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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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.

11. Timeline
July 23, 2010 – CDE releases draft SPF with refreshed data and draft DPF with 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

12. Timelines for District Accreditation and Plan Submission

13. Timelines for School Accreditation and Plan Submission