Using Local Flexibility in School Accreditation and SB-163 Updates Sponsored by The Colorado Department of Education July 21, 2010 Version 1.4

Agenda Accreditation: Revisions to the School Performance Framework CDE’s role District’s role Local flexibility Revisions to the School Performance Framework District Performance Framework Timelines

Accreditation & Planning CDE accredits districts: Accredited with Distinction Accredited Accredited with Improvement Plan Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan Accredited with Turnaround Plan CDE assigns school plan types: Performance Plan Improvement Plan Priority Improvement Plan Turnaround Plan Unified Planning Template

Accreditation: Big Ideas Districts are responsible for accrediting schools. The state provides a framework for evaluating school performance (the school performance frameworks). Districts can add to the state framework. State involvement is only with the lowest performing schools – Priority Improvement and Turnaround. Explicit links between school accreditation and improvement planning.

CDE Role Major components of the CDE role: Accredit districts Assign school plan types Evaluate district and school performance using common indicators Review and approve Priority Improvement and Turnaround plans Provide high quality information Provide as much support to districts as possible within fiscal constraints

District Role Major components of the district role: Accredit schools Evaluate school performance using a more exhaustive or stringent framework than CDE Write and implement district improvement plans; review school plans Provide as much support to schools as possible within fiscal constraints

Local Flexibility Discuss: How do you plan to accredit your schools? How can CDE support you?

Revisions to the SPF (1) Item Previous Revised /Current Participation rate Districts and schools that do not meet 95% participation rate requirement in one or more subjects drop one plan type assignment Districts and schools that do not meet 95% participation rate requirement in two or more subjects drop one plan type assignment Minimum N for graduation and dropout rate Minimum N of 1 Minimum N of 16 ACT inclusion/ exclusion rules Non-testers count towards the district/school’s average ACT composite score as a score of “0” Non-testers do not count towards the district/school’s average ACT composite score and are excluded from the calculation

Revisions to the SPF (2) Item Previous Revised /Current Comparison data for % proficient/ advanced on CSAP Includes AECs and schools closed before Oct. 1 of the year prior to the report Excludes AECs and schools closed before Oct. 1 of the year prior to the report Comparison data for dropout rate Exclude 7th and 8th grade dropouts from dropout rate Include 7th and 8th grade dropouts in dropout rate to match officially reported Colorado data Reference tables for comparison data Reference tables for comparison data to determine the values and cut-points for percentiles for Academic Achievement and averages for dropout rate and ACT composite scores are listed in the SPF Technical Guide Reference tables for comparison data to determine the values and cut-points for percentiles for Academic Achievement and averages for dropout rate and ACT composite scores are listed on page 4 of the SPF (page 7 of the DPF)

District Performance Framework Mirrors the School Performance Framework Distribution of district accreditation categories similar to school plan type distribution 10% Accredited with Distinction 50% Accredited 25% Accredited with Improvement Plan 10% Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan 5% Accredited with Turnaround Plan Safety and Finance assurances Districts not meeting either their Safety or Finance assurances will default to Accredited with Priority Improvement (or stay in Priority Improvement or Turnaround if they are already there) until they meet requirements.

Timeline July 23, 2010 – CDE releases draft SPF with refreshed 2007-09 data and draft DPF with 2007-09 data. August 15, 2010 – CDE releases SPF and DPF with initial school plans and accreditation categories. October 15, 2010 – District submits accreditation category for schools and any additional evidence. January 15, 2011 – District submits Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans, and any required for federal review. April 15, 2011 – District submits Improvement and Performance Plans. Version 1.4

Timelines for District Accreditation and Plan Submission

Timelines for School Accreditation and Plan Submission