School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring Growth Using the Normal Curve Equivalent
Advertisements

Closing the Achievement Gap Using Safe Harbor To Target Students Not Making AYP October 23, 2008 Information for this presentation are adapted from CDDRE.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report Research, Assessment & Accountability November 2, 2005 Oakland Unified School District.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA September 2003.
August 8, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Shannon Housson, Director Overview of.
Accountabil ity System Student Achievement Index I Student Progress Index 2 Closing Performanc e Gaps Index 3 Postsecondary Readiness Index 4 Overview.
2007 ITBS/ ITED Results Cedar Rapids Community Schools.
Accountability Reporting Webinar Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determinations & Federal NCLB Accountability Status, State Accountability & Assistance.
The SCPS Professional Growth System
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Achievement Test (CAPT) Spring 2013 Presented to the Guilford Board of Education September.
Chief Research Officer Ohio Department of Education
ASSESSMENT UPDATE Rhonda Sims, Director Division of Support and Research Office Of Assessment And Accountability
High School School Performance Framework (SPF)
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK (SPF) Clark County School District.
The Colorado Growth Model Module 1: What it is & What it means Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2009 Version 1.2.
Before Between After.
Unified Improvement Planning: Diving into New Data Hosted by: Colorado Department of Education Provided by : Center for Transforming Learning and Teaching.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation Module 3: Using Data to Inform Growth Targets and Submitting Your SLO 1.
PRESENTATION FOR DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION (12/17/13) MICHAEL FLICEK, ED.D. EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY CONSULTANT Wyoming School Accountability.
School Grades Model and Historical Background
Arkansas ESEA Flexibility Flexibility Amended in October, 2012 Louis Ferren, School Performance Public School Accountability.
North Santiam School District State Report Cards
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 NICOLE SKALSKY, PH.D. ASSESSMENT FACILITATOR Colorado Growth Model Overview.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
APAC Meeting | January 22, 2014 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Overview of Performance.
+ Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 1 Hal Sanderson, Ph.D. Research and Assessment August 21,
2013 State Accountability System Allen ISD. State Accountability under TAKS program:  Four Ratings: Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, Academically.
Rhode Island Accountability Process Revisions for School Years 2015 and 2016 A Presentation to the Accountability 3.0 Statewide Webinar March 27, 2015.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
Assessment & Evaluation, October District Accountability Handbook CDE – School and District Accountability guidelines
2013 Texas Accountability System. Features of the System No single indicator can lower a rating Focuses on overall campus/district performance rather.
Dr. Michael Flicek Education Consultant October 8, 2013 Wyoming School Performance Rating Model Report to: Wyoming State Board of Education.
Including a detailed description of the Colorado Growth Model 1.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW Back To School| August 19-22, 2013 Dean Munn Education Specialist Region 15 ESC.
Colorado Growth Model Basics October Colorado Growth Model Welcome Agenda: ◦ Index cards for questions ◦ Overview of basic ideas within growth model.
School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
We are a Title I school What does this mean?. We are Title I because… Our school has a high number of students who are eligible for Free and Reduced Price.
Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
Woodland Park School District Educator Effectiveness 101 September 2015.
Accountability 2.0 Overview Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.4.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.
Student Growth Percentiles For Classroom Teachers and Contributing Professionals 1 October 22, 2014.
October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
October 24, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Accountability and Reporting Oregon Department of Education.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Measuring Turnaround Success October 29 th, 2015 Jeanette P. Cornier, Ph.D.
Accountability Training Review Agenda for Today: Review of calculation changes and what’s new In depth review of Closing Gaps calculations Graduation Rates.
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated Professional Practices, Measures of Student Learning/ Outcomes- Calculating Scores & Translating SLOs/SOOs.
Richard Woods, Georgia’s School Superintendent “Educating Georgia’s Future” gadoe.org Overview of the Georgia Student Growth Model 1.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
1 Educational Accountability Act of 2009 (SB09-163) Colorado Department of Education February 6, 2012.
Assessment & Accountability Session 3: Content and School Scores.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
1234: AEC SCHOOL | 1234: RESIDING DISTRICT
New Statewide Accountability System
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
State Accountability Results September 18, 2018
Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates
State and Federal Accountability Overview
Briefing on Development of Performance Frameworks
Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Webinar
Understanding Your School and District Performance Frameworks
Presentation transcript:

School Performance Framework Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education Summer 2010 Version 1.3

Outcomes: School Performance Framework Understand the purpose of the school and district performance frameworks. Define and appropriately use terminology included in the school and district performance framework reports. Interpret the metrics (by performance indicator) included in the SPF and explain why each of the metrics were included. Describe the cut-points for each metric and how an overall plan type assignment is determined. Interpret the performance of one local school as presented by the School Performance Framework Report. Identify next steps in using the school performance framework reports.

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

School Performance Framework Purposes Focus attention on what matters most Provide a body of evidence related to state-identified performance indicators to support school and district performance management Support school and district efforts to evaluate their performance Establish a common framework for the state to use to hold schools accountable for performance Identify schools that need additional support (priority improvement and turnaround)

Focus Attention on What Matters All students will exit Colorados K-12 education system ready for postsecondary education and workforce success. --Colorados Achievement Plan for Kids (SB )

On what does the framework focus? Four key performance indicators: –Academic Achievement –Academic Growth –Academic Growth Gaps –Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness

How does the framework focus on these indicators? Assigns a rating to each of the performance indicators so schools/districts know the extent to which they meet state expectations. –Exceeds, Meets, Approaching, Does not meet The ratings roll up to an overall evaluation of the school/districts performance. That evaluation informs the plan type assigned to the school. –Performance, Improvement, Priority Improvement, Turnaround

Mean vs. Median

Percentage vs. Percentile

Percentiles Range from Indicate the relative standing of a students score to the norm group. (i.e. how a particular compares with all others) Growth Percentiles Indicate a students standing relative to their academic peers, or students with a similar score history (how his/her recent change in scores compares to others change in scores).

Adequate Growth What is adequate growth? Based on catch-up and keep-up growth.

Catching Up To be considered to be Catching Up: The student scores below proficient (unsatisfactory or partially proficient) in the previous year The student demonstrates growth adequate to reach proficiency within the next three years or by tenth grade, whichever comes first.

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Below Proficient: Catching Up 95 Not Proficient 7 th grade8 th grade9 th grade10 th grade6 th grade is the minimum-this students adequate growth value Proficient

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Below Proficient: Catching Up Not Proficient 7 th grade8 th grade9 th grade10 th grade6 th grade 76 Proficient

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Below Proficient: Catching Up Not Proficient 7 th grade8 th grade9 th grade10 th grade6 th grade th percentile growth will not be enough for this student to catch up – her current growth is not adequate. Proficient

Keeping Up To be considered to be Keeping Up: The student scores at the proficient or advanced level in the previous year. The student demonstrates growth adequate to maintain proficiency for the next three years or until tenth grade, whichever comes first.

Calculating Adequate Growth for Students Scoring Above Proficient: Keeping Up Not Proficient 7 th grade8 th grade9 th grade10 th grade6 th grade Proficient 79 th percentile growth will be enough for this student to keep up – his current growth is adequate.

Median Adequate Growth AGPSorted AGPsMedian AGP Median Adequate Growth for this school is 55 Search for the middle value… Adequate growth percentiles for all catch-up and keep- up students

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

1 year vs. 3 year data CDE has provided two different versions of the School Performance Framework Reports. –The most recent year of data (2009) –The most recent three years of data ( ) Read 1-year vs. 3-year Data (technical guide) –Why are there two options? –When would the 3-year version be used to assign the school plan type?

School Performance Framework Overview Page 1: Summary of school performance, including plan type assignment and ratings for each performance indicator Page 2: Details of school performance by indicator and sub-indicator Page 3: Scoring guides including cut scores

School Performance Framework, Page 1 Four possible plan type assignments Plan Type Assignment Indicator Ratings Four possible indicator ratings

Performance Indicators Read the definitions of each of the following performance indicators on the first page of the sample SPF –Academic Achievement –Academic Growth –Academic Growth Gaps –Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Discussion: Why does the School Performance Framework focus attention on these areas of performance?

SPF: Performance Indicator Summary, Page 1

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

Performance Indicators and Data Look at Page 2, first column

Page 2: Sub-Indicators Sub-indicators for each performance indicator: Points (earned and eligible) Percent of points Ratings School Performance Data

Defining State Expectations 1.Performance data 2.Basis for comparison 3.Definition of what level of performance meets state expectations –Scoring Guide on page 3 of the SPF –SPF Technical Guide includes reference data

Academic Achievement (status) Performance Data: the percent of students in the school scoring at the proficient or advanced achievement level Comparison: Compared to the distribution of percent proficient and advanced scoring students in all other schools* in the state. Scoring Guide: sets the percentile cut-points for each rating. * Does not included schools with N of less than 16 or Alternative Education Campuses

Math ElemMiddleHigh N of Schools th percentile th percentile th percentile Example What would result in a rating of Meets for academic achievement for high schools in mathematics? (p. 3) Below the 90 th percentile and at or above the 50 th percentile of all* schools. (scoring guide, page 3 of SPF) For 2009 greater than or equal to 26.32% and less than 49.94% proficient and advanced Academic Achievement The school's percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced was: at or above the 90th percentile of all schools.Exceeds below the 90th percentile but was at or above the 50th percentile of all schools.Meets at or above the 15th percentile of all schools.Approaching below the 15th percentile of all schools.Does Not Meet

Academic Growth Performance data: Median Growth Percentile and Median Adequate Growth Comparison: Two steps 1.Did my school meet adequate growth? (yes or no) 2.How did my schools growth compare to state expectations for growth? Scoring guide: sets the cut-points for median growth percentile using two tables that depend on whether or not the school met adequate growth

Adequate Growth 1.What was my schools median growth percentile? 2.What was my schools median adequate growth percentile? 3.Did my school meet adequate growth?

Scoring Guide for Academic Growth

Growth Gaps Performance data: Median Student Growth Percentile for disaggregated student groups. Comparison: Two Steps 1.Did the growth of disaggregated groups in my school meet adequate growth? (yes or no) 2.How did the growth of disaggregated groups in my school compare to state expectations for growth? Scoring guide: sets the cut-points for median growth percentile using two tables that depend on whether or not the disaggregated group met adequate growth

State Expectations for Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Performance DataComparison Graduation RateAbove 80% Drop-Out RateAt or below state average Colorado ACT CompositeAt or above the state average Technical Guide: How graduation and dropout rates are calculated. The state average dropout rate. The state average ACT Composite Score. Note: State averages are different for 1-year vs. 3- year metrics

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

Indicator Points Points earned on a scale of 0-4 Sum sub-indicator points for total indicator points. Convert to % (total indicator points/100) Points EarnedRating 4Exceeds 3Meets 2Approaching 1Does not meet 0Not eligible for points

Framework Points Each indicator is weighted differently in the overall plan type assignment (page 1 SPF). Multiply the percent of points earned by the weight for each indicator (Eligible points). These are your framework points for each indicator. IndicatorES/MS WeightHS Weight Academic Achievement2515 Academic Growth5035 Academic Growth Gaps2515 Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness 035

Arriving at a Plan Type Assignment Sum framework points for each indicator. Convert this sum to a percentage (of 100). Use % of framework points to determine the plan type assignment. See Cut-points for plan type assignment on page 3 to determine plan type assignment. Cut-Points for plan type assignment Cut-Point: The school earned … of the total framework points eligible. Total Framework Points at or above 60%Performance at or above 45% - below 60%Improvement at or above 30% - below 45%Priority Improvement below 30%Turnaround

Distribution of Preliminary School Performance Framework Plan Assignments: All School Levels See Technical Guide pages for distribution by school level.

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

Resources to Support SPF Interpretation School Performance Framework Technical Guide Guiding Questions for Interpreting the School Performance Framework (page 18 of the technical guide)

Interpreting your School Performance Framework Report Take out a School Performance Framework report for a school in your district (or use the elementary sample report in the technical guide). Use the guiding questions for interpreting the School Performance Framework Report. Do you have any questions about what you see on your SPF report?

Agenda: School Performance Framework Purpose and Terminology Overview Indicator Points and Plan Type Assignments Interpreting the School Performance Framework Using the School Performance Framework Performance Data by Indicator

Next steps with the SPF Reports Identify for which indicators and sub-indicators school performance –does not meet state expectations, or –does not meet school or district expectations. Drill down... into additional data related to priority sub-indicators. Use this data to focus improvement planning efforts. Use plan type assignments to target support for schools.

Additional State Data Sources School Growth Summary, District Growth Summary CSAP score reporting Colorado Growth Model (both public and private) Student-level CSAP files (from CTB) Student-level flat files (growth, CSAPA, PSWR) from CEDAR