stated in the Regional Standards. Both of these areas are important as we aim to reach the educational community surrounding our students.
​

Will follow-up implementational data be provided?

Yes. As a means of considering the effectiveness and impact of the professional learning offered, data will be gathered and shared on how the content is being implemented in practice.
​

How was the 20% target determined?

There are more than 7,000 educators in Multnomah County. Given the scope, timeline and baseline level,  we felt that 20% was a realistic goal in the initial stages. As a regional provider, we are able to provide service to our component districts but cannot make specific services mandatory for districts we serve. Realistically, 20% as noted above is a baseline to reach for. Over the next two years we will need to (1) seek feedback, (2) develop, test and refine our standards, and then we can (3) reach our initial target levels. If given more time, we expect that target level to grow.
​

Why are the percentages different for educational professionals vs. school health staff?

This is a great question. We will change the metric to reflect the same figure (80%), holding all of our staff to the same goal.
​

How will you know what professional learning opportunities are being provided by individual districts?

This is a conversation that is ongoing with our Districts through our Curriculum Advisory and our Student Services Advisory.
​

​

Strategy 3 - Improve effectiveness of educational services** by utilizing social-emotional learning tools and supports

Does attendance refer to staff attendance at MESD events/trainings or student attendance in schools?

It refers to student attendance in schools. The goal has been set at 2 percentage points per year improvement, totaling 6 percentage points improvement over three years.
​

What plans are there specifically for schools to improve attendance? Are we including Paul in this conversation?

The plans are district-specific (and then school-specific, within the district) based on conversations with District and School-based attendance staff. Paul Berg, the Regional Coordinator for Chronic Absenteeism, is integral to the conversations occurring at both the school and district level. Examples of plans currently enacted are: Every Day Matters advertisement campaign; Parent-Teacher Home Visit trainings; and, Truancy support conversations that include local judges.
​

How was the 15% restraint and seclusion rate determined as the target?

This was at the rate of 5% per year over three years = 15%.  This is a target that was created for actual and achievable goals utilizing a year to year comparison of restraint and seclusion data that is collected for reporting.  A 5% decrease in restraints is possible due to consistent implementation of Safety Care and de-escalation strategies / techniques within our school sites.
​

How is the educational community defined? How will 50% participation be measured?

The educational community is the collective of the adults that surround our students’ learning - such as, bus drivers, nurses, education assistants, facilities staff, teachers, and superintendents. It also includes community-based partners. The participation is measured based on attendance at the Trauma Sensitive Schools trainings hosted by MESD.
​

Will we be measuring how effective our schools are at returning students to a least restrictive setting?

We already maintain this information regarding students returning to less restrictive environments.
​