A New Path to Excellence
Revised February 2, 2014
The consensus among Missouri education leaders is that transferring students out
of unaccredited school districts is not in the best interest of all students and will not
lead to improvement of unaccredited districts. We must provide a solution of
support and early intervention.
Now, more than ever, access to good public schools is a critical civil and human
right. We are committed to working together to reclaim the promise of public
education as our nation’s gateway to democracy and racial and economic justice
leading our children down the Path to Excellence.
We Believe That…
 Every student matters, every school matters, every community matters.
 Transferring students from one location to another does not improve schools
nor does it revitalize communities.
 Local control builds strong communities.
 Early intervention is essential to improving schools.
 School buildings and the children they serve should be the focus rather than
school districts
 School funding should be spent on improving instruction rather than
transporting students.
 Poverty matters.
 Stronger Missouri schools will come from keeping every student, every
school, and every community intact.
A Response to Intervention Model for Accreditation
The New Path to Excellence proposes the establishment of four levels of
accreditation in Missouri. With the adoption of MSIP 5, DESE has the ability to
provide the Annual Progress Report (APR) for each school within a district. The
APR will be provided for each school in a district and the community will be
provided this score by school. Each district will also receive a designation of
Accredited, Provisionally Accredited, Academically Stressed or Lapsed based on a
composite of the scores of all schools in the district.
Levels of Accreditation Corresponding to Levels of Support
Level 1 – Districts that score between 70% and 100% on their annual performance
reports would be designated as “accredited.” There would be no state interventions
at this level in any district or in any school building within an accredited school
district. Certainly, if there are school buildings within an accredited district that are
performing below the accredited level, the district would be responsible for working
directly with these buildings to implement changes and are accountable for each
school’s progress.
Level 2 – Districts that score between 50% and 69% would be designated as
“Provisionally Accredited.” These districts need interventions and supports beyond
Level 1 to improve student achievement. When so designated, a review team will be
assigned by DESE to perform a thorough review of the district. The review team will
then issue a report to the state board of education and the district on appropriate
improvement strategies and will identify priority areas for the district. The review
team will work with other local, state, or federal sources to assist in the
procurement of additional supports and resources that have been identified as
necessary for the improvement of the schools and the students. Districts in level 2
with individual schools scoring less than 50% are required to have a policy
providing the option to transfer to other accredited or provisionally accredited
schools within the district. If the district makes annual growth in its priority areas
identified by the review team and continues to score between 50 and 69%, it
continues to be provisionally accredited.
Level 3 –Districts scoring less than 50% on their annual performance reports are
considered academically stressed. Individual schools within level 3 districts scoring
50% or above will not be considered “Academically Stressed.” School buildings in
Level 3 districts scoring less than 50% are considered academically stressed and
will receive the most targeted and intense interventions.
DESE, in collaboration with representative stakeholders, will determine the entity to
control the academically stressed school. Options may include contracting with a
surrounding district.
DESE and a study team composed of regional educational leaders and
representatives from the school community will work together to study
instructional programs, share options with their community and facilitate the
selection of the new design model for their school. This design should be a
research- or evidence-based model.
DESE and the school district with unaccredited school(s) would agree to a set of
common instructional goals as well as student achievement outcomes for regaining
accreditation for individual schools. DESE and the school district would oversee the
process of selecting an approved model for the school, implementation of the model
and assessment of the model’s success. It is important to note that the model
selected could look different for each school, because each school community has
different needs, wants and dreams for the future. Empowering the school
community through input in the selection of the model encourages rebuilding of the
school neighborhood, shares ownership of the model and fosters its success.
DESE will transfer oversight of the school(s) back to the school district when:
(1) The annual performance report for the school has increased to the provisionally
accredited level and (2) DESE and the review team agree that systems are in place
within the school district to sustain the improvement.
If a school makes annual progress in its priority areas, it will be designated as
Academically Stressed and Progressing. No additional students may transfer out of
the school under this designation.
Interventions and supports in Level 3:
DESE in collaboration with representative stakeholders will determine the
appropriate interventions and supports needed for the academically stressed school
to make appropriate progress. These interventions and supports may include but
are not limited to:
1. Students attending academically stressed schools may transfer to another
provisionally or fully accredited school in their school district of origin.
2. State-funded early childhood education for all four-year-old children.
3. State-funded extended school year programming.
4. State-funded extended school day programming.
5. Possible removal of the board of education, the superintendent of schools,
principals, teachers, and the possible voiding of all contracts.
6. A well-articulated school improvement plan with clear goals that are
assessed no less than four times a year.
7. A well-articulated curriculum that is tightly aligned to state standards,
instructional materials that are well-aligned to the curriculum to support its
implementation, and professional development and follow-up support to
those teachers who will be implementing the curriculum.
8. A clear accountability plan directly tied to the school improvement plan.
9. Frequent formative assessments that assist with progress monitoring of
students and determine effectiveness of interventions. The assessments
should provide information to schools within one week. These could include
the intermittent assessments that will be part of the upcoming State
Assessment Program.
10. Frequent implementation checks from outside experts or trained, certified
professionals in the district to identify strengths, actions staff must take to
improve the quality of implementation and professional development
needed.
11. Professional development plans that are closely linked to improving the
instructional skills teachers need to increase student learning.
12. A program focused on improved student attendance until 90% of the
students have a 90% attendance rate for at least two years in succession.
13. Training and actions to create a welcoming environment for parents and
students.
14. Training for board of education members.
15. Development of community collaboration and partnerships. This could
include business partnerships, community centers, anti-crime programs,
community education, a wrap-around support network, etc.
16. A well-articulated communication plan that engages the community and
helps locate community resources to support student success.
17. School activities to help parents become involved, supportive, active
participants in the education of their children and the operation of schools.
Level 4 – While under the oversight of DESE, if the academically stressed school is
unable to demonstrate academic improvement for three consecutive years or for
four out of five years, the state board of education may designate the school building
as “Lapsed” at which time the students and physical property will be transferred to
another district under current Missouri law.
Focus on Support and Early Intervention
For this plan to work we must have a relationship with DESE that is based on trust
and a true belief that decisions will be made in a collaborative manner that focuses
on what is best for every student, every school, and every community.
The research on school turnaround is clear; instead of focusing on management or
firing staff, successful and lasting reform addresses instructional content, invests in
teachers, structures time differently, and provides students with a well-rounded
program of academics and enrichment opportunities. (Trujillo 2012) Real reform
includes building a strong and positive school atmosphere, and providing wraparound supports to help ensure that basic student needs are met. The academic
programs, wrap around services, and socio-emotional supports and services must
all be aligned, coordinated and focused on results. Successful schools also offer
families genuine and ongoing opportunities to be engaged. (Bryk, Sebring,
Allensworth, Luppescu, Easton 2010)
Each district in Missouri will have its own unique “story” regarding its students, its
educators, its community and its history. This New Path to Excellence seeks to value
all those “stories” and embrace each and every student, school, and community in
Missouri that is struggling or may struggle in the future. This plan demands early
intervention rather than indifference until they are failing. Vigilance, early
intervention, and resources will be required to reach the “Top 10 by 2020.” But
Missourians don’t back down and they don’t sit down. They roll up their sleeves and
get to work, and they will do it again to solve these urgent problems. Every student,
every school, and every community in Missouri deserves nothing less.
Students Currently Involved In The School Transfer Program
We believe the needs of those students who have chosen to attend other schools in
the St. Louis area under current Missouri statutes should be honored. As such, we
believe:









Students may stay in the receiving districts until they graduate as long as the
district of origin is academically stressed.
No additional student transfers should be allowed anywhere in the state.
Students must maintain residency in the previous sending district to remain
eligible for the transfer.
Only students who participated in the transfer program during the 2013-14
school year would be eligible to continue participation in the transfer
program.
Once a student drops from the receiving district, they are no longer eligible
to participate in the transfer program to the same school or any other school.
The sending school district will forward its foundation formula payment and
Proposition C payment received for the resident students that continue to
transfer to the receiving school district.
The state of Missouri will create a new categorical which will pay the
difference between the amount of state aid transmitted by the sending school
district and the receiving school district’s tuition rate.
Amount appropriated for the transfer categorical will diminish over time as
students graduate, move, or choose other educational options.
When the sending district becomes accredited or provisionally accredited, it
is no longer required to provide transportation for the transfer students and
students will return to their home district when they transition from
elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school.
Implementation plan for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 (Kansas City Public
Schools, Normandy, Riverview Gardens)
For districts that currently meet the definition of academically stressed, schools
scoring less than 50% of points in the APR would be reviewed under the direction of
DESE. The review team would examine multiple years of data in the schools scoring
less than 50% of points; progress in priority areas identified by the review teams
may result in the schools being maintained under the supervision of the school
district. For schools that are not making progress in priority areas, the review teams
will identify the appropriate interventions for the schools. Interventions include
comprehensive school reform measures (restart, consolidation/closure, turnaround
model, transformation model), and contracting out for services.